Title: A Biblical and Theological Dictionary - explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the - Jews, and neighbouring nations
Author: Watson, Richard
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Biblical and Theological Dictionary - explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the - Jews, and neighbouring nations" ***


------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.

The original text was printed in two columns, which cannot be replicated
here.

As is common in dictionaries, each column is headed with a three-letter
indication of the first and last articles on that page. This feature is
not feasible here.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

There are several unusual Greek characters employed in this text:

        ȣ    ligature of ‘ου’

        ϛ    stigma, a ligature of ‘στ’

        ϖ    a cursive variant of ‘π’, almost always used as
             the first character of a word.

        ϐ    a cursive variant of ‘β’, used in any position
             _other_ than the first character, which appears as
             ‘β’.



                       A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
                              DICTIONARY:

                             --------------

                           EXPLANATORY OF THE

               HISTORY, MANNERS, AND CUSTOMS OF THE JEWS,

                       AND NEIGHBOURING NATIONS.

       WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOST REMARKABLE PLACES AND PERSONS
                     MENTIONED IN SACRED SCRIPTURE;


                         =An Exposition=

                                 OF THE

                  PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY;

        AND NOTICES OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SECTS AND HERESIES.

                          =BY RICHARD WATSON.=

                   [REVISED BY THE AMERICAN EDITORS.]

   ΛΙΜ’ΗΝ ἐϛιν ἀκύμαντος, καὶ τειχος ἀρραγὲς, καὶ ϖύργος ἄσειστος, καὶ
      δόξα ἀναφαίρετος, καὶ ὅ πλα ἄτρωτα, καὶ εὐθυμία ἀμάραντος, καὶ
      ἡδονὴ διηνεκὴς, καὶ ϖάντα οσα ἄν ἔιποι τὶς καλὰ, τῶν θεῖων γραφῶν
      ἡ συνȣσία.--CHRYSOSTOM.

   [An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is a secure haven,
      and an impregnable bulwark, and an immovable tower, and
      imperishable glory, and impenetrable armour, and unfading joy, and
      perpetual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.]

[Illustration]

                               NEW-YORK,

                  PUBLISHED BY B. WAUGH AND T. MASON,
         FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE
                       OFFICE, 14 CROSBY-STREET.

                                -------

                          J. Collord, Printer.
                                 1832.



“Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by B. WAUGH and
T. MASON, in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Southern
District of New-York.”



                         PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR.

                                -------


In the following Dictionary, compiled from the best sources ancient and
modern, with the addition of many original articles, the selections have
been made with reference to what was thought most useful; and thus many
things of minor importance, usually found in similar works, have been
excluded. Every article too, taken from preceding Dictionaries, has been
carefully weighed, and in a great number of instances modified,
corrected, or enlarged; and numerous other writings variously
illustrative of the Holy Scriptures have been made to contribute a
portion of their information under different heads. This general
acknowledgment renders a particular reference to the works made use of
unnecessary. The fact is, that many of the most valuable of them are
compilations from preceding compilations, and so have no title to be
referred to as original authorities; while in other instances the
articles in this Dictionary have been collected from several sources,
and so altered, or combined with original corrections or enlargements,
that it would be difficult to assign each portion to its proper
original. Where, however, any particulars of fact or history required
confirmation, the authority has been given.

It will be observed that all the places and persons mentioned in the
Bible have not been noticed, for this would only have made the same
unprofitable display of proper names which is seen in several other
Dictionaries; but those have been selected on which any thing important
for the right understanding of the Scriptures seemed, more or less, to
depend. The same rule has been observed as to the natural history of the
Bible, on which department great light has been thrown by Dr. Harris,
whose learned work has been rather freely used. The leading sects and
heresies, ancient and modern, have also been introduced; but with no
design to embody a complete account of religious opinions: those only,
therefore, have been inserted with which it is most necessary that the
theological student should have a general acquaintance.

All that is important in those useful modern works which have been
published upon the manners and customs of the east will be found
embodied under different heads so far as it tends to elucidate the
sacred volume; and many interesting extracts are given from the most
intelligent of our modern travellers in Palestine, and neighbouring
countries, pointing out the present condition of places celebrated in
sacred geography, and especially when the account illustrates and
renders remarkable the fulfilment of prophecy.

At the close of the whole, a complete alphabetical list of proper names
occurring in the Bible, with their significations and right
pronunciation, is appended.

LONDON, _August 20, 1831_.



                 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.


No other improvements have been attempted in this edition of Mr.
Watson’s Biblical and Theological Dictionary, than adding a few notes in
relation to some matters existing in this country, which had escaped the
attention of the author, and rendering those passages and phrases into
English which had been left untranslated. Such translations are included
in brackets. It may be proper to remark, that only that part of the work
from the eight hundred and forty second page has been printed under the
superintendence of the present editor; the former part having passed
through the press previous to the last general conference.

It is not necessary to say any thing in commendation of this work.
Whatever merit, however, may be attached to others of a similar
character which have preceded it, we think it will be conceded by all,
that Mr. Watson, by furnishing this Dictionary, has supplied a
desideratum, in the department of Biblical and Theological literature,
which had long been felt, and for doing which the religious community
will not be backward in acknowledging its obligations.

                                                           N. BANGS.

NEW-YORK, _Sept. 25, 1832_.

[Illustration:

  The
  =WORLD=,
  _as Peopled by_
  THE =DESCENDANTS= OF
  =NOAH=
  _Shewing the Countries possessed by_
  =SHEM, HAM & JAPHET=
  and their posterity
]



                                   A

                  BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY.



AARON, the son of Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi. Aaron was
three years older than his brother Moses; and when God appeared in the
burning bush, Moses having excused himself from the undertaking
committed to him, by urging that he was slow of speech, Aaron, who was
an eloquent man, was made his interpreter and spokesman; and in
effecting the deliverance of the Hebrews we therefore find them
constantly associated. During the march of the children of Israel
through the wilderness, Aaron and his sons were appointed by God to
exercise for ever the office of priests in the tabernacle.

Moses having ascended the mountain to receive the law from God, Aaron,
his sons, and seventy elders, followed him, Exod. xxiv, 1, 2, 9–11; not
indeed to the summit, but “afar off,” “and they saw the God of Israel,”
that is, the glory in which he appeared, “as it were the paved work of a
sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven for clearness;”--a
clear and dazzling azure, a pure, unmingled splendour like that of the
heavens. “And upon the nobles of Israel,” Aaron, his sons, and the
seventy elders, “he laid not his hand,”--they were not destroyed by a
sight which must have overwhelmed the weakness of mortal men had they
not been strengthened to bear it; “and they did eat and drink,”--they
joyfully and devoutly feasted before the Lord, as a religious act, upon
the sacrifices they offered. After this they departed, and Moses
remained with God on the very summit of the mount forty days.

During this period, the people, grown impatient at the long absence of
Moses, addressed themselves to Aaron in a tumultuous manner, saying,
“Make us gods which shall go before us: for, as for this Moses, the man
that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become
of him.” Aaron sinfully yielded to the importunities of the people; and
having ordered them to bring the pendants and the ear-rings of their
wives and children, he melted them down, and then made a golden calf,
probably in imitation of the Egyptian Apis, an ox or calf dedicated to
Osiris. In this instance the image was dedicated to Jehovah the true
God; but the guilt consisted in an attempt to establish image worship,
which, when even ultimately referring to God, he has forbidden. Neither
are images to be worshipped, nor the true God by images;--this is the
standing unrepealed law of Heaven. The calf was called a golden calf, as
being highly ornamented with gold. Having finished the idol, the people
placed it on a pedestal, and danced around it, saying, “These be thy
gods, O Israel;” or, as it is expressed in Nehemiah, “This is thy God,”
the image or symbol of thy God, “which brought thee up out of the land
of Egypt.” Moses, having hastened from the mount by the command of God,
testified to the people, by breaking the tables of the law in their
presence, that the covenant between God and them was now rendered of
none effect through their offence. He also indignantly reproved Aaron,
whose sin indeed had kindled against him the anger of the Lord, so that
he would “have destroyed him but that Moses prayed for him.”

After the tabernacle was built, Moses consecrated Aaron to the high
priesthood with the holy oil, and invested him with his priestly
robes,--his garments “of glory and beauty;” but Aaron’s weakness was
again manifested in concurring with Miriam, his sister, to censure and
oppose Moses, through envy. Aaron, as being the elder brother, could not
perhaps brook his superiority. What the motive of Miriam might be does
not appear; but she being struck with leprosy, this punishment, as being
immediately from God, opened Aaron’s eyes; he acknowledged his fault,
and asked forgiveness of Moses both for himself and his sister.

Aaron himself became also the object of jealousy; but two miraculous
interpositions confirmed him in his office of high priest, as of Divine
appointment. The first was the destruction of Korah, who sought that
office for himself, and of the two hundred and fifty Levites who
supported his pretensions, Num. xvi. The second was the blossoming of
Aaron’s rod, which was designed “to cause the murmurings of the
Israelites against him to cease,” by showing that he was chosen of God.
Moses having, at the command of God, taken twelve rods of an almond tree
from the princes of the twelve tribes, and Aaron’s separately, he placed
them in the tabernacle before the sanctuary, after having written upon
each the name of the tribe which it represented, and upon the rod of
Aaron the name of Aaron. The day following, when the rods were taken
out, that of Aaron “was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed
blossoms, and yielded almonds.” This rod therefore was laid up by the
ark, to perpetuate the remembrance of the miracle, and to be a token of
Aaron’s right to his office.

Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, of the tribe of
Judah, by whom he had four sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar,
Exodus vi, 23. The two first were killed by fire from heaven, as a
punishment for presuming to offer incense with strange fire in their
censers, Lev. x, 1, 2. From the two others the succession of high
priests was continued in Israel.

The account of the death of Aaron is peculiarly solemn and affecting. As
he and Moses, in striking the rock at Meribah, Num. xvi, had not
honoured God by a perfect obedience and faith, he in his wrath declared
unto them that they should not enter into the promised land. Soon after,
the Lord commanded Moses, “Take Aaron, and Eleazar his son, and bring
them up to mount Hor; and strip Aaron of his garments,”--his splendid
pontifical vestments,--“and put them upon Eleazar, his son; and Aaron
shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.” This command
was carried into effect in the presence of all Israel, who were encamped
at the foot of the mountain; and his son being invested with the
father’s priestly dress, Aaron died, and all the people mourned for him
thirty days. His sepulchre was left unmarked and unknown, perhaps to
prevent the superstitious reverence of future ages. In Deuteronomy it is
said that Aaron died at Mosera; because that was the name of the
district in which mount Hor was situated.

2. The PRIESTHOOD being established in Aaron and his family, the nature
of this office among the Israelites, and the distinction between the
high priest and the other priests, require here to be pointed out.

Before the promulgation of the law by Moses, the fathers of every
family, and the princes of every tribe, were priests. This was the case
both before and after the flood; for Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job,
Abimelech, Laban, Isaac, and Jacob, themselves offered their own
sacrifices. But after the Lord had chosen the family of Aaron, and
annexed the priesthood to that line, then the right of sacrificing to
God was reserved to that family only. The high priesthood was confined
to the first-born in succession; and the rest of his posterity were
priests simply so called, or priests of the second order. Both in the
high priest and the second or inferior priests, two things deserve
notice,--their consecration and their office. In some things they
differed, and in others agreed. In their _consecration_ they differed
thus: the high priest had the chrism, or sacred ointment, poured upon
his head, so as to run down to his beard, and the skirts of his garment,
Exod. xxx, 23; Lev. viii, 12; Psa. cxxxiii, 2. But the second priests
were only sprinkled with this oil, mixed with the blood of the
sacrifice, Lev. viii, 30. They differed also in their _robes_, which
were a necessary adjunct to consecration. The high priest wore at the
ordinary times of his ministration in the temple, eight garments;--linen
drawers--a coat of fine linen close to his skin--an embroidered girdle
of fine linen, blue and scarlet, to surround the coat--a robe all of
blue with seventy-two bells, and as many embroidered pomegranates upon
the skirts of it; this was put over the coat and girdle--an ephod of
gold, and of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, curiously wrought,
on the shoulders of which were two stones engraved with the names of the
twelve tribes; this was put over the robe, and girt with a curious
girdle of the same--a breastplate, about a span square, wrought with
gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, and fastened upon the ephod
by golden chains and rings; in this breastplate were placed the urim and
thummim, also twelve several stones, containing the names of the twelve
tribes--a mitre of fine linen, sixteen cubits long, to wrap round his
head--and lastly, a plate of gold, or holy crown, two fingers broad,
whereon was engraved, “Holiness to the Lord;” this was tied with blue
lace upon the front of the mitre. Beside these garments, which he wore
in his ordinary ministration, there were four others, which he wore only
upon extraordinary occasions, viz. on the day of expiation, when he went
into the holy of holies, which was once a year. These were: linen
drawers--a linen coat--a linen girdle--a linen mitre, all white, Exod.
xxviii; Lev. xvi, 4. But the inferior priests had only four garments:
linen drawers--a linen coat--a linen girdle--a linen bonnet. The priest
and high priest differed also in their _marriage restrictions_; for the
high priest might not marry a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a harlot,
but a virgin only; whereas the other priests might lawfully marry a
widow, Lev. xxi, 7.

In the following particulars the high priest and inferior priests agreed
in their consecration: both were to be void of bodily blemish--both were
to be presented to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle--both were to
be washed with water--both were to be consecrated by offering up certain
sacrifices--both were to have the blood of a ram put upon the tip of the
right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right
foot, Exod. xxix, 20. In the time of consecration, certain pieces of the
sacrifice were put into the priest’s hand, which was called “filling his
hand;” hence the Hebrew phrase, “to fill the hand,” signifies
consecration.

In the discharge of their offices, the high priest differed from the
other priests in these particulars: the high priest only, and that but
once a year, might enter into the holy of holies--the high priest might
not mourn for his nearest relations by uncovering his head, or tearing
any part of his garments, except the skirt; whereas the priest was
allowed to mourn for these six,--father, mother, son, daughter, brother,
and sister if she had no husband, Lev. xxi, 2, 10, 11; but they agreed
in these respects: they both burnt incense and offered sacrifices--they
both sounded the trumpet, either as an alarm in war, or to assemble the
people and their rulers--they both slew the sacrifices--both instructed
the people--and both judged of leprosy.

For the more orderly performance of these offices, the high priest had
his sagan, who, in case of the high priest’s pollution, performed his
duty. The high priest and his sagan resembled our bishop and his
suffragan.

3. Aaron was a TYPE of Christ, not personally, but as the high priest of
the Jewish church. All the priests, as offering gifts and sacrifices,
were in their office types of Christ; but Aaron especially, 1. As the
high priest. 2. In entering into the holy place on the great day of
atonement, and reconciling the people to God; in making intercession for
them, and pronouncing upon them the blessing of Jehovah, at the
termination of solemn services. 3. In being anointed with the holy oil
by _effusion_, which was prefigurative of the Holy Spirit with which our
Lord was endowed. 4. In bearing the names of all the tribes of Israel
upon his breast and upon his shoulders, thus presenting them always
before God, and representing them to him. 5. In being the medium of
their inquiring of God by urim and thummim; and of the communication of
his will to them. But though the offices of Aaron were typical, the
priesthood of Christ is of a different and higher ORDER than his,
namely, that of MELCHIZEDECK. See CALF, PRIEST, TYPE, EPHOD,
BREASTPLATE, URIM.

AB, in the Hebrew chronology, the eleventh month of the civil year, and
the fifth of the ecclesiastical year, which began with Nisan. This month
answered to the moon of July, comprehending part of July and of August,
and contained thirty days.

The first day of this month is observed as a fast by the Jews, in memory
of Aaron’s death; and the ninth, in commemoration of the destruction of
the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in the year before Christ 587. Josephus
observes, that the burning of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar happened on
the same day of the year on which it was afterward burned by Titus. The
same day was remarkable for Adrian’s edict, which prohibited the Jews to
continue in Judea, or to look toward Jerusalem and lament its
desolation. The eighteenth day is also kept as a fast, because the
sacred lamp was extinguished on that night, in the reign of Ahaz. On the
twenty-first, or, according to Scaliger, the twenty-second day, was a
feast called Xylophoria, from their laying up the necessary wood in the
temple: and on the twenty-fourth, a feast in commemoration of the
abolishing of a law by the Asmoneans, or Maccabees, which had been
introduced by the Sadducees, and which enacted, that both sons and
daughters should alike inherit the estate of their parents.

ABADDON, Heb. corresponding to _Apollyon_, Gr. that is, _Destroyer_, is
represented, Rev. ix, 11, as king of the locusts, and the angel of the
bottomless pit. Le Clerc and Dr. Hammond understand by the locusts in
this passage, the zealots and robbers who infested and desolated Judea
before Jerusalem was taken by the Romans; and by Abaddon, John of
Gischala, who having treacherously left that town before it was
surrendered to Titus, came to Jerusalem and headed those of the zealots
who acknowledged him as their king, and involved the Jews in many
grievous calamities. The learned Grotius concurs in opinion, that the
locusts are designed to represent the sect of the zealots, who appeared
among the Jews during the siege, and at the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem. But Mr. Mede remarks, that the title Abaddon alludes to
Obodas, the common name of the ancient monarchs of that part of Arabia
from which Mohammed came; and considers the passage as descriptive of
the inundation of the Saracens. Mr. Lowman adopts and confirms this
interpretation. He shows that the rise and progress of the Mohammedan
religion and empire exhibit a signal accomplishment of this prophecy.
All the circumstances here recited correspond to the character of the
Arabians, and the history of the period that extended from A. D. 568 to
A. D. 675. In conformity to this opinion, Abaddon may be understood to
denote either Mohammed, who issued from the abyss, or the cave of Hera,
to propagate his pretended revelations, or, more generally, the Saracen
power. Mr. Bryant supposes Abaddon to have been the name of the Ophite
deity, the worship of whom prevailed very anciently and very generally.

ABANA. Naaman, the leper, on being directed to wash in the river Jordan,
says, 2 Kings v, 12, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus,
better than all the waters of Israel?” Probably the Abana is a branch of
the Barrady, or Chrysorrhoas, which derives its source from the foot of
mount Libanus, eastward; runs round and through Damascus, and continues
its course till lost in the wilderness, four or five leagues south of
the city. Benjamin of Tudela will have that part of Barrady which runs
through Damascus to be the Abana, and the streams which water the
gardens without the city, to be Pharpar; but perhaps the Pharpar is the
same with Orontes, the most noted river of Syria, which, taking its rise
a little to the north or north-east of Damascus, glides through a
delightful plain, till, after passing Antioch, and running about two
hundred miles to the north-west, it loses itself in the Mediterranean
sea, 2 Kings v, 12.

ABBA, a Syriac word, which signifies _father_. The learned Mr. Selden,
from the Babylonian Gemara, has proved that slaves were not allowed to
use the title abba in addressing the master of the family to which they
belonged. This may serve to illustrate Rom. viii, 15, and Gal. iv, 6, as
it shows that through faith in Christ all true Christians pass into the
relation of sons; are permitted to address God with filial confidence in
prayer; and to regard themselves as heirs of the heavenly inheritance.
This adoption into the family of God, inseparably follows our
justification; and the power to call God our Father, in this special and
appropriative sense, results from the inward testimony given to our
forgiveness by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul and St. Mark use the Syriac
word _abba_, a term which was understood in the synagogues and primitive
assemblies of Christians; but added to it when writing to foreigners the
explanation, _father_. Figuratively, abba means also a superior, in
respect of age, dignity, or affection. It is more particularly used in
the Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic churches as a title given to their
bishops. The bishops themselves bestow the title abba more eminently
upon the bishop of Alexandria, which occasioned the people to give him
the title of baba, or papa, that is, grandfather; a title which he bore
before the bishop of Rome.

ABEDNEGO, the Chaldee name given by the king of Babylon’s officer to
Azariah, one of Daniel’s companions, Dan. i, 7. This name imports the
servant of Nago, or Nego, which is supposed to signify the sun, or
morning star, so called from its brightness. Abednego was thrown into a
fiery furnace, at Babylon, with his two companions Shadrach and Meshach,
for refusing to adore the statue erected by the command of
Nebuchadnezzar. God suffered them not to be injured by the flames; but
made the whole to redound to his own glory, and the shame of the idols
of Babylon. One like unto the Son of God, or a Divine person, probably
the Angel of the Divine presence himself, appeared in the midst of them;
and they came out of the furnace, which had been heated seven times
hotter than usual, so completely preserved from the power of the flames,
that not even “the smell of fire had passed upon them.” This was an
illustrious instance of the courageous and hallowed spirit of martyrdom;
and the interposition was no doubt designed to encourage the Jews while
in captivity, living among idolaters, to hold fast their religion. It is
an instance also of those gracious visitations to the old Heathen world,
by which it was loudly called from its idolatries, and aroused to the
acknowledgment of the true and only Jehovah, who, in various ways, “left
not himself without witness” among them. A great temporary effect was
produced by this and other miracles related in the book of Daniel; but
the people relapsed again into idolatry, and justly brought upon
themselves all those wasting judgments which in succession swept over
the mightiest and most ancient states.

ABEL. He was the second son of Adam and Eve, and born probably in the
second or third year of the world; though some will have it that he and
Cain were twins. His name signifies _vapour_, _vanity_, and might be
given either because our first parents now began so to feel the
emptiness and vanity of all earthly things, that the birth of another
son reminded them painfully of it, although in itself a matter of joy;
or it was imposed under prophetic impulse, and obscurely referred to his
premature death. His employment was that of a shepherd; Cain followed
the occupation of his father, and was a tiller of the ground. Whether
they remained in their father’s family at the time when they brought
their offerings to the Lord, or had establishments separate from that of
Adam, does not clearly appear. Abel was probably unmarried, or had no
children; but Cain’s wife is mentioned. “At the end of the days,”--which
is a more literal rendering than “in process of time,” as in our
translation, that is, on the Sabbath,--both brothers brought an offering
to the Lord. Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground;” Abel “the
firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof.” “And the Lord had
respect to Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he
had not respect.” As Cain afterward complains that “he should be hid
from the _face_ or _presence_ of the Lord,” it is probable that the
worship of the first family was performed before some visible
manifestation of the glory of God, which thus consecrated a particular
place for their services. Some have thought that this was at the east
gate of Eden, where “Cherubim and a flaming sword were placed;” but this
was a vengeful manifestation, and could only have inspired a dread of
God inconsistent with the confidence and hope with which men through the
promise of redemption were now encouraged to draw nigh to him. The
respect which God was pleased to show to Abel’s offering, appears from
the account to have been sensibly declared; for Cain must have known by
some token that the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, the absence of which
sign, as to his own offering, showed that it was rejected. Whether this
was by fire going forth from “the presence of the Lord,” to consume the
sacrifice, as in later instances recorded in the Old Testament, or in
some other way, it is in vain to inquire;--that the token of acceptance
was a sensible one is however an almost certain inference. The effect of
this upon Cain was not to humble him before God, but to excite anger
against his brother; and, being in the field with him, or, as the old
versions have it, having said to him, “Let us go out into the field,”
“he rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him;” and for that crime,
by which the first blood of man was shed by man upon the earth,--a
murder aggravated by the relationship and the “righteous” character of
the sufferer, and having in it also the nature of religious
persecution,--he was pronounced by the Lord “cursed from the earth.”

2. As the sacrifice of Abel is the first on record, and has given rise
to some controversy, it demands particular attention. It was offered,
says St. Paul, “in faith,” and it was “a more excellent sacrifice” than
that of Cain. Both these expressions intimate that it was EXPIATORY and
PREFIGURATIVE.

As to the matter of the sacrifice, it was an _animal_ offering. “Cain
brought of the fruit of the ground; and Abel also brought of the
firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof;” or, more literally,
“the fat of them,” that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, the fattest
or best of his flock; and in this circumstance consisted its specific
character as an act of _faith_. This is supported by the import of the
phrase, ϖλείονα θυσίαν, used by the Apostle in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, when speaking of the sacrifice of Abel. Our translators have
rendered it, “a more excellent sacrifice.” Wickliffe translates it, as
Archbishop Magee observes, uncouthly, but in the full sense of the
original, “a much more sacrifice;” and the controversy which has arisen
on this point is, whether this epithet of “much more,” or “fuller,”
refers to quantity or quality; whether it is to be understood in the
sense of a _more abundant_, or of a _better_, a _more excellent_
sacrifice. Dr. Kennicott takes it in the sense of measure and quantity,
as well as quality; and supposes that Abel brought a double offering of
the firstlings of his flock, and of the fruit of the ground _also_. His
criticism has been very satisfactorily refuted by Archbishop Magee. The
sacrifice of Abel was that of animal victims, and it was indicative not
of gratitude but of “faith:” a quality not to be made manifest by the
_quantity_ of an offering, for the one has no relation to the other.

3. This will more fully appear if we consider the import of the words of
the Apostle,--“By FAITH Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, by which he obtained WITNESS that he was RIGHTEOUS, God
testifying of his gifts; and by it, he, being dead, yet speaketh.” Now
what is the meaning of the Apostle, when he says that it was witnessed
or testified to Abel that he was _righteous_? His doctrine is, that men
are sinners; that all, consequently, need pardon; and _to be declared_,
_witnessed_, and _accounted righteous_, are, according to his style of
writing, the same as “to be justified, pardoned, and dealt with as
righteous.” Thus he argues that Abraham believed God, “and it was
accounted to him for righteousness,”--“that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness,”--“that he received the sign of circumcision,
a _seal_,” a visible confirmatory, declaratory, and witnessing mark “of
the righteousness which he had by faith.” In these cases we have a
similarity so striking, that they can scarcely fail to explain each
other. In both, sinful men are placed in the condition of _righteous_
men; the instrument, in both cases, is _faith_; and the transaction is,
in both cases also, publicly and sensibly _witnessed_,--as to Abraham,
by the sign of circumcision; as to Abel, by a visible acceptance of his
sacrifice, and the rejection of that of Cain.

Abel had faith, and he expressed that faith by the kind of sacrifice he
offered. It was in this way that his faith “pleased God;” it pleased him
as a principle, and by the act to which it led, which act was the
offering of a sacrifice to God different from that of Cain. Cain had not
this faith, whatever might be its object; and Cain, accordingly, did not
bring an offering to which God had “respect.” That which vitiated the
offering of Cain was the want of this faith; for his offering was not
significant of faith: that which “pleased God,” in the case of Abel, was
his faith; and he had “respect” to his offering, because it was the
expression of that faith; and upon his faith so expressing itself, God
witnessed to him “that he was righteous.” So forcibly do the words of
St. Paul, when commenting upon this transaction, show, that Abel’s
sacrifice was accepted, because of its immediate connection with his
_faith_, for by faith he is said to have offered it; and whatever it
might be, which made Abel’s offering differ from that of Cain, whether
_abundance_, or _kind_, or both, this was the result of his faith. So
evident also is it from the Apostle, that Abel was witnessed to be
“righteous,” not with reference to any previous “habit of a religious
life,” as some say, but with reference to his _faith_; and to this faith
as expressing itself by his offering “a more excellent sacrifice.”

4. If, then, the faith of Abel had an immediate connection with his
sacrifice, and both with his being accepted as “righteous,”--that is,
_justified_, in St. Paul’s use of the term,--to what had his faith
respect? The particular object of the faith of the elders, celebrated in
Hebrews xi, is to be deduced from the circumstances mentioned as
illustrative of the existence and operation of this great principle, and
by which it manifested itself in them. Let us explain this, and then
ascertain the object of Abel’s faith also from the manner of its
manifestation,--from the acts in which it embodied and rendered itself
conspicuous.

Faith, in this chapter, is taken in the sense of _affiance_ in God, and,
as such, it can only be exercised toward God, as to all its particular
acts, in those respects in which we have some warrant to confide in him.
This supposes revelation, and, in particular, promises or declarations
on his part, as the ground of every act of affiance. When, therefore, it
is said that “by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see
death,” it must be supposed that he had some promise or intimation to
this effect, on which, improbable as the event was, he nobly relied; and
in the result God honoured his faith in the sight of all men. The faith
of Noah had immediate respect to the threatened flood, and to the
promise of God to preserve him in the ark which he was commanded to
prepare. The chapter is filled with other instances, expressed or
implied; and from the whole, as well as from the nature of things, it
will appear, that, when the Apostle speaks of the faith of the elders in
its particular acts, he represents it as having respect to some promise,
declaration, or revelation of God.

This revelation was necessarily antecedent to the faith; but it is also
to be observed, that the acts by which the faith was represented,
whenever it was represented by particular acts, and when the case
admitted it, had a natural and striking conformity and correspondence to
the previous revelation. So Noah built the ark, which indicated that he
had heard the threat of the world’s destruction by water, and had
received the promise of his own preservation, and that of his family, as
well as that of a part of the beasts of the earth. When Abraham went
into Canaan at the command of God, and upon the promise that that
country should become the inheritance of his decendants, he showed his
faith by taking possession of it for them in anticipation, and his
residence there indicated the kind of promise which he had received.
Thus these instances show, that when the faith which the Apostle
commends exhibited itself in some particular act, that act had a
correspondency to the previous promise or revelation which was the
ground of faith. We must therefore interpret the acts of Abel’s faith so
as to make them also correspond with an antecedent revelation. His faith
had respect to some previous revelation, and the nature of the
revelation is to be collected from the significant manner in which he
declared his faith in it.

Now that which Abel did “by faith,” was, _generally_, to perform an act
of solemn worship, in the confidence that it would be acceptable to God.
This supposes a revelation, immediate or by tradition, that such acts of
worship were acceptable to God, or his faith could have had no warrant,
and would not have been faith, but fancy. But the case must be
considered more particularly. His faith led him to offer “a more
excellent sacrifice” than that of Cain; but this as necessarily implies,
that there was some antecedent revelation to which his faith, as thus
expressed, had respect, and on which that peculiarity of his offering,
which distinguished it from the offering of Cain, was founded; a
revelation which indicated that the way in which God would be approached
acceptably, in solemn worship, was by animal sacrifices. Without this,
the faith to which his offering, which was an offering of the firstlings
of his flock, had a special fitness and adaptation, could have had no
warrant in Divine authority. But this revelation must have included, in
order to its being the ground of faith, as “the substance of things
hoped for,” a promise of a benefit to be conferred, in which promise
Abel might _confide_. But if so, then this promise must have been
connected, not with the worship of God in general, or performed in any
way whatever indifferently, but with his worship by animal oblations;
for it was in this way that the faith of Abel specially and
distinctively indicated itself. The antecedent revelation was,
therefore, a promise of a benefit to be conferred, by means of animal
sacrifice; and we are taught what this benefit was, by that which was
actually received by the offerer,--“He obtained witness that he was
_righteous_;” which must be interpreted in the sense of a declaration of
his personal justification, and acceptance as righteous, by the
forgiveness of his sins. The reason of Abel’s acceptance and of Cain’s
rejection is hereby made manifest; the one, in seeking the Divine
favour, conformed to his established and appointed method of being
approached by guilty men, and the other not only neglected this, but
profanely and presumptuously substituted his own inventions.

5. It is impossible, then, to allow the sacrifice of Abel, in this
instance, to have been an act of FAITH, without supposing that it had
respect to a previous revelation, which agreed with all the parts of
that sacrificial action by which he expressed his faith in it. Had
Abel’s sacrifice been eucharistic merely, it would have expressed
gratitude, but not faith; or if faith in the general sense of confidence
in God that he would receive an act of grateful worship, and reward the
worshippers, it did not more express faith than the offering of Cain,
who surely believed these two points, or he would not have brought an
offering of any kind. The offering of Abel expressed a faith which Cain
had not; and the doctrinal principles which Abel’s faith respected were
such as his sacrifice visibly embodied. If it was not an eucharistic
sacrifice, it was an expiatory one; and, in fact, it is only in a
sacrifice of this kind, that it is possible to see that faith exhibited
which Abel had, and Cain had not. If then we refer to the subsequent
sacrifices of expiation appointed by Divine authority, and their
explanation in the New Testament, it will be obvious to what doctrines
and principles of an antecedent revelation the faith of Abel had
respect, and which his sacrifice, the exhibition of his faith,
proclaimed: confession of the fact of being a sinner,--acknowledgment
that the demerit and penalty of sin is death,--submission to an
appointed mode of expiation,--animal sacrifice offered _vicariously_,
but in itself a mere type of a better sacrifice, “the Seed of the
woman,” appointed to be offered at some future period,--and the efficacy
of this appointed method of expiation to obtain forgiveness, and to
admit the guilty into the Divine favour.

“Abel,” Dr. Magee justly says, “in firm reliance on the promise of God,
and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice which had been
enjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain,
disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at
least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief,
possibly as not appearing to _his reason_ to possess any efficacy or
natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his
duty in acknowledging the general superintendence of God, and expressing
his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those
good things which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his
bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first
fruits of his parents’ disobedience, in the arrogance and
self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of revelation, because
they fell not within its apprehension of right. He takes the first place
in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the
ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit which, in later days, has
actuated his _enlightened_ followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of
Christ.”

Abel was killed about the year of the world, 130.

ABEL-MISRAIM, the floor of Atad, beyond the river Jordan, where Joseph,
his brethren, and the Egyptians mourned for the death of Jacob, Gen. l,
11. On this occasion the funeral procession was, at the command of
Joseph, attended by “all the elders of Egypt, and all the servants of
Pharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots and
horsemen, a very great company;” an affecting proof, as it has been
remarked, of Joseph’s simplicity and singleness of heart, which allowed
him to give to the great men of Egypt, over whom he bore absolute rule,
an opportunity of observing his own comparatively humble origin, by
leading them in attendance upon his father’s corpse to the valleys of
Canaan, the modest cradle of his race, and to their simple burial
places.

ABEL-SHITTIM, a city situate in the plains of Moab, beyond Jordan,
opposite to Jericho, Num. xxv, 1, &c; xxiii, 49; Joshua xi, 1. Eusebius
says it stood in the neighbourhood of mount Peor. Moses encamped at
Abel-Shittim some time before the Hebrew army passed the Jordan. Here
the Israelites fell into idolatry, and worshipped Baal-peor, for which
God punished them by the destruction of twenty-four thousand persons in
one day.

ABIAH, the second son of the prophet Samuel, and brother of Joel. Samuel
having entrusted to his sons the administration of public justice, and
admitted them to a share in the government, they behaved so ill, that
the people demanded a king, 1 Sam. viii, 2. A. M. 2909.

ABIATHAR, the son of Ahimelech, and the tenth high priest among the
Jews, and fourth in descent from Eli, 2 Sam. viii, 17; 1 Chron. xviii,
16. When Saul sent to Nob to murder all the priests, Abiathar escaped
the massacre, and fled to David in the wilderness. There he continued in
the quality of high priest; but Saul, out of aversion to Ahimelech, whom
he imagined to have betrayed his interests, transferred the dignity of
the high priesthood from Ithamar’s family into that of Eleazar, by
conferring this office upon Zadok. Thus there were, at the same time,
two high priests in Israel, Abiathar with David, and Zadok with Saul. In
this state things continued, until the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar,
being attached to the party of Adonijah, was, by Solomon, divested of
his priesthood, A. M. 2989; and the race of Zadok alone performed the
functions of that office during the reign of Solomon, to the exclusion
of the family of Ithamar, according to the word of the Lord to Eli, 1
Sam. ii, 30, &c.

ABIB, the name of the first Hebrew sacred month, Exod. xiii, 4. This
month was afterward called Nisan; it contained thirty days, and answered
to part of our March and April. Abib signifies green ears of corn, or
fresh fruits, according to Jerom’s translation, Exod. xiii, 4, and to
the LXX. It was so named because corn, particularly barley, was in ear
at that time. It was an early custom to give names to months, from the
appearances of nature; and the custom is still in force among many
nations. The year among the Jews commenced in September, and
consequently their jubilees and other civil matters were regulated in
this way, Lev. xxv, 8–10; but their sacred year began in Abib. This
change took place at the redemption of Israel from Egypt, Exod. xii, 2,
“This shall be to you the beginning of months.” Ravanelli observes, that
as this deliverance from Egypt was a figure of the redemption of the
church of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again in this month, it was
made the “beginning of months,” to lead the church to expect the
acceptable year of the Lord. On the tenth day of this month the paschal
lamb was taken; and on the fourteenth they ate the passover. On the
seven succeeding days they celebrated the feast of unleavened bread, on
the last of which days they held a solemn convocation, Exod. xii, xiii.
On the fifteenth they gathered the sheaf of the barley first fruits, and
on the following day presented an offering of it to the Lord, which
having done they might begin their harvest, Lev. xxiii.

ABIHU, the son of Aaron, the high priest, was consumed, together with
his brother Nadab, by fire sent from God, because he had offered incense
with strange fire, instead of taking it from the altar, Lev. x, 1, 2.
This calamity happened A. M. 2514; within eight days after the
consecration of Aaron and his sons. Some commentators believe that this
fire proceeded from the altar of burnt offerings; others, that it came
from the altar of incense. Several interpreters, as the Rabbins, Lyra,
Cajetan, and others, are of opinion, that Nadab and Abihu were overtaken
with wine, and so forgot to take the sacred fire in their censers. This
conjecture is founded on the command of God delivered immediately
afterward to the priests, forbidding them the use of wine during the
time they should be employed in the service of the temple. Another class
allege, that there was nothing so heinous in their transgression, but it
was awfully punished, to teach ministers fidelity and exactness in
discharging their office. It had a vastly more important meaning,--this
instance of vengeance is a standing example of that divine wrath which
shall consume all who pretend to serve God, except with incense kindled
from the one altar and offering by which he for ever perfects them that
are sanctified.

ABIJAH, the son of Jeroboam, the first king of the ten tribes, who died
very young, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c, A. M. 3046.--2. The son of Rehoboam,
king of Judah, and of Maachah, the daughter of Uriel, who succeeded his
father, A. M. 3046, 2 Chron. xi, 20; xiii, 2, &c. The Rabbins reproach
this monarch with neglecting to destroy the profane altar which Jeroboam
had erected at Bethel; and with not suppressing the worship of the
golden calves there after his victory over that prince.

ABILENE, a small province in Cœlo Syria, between Lebanon and
Antilibanus. Of this place Lysanias was governor in the fifteenth year
of Tiberius, Luke iii, 1. Abela, or Abila, the capital, was north of
Damascus, and south of Heliopolis.

ABIMELECH. This seems to have been the title of the kings of Philistia,
as Cæsar was of the Roman emperors, and Pharaoh of the sovereigns of
Egypt. It was the name also of one of the sons of Gideon, who became a
judge of Israel, Judges ix; and of the Jewish high priest, who gave
Goliath’s sword, which had been deposited in the tabernacle, and part of
the shew bread, to David, at the time this prince was flying from Saul,
1 Sam. xxi, 1.

ABIRAM, the eldest son of Hiel, the Bethelite. Joshua having destroyed
the city of Jericho, pronounced this curse: “Cursed be the man, before
the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city, Jericho: he shall lay
the foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest son shall
he set up the gates of it,” Joshua vi, 26. Hiel of Bethel, about five
hundred and thirty-seven years after this imprecation, having undertaken
to rebuild Jericho, whilst he was laying the foundation of it, lost his
eldest son, Abiram, 1 Kings xvi, 34; and Segub, the youngest, when they
set up the gates of it: a remarkable instance of a prophetic
denunciation fulfilled, perhaps on a person who would not credit the
tradition, or the truth of the prediction. So true is the word of the
Lord; so minutely are the most distant contingencies foreseen by him;
and so exact is the accomplishment of Divine prophecy!

2. ABIRAM, the son of Eliab, of the tribe of Reuben, was one of those
who conspired with Korah and Dathan against Moses in the wilderness, and
was swallowed up alive, with his companions, by the earth, which opened
to receive them, Num. xvi.

ABISHAG, a young woman, a native of Shunam, in the tribe of Issachar.
David, at the age of seventy, finding no warmth in his bed, was advised
by his physicians to procure some young person, who might communicate
the heat required. To this end Abishag was presented to him, who was one
of the most beautiful women in Israel, 1 Kings i, 3; and the king made
her his wife. After his death, Adonijah requested her in marriage, for
which he lost his life; Solomon perceiving in this a design upon the
crown also. Adonijah was his elder brother, an intriguing man, and had
aspired to be king before the death of David, and had had his life
spared only upon the condition of his peaceable conduct. By this request
he convinced Solomon, that he was still actuated by political views, and
this brought upon him the punishment of treason.

ABISHAI, the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, who was one of the most
valiant men of his time, and one of the principal generals in David’s
armies.

ABLUTION, purification by washing the body, either in whole or part.
Ablutions appear to be almost as ancient as external worship itself.
Moses enjoined them; the Heathens adopted them; and Mohammed and his
followers have continued them: thus they have been introduced among most
nations, and make a considerable part of all superstitious religions.
The Egyptian priests had their diurnal and nocturnal ablutions; the
Grecians, their sprinklings; the Romans, their lustrations and
lavations; the Jews, their washings of hands and feet, beside their
baptisms; the ancient Christians used ablution before communion, which
the Romish church still retains before the mass, sometimes after; the
Syrians, Copts, &c, have their solemn washings on Good Friday; the Turks
their greater and less ablutions, &c.

Lustration, among the Romans, was a solemn ceremony by which they
purified their cities, fields, armies, or people, after any crime or
impurity. Lustrations might be performed by fire, by sulphur, by water,
and by air; the last was applied by ventilation, or fanning the thing to
be purified. All sorts of people, slaves excepted, might perform some
kind of lustration. When a person died the house was to be swept in a
particular manner; new married persons were sprinkled by the priest with
water. People sometimes, by way of purification, ran several times naked
through the streets. There was scarcely any action performed, at the
beginning and end of which some ceremony was not required to purify
themselves and appease the gods.

ABNER was the uncle of king Saul, and the general of his army. After
Saul’s death, he made Ishbosheth king; and for seven years supported the
family of Saul, in opposition to David; but in most of his skirmishes
came off with loss. While Ishbosheth’s and David’s troops lay near each
other, hard by Gibeon, Abner challenged Joab to select twelve of David’s
warriors to fight with an equal number of his. Joab consented: the
twenty-four engaged; and fell together on the spot. A fierce battle
ensued, in which Abner and his troops were routed. Abner himself was
hotly pursued by Asahel, whom he killed by a back stroke of his spear.
Still he was followed by Joab and Abishai, till he, who in the morning
sported with murder, was obliged at even to entreat that Joab would stay
his troops from the effusion of blood, 2 Sam. ii.

Not long after, Abner, taking it highly amiss for Ishbosheth to charge
him with lewd behaviour toward Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, vowed that he
would quickly transfer the whole kingdom into the hands of David. He
therefore commenced a correspondence with David, and had an interview
with him at Hebron. Abner had just left the feast at which David had
entertained him, when Joab, informed of the matter, warmly remonstrated,
asserting, that Abner had come as a spy. On his own authority he sent a
messenger to invite him back, to have some farther communication with
the king; and when Abner was come into Joab’s presence, the latter,
partly from jealousy lest Abner might become his superior, and partly to
revenge his brother Asahel’s death, mortally stabbed him in the act of
salutation. David, to show how heartily he detested the act, honoured
Abner with a splendid funeral, and composed an elegy on his death, 2
Sam. iii.

ABOMINATION. This term was used with regard to the Hebrews, who, being
shepherds, are said to have been an abomination to the Egyptians;
because they sacrificed the animals held sacred by that people, as oxen,
goats, sheep, &c, which the Egyptians esteemed unlawful. This word is
also applied in the sacred writings to idolatry and idols, not only
because the worship of idols is in itself an abominable thing, but
likewise because the ceremonies of idolaters were almost always of an
infamous and licentious nature. For this reason, Chrysostom affirms,
that every idol, and every image of a man, was called an abomination
among the Jews. The “abomination of desolation” foretold by the Prophet
Daniel, x, 27, xi, 31, is supposed by some interpreters to denote the
statue of Jupiter Olympius, which Antiochus Epiphanes caused to be
erected in the temple of Jerusalem. The second of the passages above
cited may probably refer to this circumstance, as the statue of Jupiter
did, in fact, “make desolate,” by banishing the true worship of God, and
those who performed it, from the temple. But the former passage,
considered in its whole connection, bears more immediate reference to
that which the evangelists have denominated the “abomination of
desolation,” Matt. xxiv, 15, 16; Mark xiii, 14. This, without doubt,
signifies the ensigns of the Roman armies under the command of Titus,
during the last siege of Jerusalem. The images of their gods and
emperors were delineated on these ensigns; and the ensigns themselves,
especially the eagles, which were carried at the heads of the legions,
were objects of worship; and, according to the usual style of Scripture,
they were therefore an abomination. Those ensigns were placed upon the
ruins of the temple after it was taken and demolished; and, as Josephus
informs us, the Romans sacrificed to them there. The horror with which
the Jews regarded them, sufficiently appears from the account which
Josephus gives of Pilate’s introducing them into the city, when he sent
his army from Cæsarea into winter quarters at Jerusalem, and of
Vitellius’s proposing to march through Judea, after he had received
orders from Tiberius to attack Aretas, king of Petra. The people
supplicated and remonstrated, and induced Pilate to remove the army, and
Vitellius to march his troops another way. The Jews applied the above
passage of Daniel to the Romans, as we are informed by Jerome. The
learned Mr. Mede concurs in the same opinion. Sir Isaac Newton, _Obs. on
Daniel_ ix, xii, observes, that in the sixteenth year of the emperor
Adrian, B. C. 132, the Romans accomplished the prediction of Daniel by
building a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, where the temple of God in
Jerusalem had stood. Upon this occasion the Jews, under the conduct of
Barchochab, rose up in arms against the Romans, and in the war had fifty
cities demolished, nine hundred and eighty-five of their best towns
destroyed, and five hundred and eighty thousand men slain by the sword;
and in the end of the war, B. C. 136, they were banished from Judea upon
pain of death; and thenceforth the land remained desolate of its old
inhabitants. Others again have applied the prediction of Daniel to the
invasion and desolation of Christendom by the Mohammedans, and to their
conversion of the churches into mosques. From this interpretation they
infer, that the religion of Mohammed will prevail in the east one
thousand two hundred and sixty years, and be succeeded by the
restoration of the Jews, the destruction of antichrist, the full
conversion of the Gentiles to the church of Christ, and the commencement
of the millennium.

In general, whatever is morally or ceremonially impure, or leads to sin,
is designated an _abomination_ to God. Thus lying lips are said to be an
_abomination_ to the Lord. Every thing in doctrine or practice which
tended to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel is also in Scripture
called abominable; hence Babylon is represented, Rev. xvii, 4, as
holding in her hand a cup “full of abominations.” In this view, to “work
abomination,” is to introduce idolatry, or any other great corruption,
into the church and worship of God, 1 Kings xi, 7.

ABRAM, אברם, _a high father_; and ABRAHAM, אבררם, _father of a great
multitude_, the son of Terah, born at Ur, a city of Chaldea, A. M. 2008.
The account of this eminent patriarch occupies so large a part of the
book of Genesis, and stands so intimately connected with both the Jewish
and Christian dispensations,--with the one by a political and religious,
and with the other by a mystical, relation,--that his history demands
particular notice. Our account may be divided into his _personal
history_, and his _typical, and mystic character_.

I. Abraham’s PERSONAL history.

1. Chaldea, the native country of Abraham, was inhabited by a pastoral
people, who were almost irresistibly invited to the study of the motions
of the heavenly bodies, by the peculiar serenity of the heavens in that
climate, and their habit of spending their nights in the open air in
tending their flocks. The first rudiments of astronomy, as a science, is
traced to this region; and here, too, one of the earliest forms of
idolatry, the worship of the host of heaven, usually called Tsabaism,
first began to prevail. During the three hundred and fifty years which
elapsed between the deluge and the birth of Abraham, this and other
idolatrous superstitions had greatly corrupted the human race, perverted
the simple forms of the patriarchal religion, and beclouded the import
of its typical rites. The family of Abraham was idolatrous, for his
“fathers served other gods beyond the flood,” that is, the great river
Euphrates; but whether he himself was in the early period of his life an
idolater, we are not informed by Moses. The Arabian and Jewish legends
speak of his early idolatry, his conversion from it, and of his zeal in
breaking the images in his father’s house; but these are little to be
depended upon. Before his call he was certainly a worshipper of the true
God; and that not in form only, but “in spirit and in truth.” Whilst
Abraham was still sojourning in Ur, “the God of glory” appeared to him,
and said unto him, “Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred,
and go into the land which I shall show thee;” and so firm was his faith
in the providence and care of God, that although the place of his future
abode was not indicated, nor any information given of the nature of the
country, or the character of its inhabitants, he nevertheless promptly
obeyed, and “went out, not knowing whither he went.” Terah his father,
Nahor his brother, and Lot his nephew, the son of Haran his deceased
brother, accompanied him; a circumstance which indicates that if the
family had formerly been idolatrous it had now received the faith of
Abraham. They first migrated to Haran, or Charran, in Mesopotamia, a
flat, barren region westward of Ur; and after a residence there of a few
years, during which Terah had died, Abraham left Haran to go into
Palestine, taking with him Sarah his wife, who had no child, and Lot,
with his paternal property. Nahor appears to have been left in Haran. To
this second migration he was incited also by a Divine command,
accompanied by the promises of a numerous issue, that his seed should
become a great nation, and, above all, that “in him all the families of
the earth should be blessed;” in other words, that the Messiah, known
among the patriarchs as the promised “seed of the woman,” should be born
in his line. Palestine was then inhabited by the Canaanites, from whom
it was called Canaan. Abraham, leading his tribe, first settled at
Sechem, a valley between the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, where God
appeared to him and promised to give him the land of Canaan, and where,
as in other places in which he remained any time, he built an altar to
the Lord. He then removed to a hilly region on the north of Jericho; and
as the pastures were exhausted, migrated southward, till a famine drove
him into Egypt, probably the earliest, certainly the most productive,
corn country of the ancient world.

2. Here it may be observed, that the migrations of Abraham and his sons
show the manner in which the earth was gradually covered with people. In
those ages some cities had been built, and the country to some extent
about them cultivated; but wide spaces of unoccupied land lay between
them. A part of society following therefore the pastoral life, led forth
their flocks, and, in large family tribes, of which the parent was the
head, uniting both the sovereign power and the priesthood in himself,
and with a train of servants attached to the tribe by hereditary ties,
pitched their camps wherever a fertile and unappropriated district
offered them pasture. A few of these nomadic tribes appear to have made
the circuit of the same region, seldom going far from their native
seats; which would probably have been the case with Abraham, had he not
received the call of God to depart to a distant country. Others, more
bold, followed the track of rivers, and the sweep of fertile valleys,
and at length some built cities and formed settlements in those distant
regions; whilst others, either from attachment to their former mode of
life, or from necessity, continued in their pastoral occupations, and
followed the supplies afforded for their flocks by the still expanding
regions of the fertile earth. Wars and violences, droughts, famines, and
the constant increase of population, continued to impel these
innumerable, but at first, small streams of men into parts still more
remote. Those who settled on the sea coast began to use that element,
both for supplying themselves with a new species of food, and as a
medium of communication by vessels with other countries for the
interchange of such commodities as their own lands afforded with those
offered by maritime states, more or less distant. Thus were laid the
foundations of commerce, and thus the maritime cities were gradually
rendered opulent and powerful. Colonies were in time transported from
them by means of their ships, and settled on the coasts of still more
distant and fertile countries. Thus the migrations of the three
primitive families proceeded from the central regions of Armenia,
Mesopotamia, and Assyria; and in succession they established numerous
communities,--the Phenicians, Arabians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and
Lybians southward;--the Persians, Indians, and Chinese eastward;--the
Scythians, Celts, and Tartars northward;--and the Goths, Greeks, and
Latins westward, even as far as the Peruvians and Mexicans of South
America, and the Indians of North America.

3. Abraham, knowing the dissolute character of the Egyptians, directed
Sarah to call herself his sister, which she was, although by another
mother; fearing that if they knew her to be his wife, they would not
only seize her, but kill him. This circumstance indicates the vicious
state of morals and government in Egypt at this early period. In this
affair Abraham has been blamed for want of faith in God; but it was
perhaps no more than an act of common prudence, as the seraglio of the
Egyptian monarch was supplied by any means, however violent and lawless.
Sarah, upon the report of her beauty, was seized and taken into his
harem; and God sent great plagues upon his house, which, from their
extraordinary character, he concluded to be divine judgments. This led
to inquiry, and on discovering that he was detaining another man’s wife
by violence, he sent her back, and dismissed Abraham laden with
presents.

4. After the famine Abraham returned to Canaan, and pitched his tents
between Bethel and Hai, where he had previously raised an altar. Here,
as his flocks and herds, and those of Lot, had greatly increased, and
strifes had arisen between their herdsmen as to pasturage and water,
they peaceably separated. Lot returning to the plain of the Jordan,
which before the destruction of Sodom was as “the garden of God,” and
Abraham to Mamre, near Hebron, after receiving a renewal of the promise,
that God would give him the whole land for a possession. The separation
of Abraham and Lot still farther secured the unmingled descent of the
Abrahamitic family. The territories of the kings of the cities of the
plain were a few years afterward invaded by a confederacy of the petty
kings of the Euphrates and the neighbouring countries, and Lot and his
family were taken prisoners. This intelligence being brought to Abraham,
he collected the men of his tribe, three hundred and eighteen, and
falling upon the kings by night, near the fountains of Jericho, he
defeated them, retook the spoil, and recovered Lot. On his return,
passing near Salem, supposed to be the city afterward called Jerusalem,
he was blessed by its king Melchizedec, who was priest of the most high
God; so that the knowledge and worship of Jehovah had not quite departed
at that time from the Canaanitish nations. To him Abraham gave a tithe
of the spoil. The rest he generously restored to the king of Sodom,
refusing, in a noble spirit of independence, to retain so much as a
“shoe lachet,” except the portion which, by usage of war, fell to the
young native sheiks, Aner, Eschal, and Mamre, who had joined him in the
expedition.

5. After this he had another encouraging vision of God, Gen. xv, 1; and
to his complaint that he was still childless, and that his name and
property would descend to the stranger Eliezer, who held the next rank
in his tribe, the promise was given, that he himself should have a son,
and that his seed should be countless as the stars of heaven. And it is
emphatically added, “He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him
for righteousness.” He was then fully assured, that he stood before God,
a pardoned and accepted man, “whose iniquities were forgiven,” and to
whom “the Lord did not impute sin.” Still the fulfilment of the promise
of a son was delayed; and Sarah, perhaps despairing that it would be
accomplished in her person, and the revelation which had been made
merely stating that this son should be the fruit of Abraham’s body,
without any reference to her, she gave to him, according to the custom
of those times, one of her handmaids, an Egyptian, to be his secondary
wife, who brought forth Ishmael. Children born in this manner had the
privileges of legitimacy; but fourteen years afterward, when Abraham was
a hundred years old, and Sarah ninety, the Lord appeared to him again,
established his covenant with him and with his seed, changed his name to
Abraham, “the father of many nations,” promised that Sarah herself
should bring forth the son to whom the preceding promises had referred;
instituted circumcision as the sign of the covenant; and changed the
name of his wife from Sarai, _my princess_, to Sarah, _the princess_,
that is, of many people to descend from her.

6. At this time Abraham occupied his former encampment near Hebron.
Here, as he sat in the door of his tent, three mysterious strangers
appeared. Abraham, with true Arabian hospitality, received and
entertained them. The chief of the three renewed the promise of a son to
be born from Sarah, a promise which she received with a laugh of
incredulity, for which she was mildly reproved. As Abraham accompanied
them toward the valley of the Jordan, the same divine person, for so he
manifestly appears, announced the dreadful ruin impending over the
licentious cities among which Lot had taken up his abode. No passage,
even in the sacred writings, exhibits a more exalted view of the divine
condescension than that in which Abraham is seen expostulating on the
apparent injustice of involving the innocent in the ruin of the guilty:
“Shall the city perish, if fifty, if forty-five, if forty, if thirty, if
twenty, if ten righteous men be found within its walls?” “Ten righteous
men shall avert its doom.” Such was the promise of the celestial
visitant; but the guilt was universal, the ruin inevitable; and the
violation of the sacred laws of hospitality and nature, which Lot in his
horror attempted to avert by the most revolting expedient, confirmed the
justice of the divine sentence.

7. Sarah having conceived, according to the divine promise, Abraham left
the plain of Mamre, and went south to Gerar, where Abimelech reigned;
and again fearing lest Sarah should be forced from him, and himself be
put to death, her beauty having been, it would appear, preternaturally
continued, notwithstanding her age, he here called her, as he had done
in Egypt, his sister. Abimelech took her to his house, designing to
marry her; but God having, in a dream, informed him that she was
Abraham’s wife, he returned her to him with great presents. This year
Sarah was delivered of Isaac; and Abraham circumcised him, according to
the covenant stipulation; and when he was weaned, made a great
entertainment. Sarah, having observed Ishmael, son of Hagar, mocking her
son Isaac, said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for
Ishmael shall not be heir with Isaac.” After great reluctance, Abraham
complied; God having informed him that this was according to the
appointments of his providence, with respect to future ages. About the
same time, Abimelech came with Phicol, his general, to conclude an
alliance with Abraham, who made that prince a present of seven ewe lambs
out of his flock, in confirmation that a well he had opened should be
his own property; and they called the place Beer-sheba, or “the well of
swearing,” because of the covenant there ratified with oaths. Here
Abraham planted a grove, built an altar, and for some time resided, Gen.
xx, xxi.

8. More than twenty years after this, (A. M. 2133,) God, for the final
trial and illustration of Abraham’s faith, directed him to offer up his
son Isaac. Abraham took his son, and two servants, and went toward mount
Moriah. When within sight of the mountain, Abraham left his servants,
and ascended it with his son only; and there having bound him, he
prepared for the affecting sacrifice; but when he was about to give the
blow, an angel from heaven cried out to him, “Lay not thine hand upon
the lad, neither do thou any thing to him. Now I know that thou fearest
God, since thou hast not withheld thine only son from me.” Abraham,
turning, saw a ram entangled in the bush by his horns; and he offered
this animal as a burnt offering, instead of his son Isaac. This
memorable place he called by the prophetic name, _Jehovah-jireh_, or
_the Lord will see_--or _provide_, Gen. xxii, 1–14, having respect, no
doubt, to the true sacrifice which, in the fulness of time, was to be
offered for the whole world upon the same mountain.

9. Twelve years afterward, Sarah, wife of Abraham, died in Hebron.
Abraham came to mourn and to perform the funeral offices for her. He
addressed the people at the city gate, entreating them to allow him to
bury his wife among them; for, being a stranger, and having no land of
his own, he could claim no right of interment in any sepulchre of that
country. He, therefore, bought of Ephron, one of the inhabitants, the
field of Machpelah, with the cave and sepulchre in it, at the price of
four hundred shekels of silver, about forty-five pounds sterling. And
here Abraham buried Sarah, with due solemnities, according to the custom
of the country, Gen. xxiii. This whole transaction impressively
illustrates the dignity, courtesy, and honour of these ancient chiefs;
and wholly disproves the notion that theirs was a rude and unpolished
age.

10. Abraham, having grown old, sent Eliezer, his steward, into
Mesopotamia, with directions to obtain a young woman of his own family,
as a wife for his son Isaac. Eliezer executed his commission with
fidelity, and brought back Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel, grand-daughter
of Nahor, and, consequently, Abraham’s niece, whom Isaac married.
Abraham afterward married Keturah; by whom he had six sons, Zimran,
Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah; who became heads of different
people, which dwelt in Arabia, and around it. He died, aged a hundred
and seventy-five years, and was buried, with Sarah his wife, in the cave
of Machpelah, which he had purchased of Ephron, Gen. xxiv, xxv, A. M.
2183, before Christ 1821.

II. From the personal history of Abraham we may now proceed to the
consideration of the TYPICAL circumstances which were connected with it.

1. Abraham himself with his family may be regarded as a type of the
church of God in future ages. They indeed constituted God’s ancient
church. Not that many scattered patriarchal and family churches did not
remain: such was that of Melchizedec; and such probably was that of
Nahor, whom Abraham left behind in Mesopotamia. But a visible church
relation was established between Abraham’s family and the Most High,
signified by the visible and distinguishing sacrament of circumcision,
and followed by new and enlarged revelations of truth. Two purposes were
to be answered by this,--_the preservation of the true doctrine of
salvation in the world_, which is the great and solemn duty of every
branch of the church of God,--and _the manifestation of that truth to
others_. Both were done by Abraham. Wherever he sojourned he built his
altars to the true God, and publicly celebrated his worship; and, as we
learn from St. Paul, he lived in tents in preference to settling in the
land of Canaan, though it had been given to him for a possession, in
order that he might thus proclaim his faith in the eternal inheritance
of which Canaan was a type; and in bearing this testimony, his example
was followed by Isaac and Jacob, the “heirs with him of the same
promise,” who also thus “confessed that they were strangers and
pilgrims,” and that “they looked” for a continuing and eternal city in
heaven. So also now is the same doctrine of immortality committed to the
church of Christ; and by deadness to the world ought its members to
declare the reality of their own faith in it.

2. The numerous natural posterity promised to Abraham was also a type of
the spiritual seed, the true members of the church of Christ, springing
from the Messiah, of whom Isaac was the symbol. Thus St. Paul expressly
distinguishes between the fleshly and the spiritual seed of Abraham; to
the latter of which, in their ultimate and highest sense, the promises
of increase as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the sea shore, are
to be referred, as also the promise of the heavenly Canaan.

3. The intentional offering up Isaac, with its result, was probably that
transaction in which Abraham, more clearly than in any other, “saw the
day of Christ, and was glad.” He received Isaac from the dead, says St.
Paul, “in a figure.” This could be a figure of nothing but the
resurrection of our Lord; and, if so, Isaac’s being laid upon the altar
was a figure of his sacrificial death, scenically and most impressively
represented to Abraham. The _place_, the same ridge of hills on which
our Lord was crucified; the _person_, an only son, to die for no offence
of his own; the _sacrificer_, a father; the _receiving back_, as it
were, from death to life; the _name_ impressed upon the place,
importing, “_the Lord will provide_,” in allusion to Abraham’s own words
to Isaac, “the Lord will provide a lamb for a burnt offering;” all
indicate a mystery which lay deep beneath this transaction, and which
Abraham, as the reward of his obedience, was permitted to behold. “The
day” of Christ’s humiliation and exaltation was thus opened to him; and
served to keep the great truth in mind, that the true burnt offering and
sacrifice for sin was to be something higher than the immolation of
lambs and bulls and goats,--nay, something more than what was _merely_
human.

4. The transaction of the expulsion of Hagar was also a type. It was an
allegory in action, by which St. Paul teaches us to understand that the
son of the bondwoman represented those who are under the law; and the
child of the freewoman those who by faith in Christ are supernaturally
begotten into the family of God. The bondwoman and her son being cast
out, represented also the expulsion of the unbelieving Jews from the
church of God, which was to be composed of true believers of all
nations, all of whom, whether Jews or Gentiles, were to become “fellow
heirs.”

III. But Abraham appears before us invested with a MYSTIC character,
which it is of great importance rightly to understand.

1. He is to be regarded as standing in a _federal_ or _covenant_
relation, not only to his natural seed, but specially and eminently to
all believers. “The Gospel,” we are told by St. Paul, “was preached to
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” “Abraham
believed in God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;” in
other words, he was justified. A covenant of gratuitous justification
through faith was made with him and his believing descendants; and the
rite of circumcision, which was not confined to his posterity by Sarah,
but appointed in every branch of his family, was the sign or sacrament
of this covenant of grace, and so remained till it was displaced by the
sacraments appointed by Christ. Wherever that sign was it declared the
doctrine, and offered the grace, of this covenant--free justification by
faith, and its glorious results--to all the tribes that proceeded from
Abraham. This same grace is offered to us by the Gospel, who become
“Abraham’s _seed_,” his spiritual children with whom the covenant is
established, through the same faith, and are thus made “the heirs with
him of the same promise.”

2. Abraham is also exhibited to us as the _representative_ of true
believers; and in this especially, that the true nature of faith was
exhibited in him. This great principle was marked in Abraham with the
following characters:--An entire unhesitating belief in the word of
God;--an unfaltering trust in all his promises;--a steady regard to his
almighty power, leading him to overlook all apparent difficulties and
impossibilities in every case where God had explicitly promised;--and
habitual and cheerful and entire obedience. The Apostle has described
faith in Heb. xi, 1; and that faith is seen living and acting in all its
energy in Abraham.

A few miscellaneous remarks are suggested by some of the circumstances
of Abraham’s history:--

1. The ancient method of ratifying a covenant by sacrifice is
illustrated in the account given in Gen. xv, 9, 10. The beasts were
slain and _divided_ in the midst, and the persons covenanting passed
between the parts. Hence, after Abraham had performed this part of the
ceremony, the symbol of the Almighty’s presence, “a smoking furnace, and
a burning lamp, passed between the pieces,” verse 18, and so both
parties ratified the covenant.

2. As the beauty of Sarah, which she retained so long as quite to
conceal her real age from observers, attracted so much notice as to lead
to her forcible seizure, once by Pharaoh in Egypt, and again by
Abimelech in Palestine, it may appear strange, that, as in the east
women are generally kept in seclusion, and seldom appear without veils,
she exposed herself to observation. But to this day the Arab women do
not wear veils at home in their tents; and Sarah’s countenance might
have been seen in the tent by some of the officers of Pharaoh and
Abimelech, who reported her beauty to their masters.

3. The intentional offering up of Isaac is not to be supposed as viewed
by Abraham as an act sanctioned by the Pagan practice of human
sacrifice. The immolation of human victims, particularly of that which
was most precious, the favourite, the first-born child, appears to have
been a common usage among many early nations, more especially the tribes
by which Abraham was surrounded. It was the distinguishing rite among
the worshippers of Moloch; at a later period of the Jewish history, it
was practised by a king of Moab; and it was undoubtedly derived by the
Carthaginians from their Phenecian ancestors on the shores of Syria.
Where it was an ordinary usage, as in the worship of Moloch, it was in
unison with the character of the religion, and of its deity. It was the
last act of a dark and sanguinary superstition, which rose by regular
gradation to this complete triumph over human nature. The god, who was
propitiated by these offerings, had been satiated with more cheap and
vulgar victims; he had been glutted to the full with human suffering and
with human blood. In general it was the final mark of the subjugation of
the national mind to an inhuman and domineering priesthood. But the
Mosaic religion held human sacrifices in abhorrence; and the God of the
Abrahamitic family, uniformly beneficent, had imposed no duties which
entailed human suffering, had demanded no offerings which were repugnant
to the better feelings of our nature. The command to offer Isaac as “a
burnt offering,” was for these reasons a trial the more severe to
Abraham’s faith. He must therefore have been fully assured of the divine
command; and he left the mystery to be explained by God himself. His was
a simple act of unhesitating obedience to the command of God; the last
proof of perfect reliance on the certain accomplishment of the divine
promises. Isaac, so miraculously bestowed, could be as miraculously
restored; Abraham, such is the comment of the Christian Apostle,
“believed that God could even raise him up from the dead.”

4. The wide and deep impression made by the character of Abraham upon
the ancient world is proved by the reverence which people of almost all
nations and countries have paid to him, and the manner in which the
events of his life have been interwoven in their mythology, and their
religious traditions. Jews, Magians, Sabians, Indians, and Mohammedans
have claimed him as the great patriarch and founder of their several
sects; and his history has been embellished with a variety of fictions.
One of the most pleasing of these is the following, but it proceeds upon
the supposition that he was educated in idolatry: “As Abraham was
walking by night from the grotto where he was born, to the city of
Babylon, he gazed on the stars of heaven, and among them on the
beautiful planet Venus. ‘Behold,’ said he within himself, ‘the God and
Lord of the universe!’ but the star set and disappeared, and Abraham
felt that the Lord of the universe could not thus be liable to change.
Shortly after, he beheld the moon at the full: ‘Lo,’ he cried, ‘the
Divine Creator, the manifest Deity!’ but the moon sank below the
horizon, and Abraham made the same reflection as at the setting of the
evening star. All the rest of the night he passed in profound
rumination; at sunrise he stood before the gates of Babylon, and saw the
whole people prostrate in adoration. ‘Wondrous orb,‘ he exclaimed, ‘thou
surely art the Creator and Ruler of all nature! but thou, too, hastest
like the rest to thy setting!--neither then art thou my Creator, my
Lord, or my God!’”

ABRAHAMITES, reported heretical sects of the eighth and ninth centuries,
charged with the Paulician errors, and some of them with idolatry. For
these charges we have, however, only the word of their persecutors. Also
the name of a sect in Bohemia, as late as 1782, who professed the
religion of Abraham before his circumcision, and admitted no scriptures
but the decalogue and the Lord’s prayer. As these were persecuted, they
too were probably misrepresented, and especially as their conduct is
allowed to have been good, even by their enemies.

ABSALOM, the son of David by Maachah, daughter of the king of Geshur;
distinguished for his fine person, his vices, and his unnatural
rebellion. Of his open revolt, his conduct in Jerusalem, his pursuit of
the king his father, his defeat and death, see 2 Sam. xvi-xviii, at
large.

ABSOLUTION, in the church of Rome, is a sacrament, in which the priests
assume the power of forgiving sins. The rite of absolution in the church
of England is acknowledged to be declarative only--“Almighty God hath
given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to
his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins:
He pardoneth,” &c. In this view it is innocent; and although any private
Christian has a right to declare and pronounce the same doctrine to his
neighbour, the _official_ publication of the grace of the Gospel is the
public duty of its ministers in the congregation, since they are
Christ’s “ambassadors.”

ABSTINENCE, forbearance of any thing It is generally used with reference
to forbearance from food under a religious motive. The Jewish law
ordained that the priests should abstain from the use of wine during the
whole time of their being employed in the service of the temple, Lev. x,
9. The same abstinence was enjoined upon the Nazarites, during the time
of their Nazariteship, or separation, Num. vi, 3. The Jews were
commanded to abstain from several sorts of animals. See ANIMAL.

The fat of all sorts of animals that were sacrificed was forbidden to be
eaten, Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23; and the blood of every animal, in general,
was prohibited under pain of death. Indeed blood was forbidden by the
Creator, from the time of the grant of the flesh of beasts to man for
food; this prohibition was continued under the Jewish economy, and
transmitted to the Christian church by Apostolic authority, Acts xv, 28,
29. (See _Blood_.) The Jews also abstained from the sinew which is upon
the hollow of the thigh, Gen. xxxii, 25; because of the shrinking of the
sinew of Jacob’s thigh when touched by the angel, as though by that the
part had been made sacred.

Among the primitive Christians, some denied themselves the use of such
meats as were prohibited by the law; others treated this abstinence with
contempt. St. Paul has given his decision on these questions in his
epistles, 1 Cor. viii, 7–10; Rom. xiv, 1–3. The council of Jerusalem,
which was held by the Apostles, enjoined the Christian converts to
abstain from meats strangled, from blood, from fornication, and from
idolatry, Acts xv, 20.

The spiritual monarchy of the western world introduced another sort of
abstinence which may be termed _ritual_, and which consists in
abstaining from particular meats at certain times and seasons, the rules
of which are called rogations. The ancient Lent was observed only a few
days before Easter. In the course of the third century, it extended at
Rome to three weeks; and before the middle of the succeeding age, it was
prolonged to six weeks, and began to be called quadragesima, or the
forty days’ fast.

ABYSS, or DEEP, ἄβυσσος, _without bottom_. The chaos; the deepest parts
of the sea; and, in the New Testament, the place of the dead, Rom. x, 7;
a deep place of punishment. The devils besought Jesus that he would not
send them into the abyss, a place they evidently dreaded, Luke viii, 31;
where it seems to mean that part of Hades in which wicked spirits are in
torment. See HELL.

In the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, and of the generality of eastern
people at this day, the abyss, the sea, or waters, encompassed the whole
earth. This was supposed to float upon the abyss, of which it covered a
small part. According to the same notion, the earth was founded on the
waters, or at least its foundations were on the abyss beneath, Psalm
xxiv, 2; cxxxvi, 6. Under these waters, and at the bottom of this abyss,
they represented the wicked as groaning, and suffering the punishment of
their sin. The Rephaim were confined there, those old giants, who,
whilst living, caused surrounding nations to tremble, Prov. ix, 18; xxi,
16, &c. Lastly, in these dark dungeons the kings of Tyre, Babylon, and
Egypt are described by the Prophets as suffering the punishment of their
pride and cruelty, Isaiah xxvi, 14; Ezek. xxviii, 10, &c.

These depths are figuratively represented as the abodes of evil spirits,
and powers opposed to God: “I saw,” says St. John, “a star fall from
heaven unto the earth, and to him was given the key of the bottomless
pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of
it, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were
darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the
smoke locusts upon the earth. And they had a king over them, which is
the angel of the bottomless pit,” Rev. ix, 1, 2, 11. In another place,
the beast is represented as ascending out of the bottomless pit, and
waging war against the two witnesses of God, Rev. xi, 7. Lastly, St.
John says, “I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the
dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a
thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up,
and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till
the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed
a little season,” Rev. xx, 1–3.

ABYSSINIAN CHURCH, a branch of the Coptic church, in Upper Ethiopia. The
Abyssinians, by the most authentic accounts, were converted to the
Christian faith about the year 330; when Frumentius, being
providentially raised to a high office, under the patronage of the queen
of Ethiopia, and ordained bishop of that country by Athanasius,
patriarch of Alexandria, established Christianity, built churches, and
ordained a regular clergy to officiate in them. The Abyssinian
Christians themselves, indeed, claim a much higher antiquity, having a
tradition, that the doctrine of Christ was first introduced among them
by Queen Candace, Acts viii, 27; or even preached there by the Apostles
Matthew and Bartholomew; but the former is supported by no collateral
evidence, and the latter is in opposition to high authority. Some of
them claim relation to the Israelites, through the queen of Sheba, so
far back as the reign of Solomon.

The Abyssinian Christians have always received their abuna, or
patriarch, from Alexandria, whence they sprang, and consequently their
creed is Monophysite, or Eutychian; maintaining one nature only in the
person of Christ, namely, the divine, in which they considered all the
properties of the humanity to be absorbed; in opposition to the
Nestorians.

On the power of the Saracens prevailing in the east, all communication
being nearly cut off between the eastern and western churches, the
Abyssinian church remained unknown in Europe till nearly the close of
the fifteenth century, when John II, of Portugal, accidentally hearing
of the existence of such a church, sent to make inquiry. This led to a
correspondence between the Abyssinians and the church of Rome; and
Bermudes, a Portuguese, was consecrated by the pope patriarch of
Ethiopia, and the Abyssinians were required to receive the Roman
Catholic faith, in return for some military assistance afforded to the
emperor. Instead of this, however, the emperor sent for a new patriarch
from Alexandria, imprisoned Bermudes, and declared the pope a heretic.

About the middle of the sixteenth century, the Jesuits attempted a
mission to Abyssinia, in the hope of reducing it to the pope’s
authority; but without success. In 1588 a second mission was attempted,
and so far succeeded as to introduce a system of persecution, which cost
many lives, and caused many troubles to the empire. In the following
century, however, the Jesuits were all expelled, Abyssinia returned to
its ancient faith, and nothing more was heard of the church of
Abyssinia, till the latter part of the last century.

After the expulsion of the Jesuits, all Europeans were interdicted; nor
does it appear that any one dared to attempt an entrance until the
celebrated Mr. Bruce, by the report of his medical skill, contrived to
introduce himself to the court, where he even obtained military
promotion; and was in such repute, that it was with great difficulty he
obtained leave to return to England.

Encouraged, perhaps, by this circumstance, the Moravian brethren
attempted a mission to this country, but in vain. They were compelled to
retreat to Grand Cairo, from whence, by leave of the patriarch, they
visited the Copts at Behrusser, and formed a small society; but in 1783,
they were driven thence, and compelled to return to Europe. More
recently, however, the late king of Abyssinia (Itsa Takley Gorges)
addressed a letter to Mr. Salt, the British consul in Egypt, and
requested copies of some parts of both the Old and New Testaments.
Copies of the Psalms, in Ethiopic, as printed by the British and Foreign
Bible Society, were also sent to him.

ACADEMICS, a name given to such philosophers as adopted the doctrines of
Plato. They were so called from the _Academia_, a grove near Athens,
where they frequently indulged their contemplations. Academia is said to
derive its name from one Academus, a god or hero so called. Thus
Horace,--

          _Atque inter sylvas Academi quærere verum._
          [And in the groves of Academus to search for truth.]

The academics are divided into those of the first academy, who taught
the doctrines of Plato in their original purity; those of the second or
middle academy, who differed materially from the first, and inclined to
skepticism; and those of the new academy. The middle school laid it down
as a principle, that neither our senses, nor our reason, are to be
trusted; but that in common affairs we are to conform to received
opinions. The new academy maintained that we have no means of
distinguishing truth, and that the most evident appearances may lead us
into error; they granted the wise man opinion, but denied him certainty.
They held, however, that it was best to follow the greatest probability,
which was sufficient for all the useful purposes of life, and laid down
rules for the attainment of felicity. The difference betwixt the middle
academy and the new seems to have been this, that though they agreed in
the imbecility of human nature, yet the first denied that probabilities
were of any use in the pursuit of happiness; and the latter held them to
be of service in such a design: the former recommended a conformity with
received opinions, and the latter allowed men an opinion of their own.
In the first academy, Speusippus filled the chair; in the second,
Arcesilaus; and in the new or third academy, Carneades.

ACCAD, one of the four cities built by Nimrod, the founder of the
Assyrian empire. (See _Nimrod_.) “And the beginning of his kingdom was
Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,” Gen. x,
10. Thus it appears that Accad was contemporary with Babylon, and was
one of the first four great cities of the world.

It would scarcely be expected that any thing should now remain to guide
us in our search for this ancient city, seeing that Babylon itself, with
which it was coeval, is reduced to heaps; and that it is not mentioned
under its ancient name by any profane author. But the discoveries of
modern travellers may be brought to aid us in our inquiry. At the
distance of about six miles from the modern town of Bagdad, is found a
mound, surmounted by a tower-shaped ruin, called by the Arabs Tell
Nimrood, and by the Turks Nemrood Tepasse; both terms implying the Hill
of Nimrod. This gigantic mass rises in an irregularly pyramidal or
turreted shape, according to the view in which it is taken, one hundred
and twenty-five or one hundred and thirty feet above the gently inclined
elevation on which it stands. Its circumference, at the bottom, is three
hundred feet. The mound which constitutes its foundation is composed of
a collection of rubbish, formed from the decay of the superstructure;
and consists of sandy earth, fragments of burnt brick, pottery, and hard
clay, partially vitrified. In the remains of the tower, the different
layers of sun-dried brick, of which it is composed, may be traced with
great precision. These bricks, cemented together by slime, and divided
into courses varying from twelve to twenty feet in height, are separated
from one another by a stratum of reeds, similar to those now growing in
the marshy parts of the plain, and in a wonderful state of preservation.
The resemblance of this mode of building to that in some of the
structures at Babylon, cannot escape observation; and we may reasonably
conclude it to be the workmanship of the same architects. The solidity
and the loftiness of this pile, unfashioned to any other purpose,
bespeak it to be one of those enormous pyramidal towers which were
consecrated to the Sabian worship; which, as essential to their
religious rites, were probably erected in all the early cities of the
Cuthites; and, like their prototype at Babylon, answered the double
purpose of altars and observatories. Here then was the site of one of
these early cities. It was not Babylon; it was not Erech; it was not
Calneh. It might be too much to say that _therefore_ it must be Accad;
but the inference is at least warrantable; which is farther strengthened
by the name of the place, Akarkouff; which bears a greater affinity to
that of Accad than many others which are forced into the support of
geographical speculations, especially when it is recollected that the
Syrian name of the city was Achar.

ACCESS, free admission, open entrance. Our access to God is by Jesus
Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, Rom. v, 2; Eph. ii, 18. Under
the law, the high priest alone had access into the holiest of all; but
when the veil of the temple was rent in twain, at the death of Christ,
it was declared that a new and living way of access was laid open
through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. By his death, also, the
middle wall of partition was broken down, and Jew and Gentile had both
free access to God; whereas, before, the Gentiles had no nearer access
in the temple worship than to the gate of the court of Israel. Thus the
saving grace and lofty privileges of the Gospel are equally bestowed
upon true believers of all nations.

ACCHO, afterward called Ptolemais, and now Akka by the Arabs, and Acre
by the Turks. It was given to the tribe of Asher, Judges i, 31.
Christianity was planted here at an early period, and here St. Paul
visited the saints in his way to Jerusalem, Acts xxi, 7. It is a seaport
of Palestine, thirty miles south of Tyre, and, in the first partition of
the holy land, belonged to the tribe of Asher; but this was one of the
places out of which the Israelites could not drive the primitive
inhabitants. In succeeding times it was enlarged by the first Ptolemy,
to whose lot it fell, and who named it after himself, Ptolemais.

This city, now called Acre, which, from the convenience of its port, is
one of the most considerable on the Syrian coast, was, during almost two
centuries, the principal theatre of the holy wars, and the frequent
scene of the perfidies and treacheries of the crusaders.

Among its antiquities, Dr. E. D. Clarke describes the remains of a very
considerable edifice, exhibiting a conspicuous appearance among the
buildings on the north side of the city. “In this structure the style of
the architecture is of the kind we call Gothic. Perhaps it has on that
account borne among our countrymen the appellation of ‘King Richard’s
Palace,’ although, in the period to which the tradition refers, the
English were hardly capable of erecting palaces, or any other buildings
of equal magnificence. Two lofty arches, and part of the cornice, are
all that now remain to attest the former greatness of the
superstructure. The cornice, ornamented with enormous stone busts,
exhibiting a series of hideous distorted countenances, whose features
are in no instances alike, may either have served as allusions to the
decapitation of St. John, or were intended for a representation of the
heads of Saracens suspended as trophies upon the walls.” Maundrell and
Pococke consider this building to have been the church of St. Andrew;
but Dr. E. D. Clarke thinks it was that of St. John, erected by the
Knights of Jerusalem, whence the city changed its name of Ptolemais for
that of St. John d’Acre. He also considers the style of architecture to
be in some degree the original of our ornamented Gothic, before its
translation from the holy land to Italy, France, and England.

Mr. Buckingham, who visited Acre in 1816, says, “Of the Canaanitish
Accho it would be thought idle perhaps to seek for remains; yet some
presented themselves to my observation so peculiar in form and
materials, and of such high antiquity, as to leave no doubt in my own
mind of their being the fragments of buildings constructed in the
earliest ages.

“Of the splendour of Ptolemais, no perfect monument remains; but
throughout the town are seen shafts of red and grey granite, and marble
pillars. The Saracenic remains are only to be partially traced in the
inner walls of the town; which have themselves been so broken down and
repaired, as to leave little visible of the original work; and all the
mosques, fountains, bazaars, and other public buildings, are in a style
rather Turkish than Arabic, excepting only an old, but regular and
well-built khan or caravanserai, which might perhaps be attributed to
the Saracen age. The Christian ruins are altogether gone, scarcely
leaving a trace of the spot on which they stood.”

Acre has been rendered famous in our own times by the successful
resistance made by our countryman Sir Sydney Smith, aided by the
celebrated Djezzar Pasha, to the progress of the French under
Buonaparte. Since this period, the fortifications have been considerably
increased; and although to the eye of an engineer they may still be very
defective, Acre may be considered as the strongest place in Palestine.

Mr. Conner says, on the authority of the English consul, that there are
about ten thousand inhabitants in Acre, of whom three thousand are
Turks, and the remainder Christians, chiefly Catholics.

ACCUBATION, the posture used at table by the ancients. The old Romans
sat at meat as we do, till the Grecian luxury and softness had corrupted
them. The same custom, of lying upon couches at their entertainments,
prevailed among the Jews also in our Saviour’s time; for having been
lately conquered by Pompey, they conformed in this, and in many other
respects, to the example of their masters. The manner of lying at meat
among the Romans, Greeks, and more modern Jews, was the same in all
respects. The table was placed in the middle of the room, around which
stood three couches covered with cloth or tapestry, according to the
quality of the master of the house; upon these they lay, inclining the
superior part of their bodies upon their left arms, the lower part being
stretched out at full length, or a little bent. Their heads were
supported and raised with pillows. The first man lay at the head of the
couch; the next man lay with his head toward the feet of the other, from
which he was defended by the bolster that supported his own back,
commonly reaching over to the middle of the first man; and the rest
after the same manner. The most honourable place was the _middle_
couch--and the _middle_ of _that_. Favourites commonly lay in the bosom
of their friends; that is, they were placed next below them: see John
xiii, 23, where St. John is said to have lain in our Saviour’s bosom.
The ancient Greeks sat at the table; for Homer observes that when
Ulysses arrived at the palace of Alcinous, the king dispatched his son
Laodamas to seat Ulysses in a magnificent chair. The Egyptians sat at
table anciently, as well as the Romans, till toward the end of the Punic
war, when they began to recline at table.

ACCURSED, in the Scriptures, signifies that which is separated or
devoted. With regard to persons, it denotes the cutting off or
separating any one from the communion of the church, the number of the
living, or the privileges of society; and also the devoting an animal,
city, or other thing to destruction. _Anathema_ was a species of
_excommunication_ among the Jews, and was often practised after they had
lost the power of life and death, against those persons who, according
to the Mosaic law, ought to have been executed. A criminal, after the
sentence of excommunication was pronounced, became _anathema_: and they
had a full persuasion that the sentence would not be in vain; but that
God would interfere to punish the offender in a manner similar to the
penalty of the law of Moses: a man, for instance, whom the law condemned
to be stoned, would, they believed, be killed by the falling of a stone
upon him; a man to be hanged, would be choked; and one whom the law
sentenced to the flames, would be burnt in his house, &c. _Maranatha_, a
Syriac word, signifying _the Lord cometh_, was added to the sentence, to
express their persuasion that the Lord God would come to take vengeance
upon that guilt which they, circumstanced as they were, had not the
power to punish, 1 Cor. xvi, 22.

According to the idiom of the Hebrew language, _accursed_ and
_crucified_ were synonymous terms. By the Jews every one who died upon a
tree was reckoned _accursed_, Deut. xxi, 23.

Excommunication is a kind of anathema also among some Christians; and by
it the offender is deprived, not only of communicating in prayers and
other holy offices, but of admittance to the church, and of conversation
with the faithful. The spirit of Judaism, rather than that of the
Gospel, has in this been imitated; for among the Hebrews, they who were
excommunicated could not perform any public duty of their employments;
could be neither judges nor witnesses; neither be present at funerals,
nor circumcise their own sons, nor sit down in the company of other men,
nearer than within the distance of four cubits. If they died under
excommunication, they were denied the rites of burial; and a large stone
was left on their graves, or a heap of stones was thrown over them, as
over Achan, Joshua vii, 26. The Apostolical excommunication was simply
to deny to the offender, after admonition, the right of partaking of the
Lord’s Supper, which was excision from the church of Christ.

ACELDAMA, a piece of ground without the south wall of Jerusalem, on the
other side of the brook Siloam. It was called the Potter’s Field,
because an earth or clay was dug in it, of which pottery was made. It
was likewise called the Fuller’s Field, because cloth was dried in it.
But it having been afterward bought with the money by which the high
priest and rulers of the Jews purchased the blood of Jesus, it was
called Aceldama, or the Field of Blood.

ACHAIA. This name is used to denote the whole of Greece, as it existed
as a Roman province; or Achaia Proper, a district in the northern part
of the Peloponnesus, on the bay of Corinth, and in which the city of
that name stood. It appears to have been used in the former sense in 2
Cor. xi, 10; and in the latter, in Acts xix, 21.

ACHAN, the son of Carmi, of the tribe of Judah, who having taken a part
of the spoils of Jericho, against the injunction of God, who had
_accursed_ or devoted the whole city, was, upon being taken by lot,
doomed to be stoned to death. The whole history is recorded, Joshua vii.
It would appear that Achan’s family were also stoned; for they were led
out with him, and all his property, “And all Israel stoned him with
stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with
stones.” Some of the critics have made efforts to confine the stoning to
Achan, and the burning to his goods; but not without violence to the
text. It is probable, therefore, that his family were privy to the
theft, seeing he hid the accursed things which he had stolen in the
earth, in his tent. By concealment they therefore became partakers of
his crime, and so the sentence was justified.

ACHMETHA. See ECBATANA.

ACHOR, Valley of, between Jericho and Ai. So called from the trouble
brought upon the Israelites by the sin of Achan; Achor in the Hebrew
denoting trouble.

ACHZIB, a city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in the tribe of Asher,
and one of the cities out of which that tribe did not expel the
inhabitants, Judges i, 31. It was called Ecdippa by the Greeks, and is
at present termed Zib. It is situated about ten miles north of Accho, or
Ptolemais. Mr. Buckingham, who passed by this place, says that it is
small, and situated on a hill near the sea; having a few palm trees
rearing themselves above its dwellings.

ACRA, Ἄκρα. This Greek word signifies, in general, _a citadel_. The
Syrians and Chaldeans use הקרא, in the same sense. King Antiochus gave
orders for building a citadel at Jerusalem, north of the temple, on an
eminence, which commanded the holy place; and for that reason was called
Acra. Josephus says, that this eminence was semicircular, and that Simon
Maccabæus, having expelled the Syrians, who had seized Acra, demolished
it, and spent three years in levelling the mountain on which it stood;
that no situation in future should command the temple. On mount Acra
were afterward built, the palace of Helena; Agrippa’s palace, the place
where the public records were lodged; and that where the magistrates of
Jerusalem assembled.

ACRABATENE, a district of Judæa, extending between Shechem (now
Napolose) and Jericho, inclining east. It was about twelve miles in
length. The Acrabatene had its name from a place called Akrabbim, about
nine miles from Shechem, eastward. This was also the name of another
district of Judea on the frontier of Idumea, toward the northern
extremity of the Dead Sea.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This book, in the very beginning, professes itself
to be a continuation of the Gospel of St. Luke; and its style bespeaks
it to be written by the same person. The external evidence is also very
satisfactory; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly
in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the
Apostles are not only quoted by Irenæus, as written by Luke the
evangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not
mentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the
genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the
later fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to
this book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and
also in the old Syriac version.

2. This is the only inspired work which gives us any historical account
of the progress of Christianity after our Saviour’s ascension. It
comprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains
a general history of the church during that time. The principal facts
recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room
of the traitor Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of
pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the Apostles at
Jerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and
dispersion of the Christians; the preaching of the Gospel in different
parts of Palestine, especially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul;
the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the
Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the
Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at
Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish
rites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the
latter part of the book is confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom
St. Luke was the constant companion for several years.

3. As this account of St. Paul is not continued beyond his two years’
imprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon
after his release, which happened in the year 63; we may therefore
consider the Acts of the Apostles as written about the year 64.

4. The place of its publication is more doubtful. The probability
appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria in
Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of
some Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the
best critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to
other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this
case they are not supported by any ancient authority.

5. It must have been of the utmost importance in the early times of the
Gospel, and certainly not of less importance to every subsequent age, to
have an authentic account of the promised descent of the Holy Ghost, and
of the success which attended the first preachers of the Gospel both
among the Jews and Gentiles. These great events completed the evidence
of the divine mission of Christ, established the truth of the religion
which he taught, and pointed out in the clearest manner the
comprehensive nature of the redemption which he purchased by his death.

Œcumenius calls the Acts, the “Gospel of the Holy Ghost;” and St.
Chrysostom, the “Gospel of our Saviour’s resurrection,” or the Gospel of
Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Here, in the lives and preaching of
the Apostles, we have the most miraculous instances of the power of the
Holy Ghost; and in the account of those who were the first believers, we
have received the most excellent pattern of the true Christian life.

ADAM, the name given to man in general, both male and female in the
Hebrew Scriptures, Gen. i, 26, 27; v, 1, 2; xi, 5; Josh. xiv, 15; 2 Sam.
vii, 19; Eccl. iii, 21; Jer. xxxii, 20; Hosea vi, 7; Zech. xiii, 7: in
all which places mankind is understood; but particularly it is the name
of the first man and father of the human race, created by God himself
out of the dust of the earth. Josephus thinks that he was called Adam by
reason of the reddish colour of the earth out of which he was formed,
for Adam in Hebrew signifies red. God having made man out of the dust of
the earth, breathed into him the breath of life, and gave him dominion
over all the creatures of this world, Gen. i, 26, 27; ii, 7. He created
him after his own image and resemblance; and having blessed him, he
placed him in a delicious garden, in Eden, that he might cultivate it,
and feed upon its fruits, Gen. ii, 8; but under the following
injunction: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it;
for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” The first
thing that Adam did after his introduction into paradise, was to give
names to all the beasts and birds which presented themselves before him,
Gen. ii, 19, 20.

But man was without a fellow creature of his own species; wherefore God
said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a help meet
for him.” And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while
he slept, he took one of his ribs, “and closed up the flesh instead
thereof;” and of that substance which he took from man made he a woman,
whom he presented to him. Then said Adam, “This is now bone of my bone,
and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of man,” Gen. ii, 21, &c.

The woman was seduced by the tempter; and she seduced her husband to eat
of the forbidden fruit. When called to judgment for this transgression
before God, Adam attempted to cast the blame upon his wife, and the
woman upon the serpent tempter. But God declared them all guilty, and
punished the serpent by degradation; the woman by painful childbearing
and subjection; and the man by agricultural labour and toil; of which
punishments every day witnesses the fulfilment. As their natural
passions now became irregular, and their exposure to accidents was
great, God made a covering of skins for Adam and for his wife; and
expelled them from the garden, to the country without; placing at the
east of the garden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every
way, to keep the way of the tree of life. It is not known how long Adam
and his wife continued in paradise: some say, many years; others, not
many days; others, not many hours. Adam called his wife’s name _Eve_,
which signifies “the mother of all living.” Shortly after, Eve brought
forth Cain, Gen. iv, 1, 2. It is believed that she had a girl at the
time, and that, generally, she had twins. The Scriptures notice only
three sons of Adam: Cain, Abel, and Seth; and omits daughters; except
that Moses tells us, “Adam begat sons and daughters;” no doubt many. He
died, aged nine hundred and thirty, B. C. 3074.

Upon this history, so interesting to all Adam’s descendants, some
remarks may be offered.

1. It is disputed whether the name _Adam_ is derived from _red earth_.
Sir W. Jones thinks it may be from _Adim_, which in Sanscrit signifies,
_the first_. The Persians, however, denominate him Adamah, which
signifies, according to Sale, _red earth_. The term for woman is
_Aisha_, the feminine of _Aish_, man, and signifies, therefore, maness
or female man.

2. The manner in which the creation of Adam is narrated indicates
something peculiar and eminent in the being to be formed. Among the
heavenly bodies the earth, and above all the various productions of its
surface, vegetable and animal, however perfect in their kinds, and
beautiful and excellent in their respective natures, not one being was
found to whom the rest could minister instruction; inspire with moral
delight; or lead up to the Creator himself. There was, properly
speaking, no intellectual being; none to whom the whole frame and
furniture of material nature could minister knowledge; no one who could
employ upon them the generalizing faculty, and make them the basis of
inductive knowledge. If, then, it was not wholly for himself that the
world was created by God; and if angels were not so immediately
connected with this system, as to lead us to suppose that it was made
for them; a rational inhabitant was obviously still wanting to complete
the work, and to constitute a perfect whole. The formation of such a
being was marked, therefore, by a manner of proceeding which serves to
impress us with a sense of the greatness of the work. Not that it could
be a matter of more difficulty to Omnipotence to create man than any
thing beside; but principally, it is probable, because he was to be the
lord of the whole and therefore himself accountable to the original
proprietor; and was to be the subject of another species of government,
a moral administration; and to be constituted an image of the
intellectual and moral perfections, and of the immortality, of the
common Maker. Every thing therefore, as to man’s creation, is given in a
solemn and deliberative form, and contains also an intimation of a
Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, all equally possessed of _creative_
power, and therefore _Divine_, to each of whom man was to stand in
relations the most sacred and intimate:--“And God said, Let US make man
in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion,” &c.

3. It may be next inquired in what that image of God in which man was
made consists.

It is manifest from the history of Moses, that human nature has two
essential constituent parts, the BODY formed out of preëxisting matter,
the earth; and a LIVING SOUL, breathed into the body by an _inspiration_
from God. “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils (or _face_) the breath of life,
(_lives_,) and man became a living soul.” Whatever was thus imparted to
the body of man, already “_formed_,” and perfectly finished in all its
parts, was the only cause of life; and the whole tenor of Scripture
shows that this was the rational spirit itself, which, by a law of its
Creator, was incapable of death, even after the body had fallen under
that penalty.

The “image” or likeness of God in which man was made has, by some, been
assigned to the body; by others, to the soul. It has, also, been placed
in the circumstance of his having “_dominion_” over the other creatures.
As to the body, it is not necessary to prove that in no sense can it
bear the image of God; that is, be “_like_” God. An upright form has no
more likeness to God than a prone or reptile one; God is incorporeal,
and cannot be the antitype of any thing material.

Equally unfounded is the notion that the image of God in man consisted
in the “dominion” which was granted to him over this lower world.
Limited dominion may, it is true, be an image of large and absolute
dominion; but man is not said to have been made in the image of God’s
dominion, which is an accident merely, for, before creatures existed,
God himself could have no dominion:--he was made in the image and
likeness of God himself. Still farther, it is evident that man,
according to the history, was made in the image of God _in order_ to his
having dominion, as the Hebrew particle imports; and, therefore, his
dominion was consequent upon his formation in the “image” and “likeness”
of God, and could not be that image itself.

The notion that the original resemblance of man to God must be placed in
some one essential quality, is not consistent with holy writ, from which
alone we can derive our information on this subject. We shall, it is
true, find that the Bible partly places it in what is essential to human
nature; but that it should comprehend nothing else, or consist in one
quality only, has no proof or reason; and we are, in fact, taught that
it comprises also what is so far from being essential that it may be
both lost and regained. When God is called “the Father of spirits,” a
likeness is suggested between man and God in the _spirituality_ of their
nature. This is also implied in the striking argument of St. Paul with
the Athenians: “Forasmuch, then, as we are the OFFSPRING of God, we
ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or
stone, graven by art and man’s device;”--plainly referring to the
idolatrous statues by which God was represented among Heathens. If
likeness to God in man consisted in bodily shape, this would not have
been an argument against human representations of the Deity; but it
imports, as Howe well expresses it, that “we are to understand that our
resemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies in some higher, more
noble, and more excellent thing, of which there can be no figure; as who
can tell how to give the figure or image of a thought, or of the mind or
thinking power?” In _spirituality_, and, consequently, immateriality,
this image of God in man, then, in the first instance, consists. Nor is
it any valid objection to say, that “immateriality is not peculiar to
the soul of man; for we have reason to believe that the inferior animals
are actuated by an immaterial principle.” This is as certain as analogy
can make it: but though we allow a spiritual principle to animals, its
_kind_ is obviously inferior; for that spirit which is incapable of
induction and moral knowledge, must be of an inferior order to the
spirit which possesses these capabilities; and this is the kind of
spirit which is peculiar to man.

The sentiment expressed in Wisdom ii, 23, is an evidence that, in the
opinion of the ancient Jews, the image of God in man comprised
_immortality_ also. “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to
be an image of his own eternity:” and though other creatures were made
capable of immortality, and at least the material human frame, whatever
we may think of the case of animals, would have escaped death, had not
sin entered the world; yet, without admitting the absurdity of the
“natural immortality” of the human soul, that essence must have been
constituted immortal in a high and peculiar sense which has ever
retained its prerogative of continued duration amidst the universal
death not only of animals, but of the bodies of all human beings. There
appears also a manifest allusion to man’s immortality, as being included
in _the image of God_, in the reason which is given in Genesis for the
law which inflicts death on murderers: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by
man shall his blood be shed: for in _the image of God_ made he man.” The
essence of the crime of homicide is not confined here to the putting to
death the mere animal part of man; and it must, therefore, lie in the
peculiar value of life to an immortal being, accountable in another
state for the actions done in this, and whose life ought to be specially
guarded for this very reason, that death introduces him into changeless
and eternal relations, which were not to be left to the mercy of human
passions.

To these we are to add the _intellectual powers_, and we have what
divines, in perfect accordance with the Scriptures, have called, “the
NATURAL image of God in his creatures,” which is essential and
ineffaceable. Man was made capable of _knowledge_, and he was endowed
with liberty of _will_.

This natural image of God was the foundation of that MORAL image by
which also man was distinguished. Unless he had been a spiritual,
knowing, and willing being, he would have been wholly incapable of
_moral_ qualities. That he had such qualities eminently, and that in
them consisted the image of God, as well as in the natural attributes
just stated, we have also the express testimony of Scripture: “Lo this
only have I found, that God made man UPRIGHT; but they have sought out
many inventions.” There is also an express allusion to the moral image
of God, in which man was at first created, in Colossians iii, 10: “And
have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image
of Him that created him;” and in Ephesians iv, 24: “Put on the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” In these
passages the Apostle represents the change produced in true Christians
by the Gospel, as a “renewal of the image of God in man; as a new or
second creation in that image;” and he explicitly declares, that that
image consists in “knowledge,” in “righteousness,” and in “true
holiness.”

This also may be finally argued from the satisfaction with which the
historian of the creation represents the Creator as viewing the works of
his hands as “_very good_,” which was pronounced with reference to each
of them individually, as well as to the whole: “And God saw _every
thing_ that he had made, and behold it was very good.” But, as to man,
this goodness must necessarily imply moral as well as physical
qualities. Without them he would have been imperfect as _man_; and had
they, in their first exercises, been perverted and sinful, he must have
been an exception, and could not have been pronounced “very good.” The
goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in devotedness and
consecration to God; consequently, man was at first holy. A rational
creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, and living in
communion with the Most Holy One. Adam, at first, did or did not exert
this capacity; if he did not, he was not _very good_,--not good at all.

4. On the intellectual and moral endowments of the progenitor of the
human race, erring views appear to have been taken on both sides.

In knowledge, some have thought him little inferior to the angels;
others, as furnished with but the simple elements of science and of
language. The truth seems to be that, as to _capacity_, his intellect
must have been vigorous beyond that of any of his fallen descendants;
which itself gives us very high views of the strength of his
understanding, although we should allow him to have been created “lower
than the angels.” As to his _actual knowledge_, that would depend upon
the time and opportunity he had for observing the nature and laws of the
objects around him; and the degree in which he was favoured with
revelations from God on moral and religious subjects.

On the degree of moral excellence also in the first man, much license
has been given to a warm imagination, and to rhetorical embellishment;
and Adam’s perfection has sometimes been fixed at an elevation which
renders it exceedingly difficult to conceive how he could fall into sin
at all. On the other hand, those who either deny or hold very slightly
the doctrine of our hereditary depravity, delight to represent Adam as
little superior in moral perfection and capability to his descendants.
But, if we attend to the passages of holy writ above quoted, we shall be
able, on this subject, to ascertain, if not the exact degree of his
moral endowments, yet that there is a certain standard below which they
cannot be placed.--Generally, he was made in the _image_ of God, which,
we have already proved, is to be understood _morally_ as well as
_naturally_. Now, however the image of any thing may be limited in
extent, it must still be an accurate representation as far as it goes.
Every thing good in the creation must always be a miniature
representation of the excellence of the Creator; but, in this case, the
“goodness,” that is, the perfection, of every creature, according to the
part it was designed to act in the general assemblage of beings
collected into our system, wholly forbids us to suppose that the image
of God’s moral perfections in man was a blurred and dim representation.
To whatever _extent_ it went, it necessarily excluded all that from man
which did not resemble God; it was a likeness to God in “righteousness
and true holiness,” whatever the degree of each might be, and excluded
all admixture of unrighteousness and unholiness. Man, therefore, in his
original state, was _sinless_, both in act and in principle. Hence it is
said that “God made man UPRIGHT.” That this signifies moral rectitude
cannot be doubted; but the import of the word is very extensive. It
expresses, by an easy figure, the _exactness_ of truth, justice, and
obedience; and it comprehends the state and habit both of the heart and
the life. Such, then, was the condition of primitive man; there was no
obliquity in his moral principles, his mind, or affections; none in his
conduct. He was perfectly sincere and exactly just, rendering from the
heart all that was due to God and to the creature. Tried by the exactest
_plummet_, he was _upright_; by the most perfect rule, he was
_straight_.

The “_knowledge_” in which the Apostle Paul, in the passage quoted above
from Colossians iii, 10, places “the image of God” after which man was
created, does not merely imply the faculty of understanding, which is a
part of the _natural_ image of God; but that which might be lost,
because it is that in which we may be “_renewed_.” It is, therefore, to
be understood of the faculty of knowledge in right exercise; and of that
willing reception, and firm retaining, and hearty approval, of religious
truth, in which knowledge, when spoken of morally, is always understood
in the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to allow, with some, that Adam
understood the deep philosophy of nature, and could comprehend and
explain the sublime mysteries of religion. The circumstance of his
giving names to the animals, is certainly no sufficient proof of his
having attained to a philosophical acquaintance with their qualities and
distinguishing habits, although we should allow their names to be still
retained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive of their peculiarities
as some expositors have stated. Sufficient time appears not to have been
afforded him for the study of the properties of animals, as this event
took place previous to the formation of Eve; and as for the notion of
his acquiring knowledge by intuition, this is contradicted by the
_revealed_ fact, that angels themselves acquire their knowledge by
observation and study, though no doubt, with great rapidity and
certainty. The whole of this transaction was supernatural; the beasts
were “brought” to Adam, and it is probable that he named them under a
Divine suggestion. He has been also supposed to be the inventor of
language, but his history shows that he was never without speech. From
the first he was able to converse with God; and we may, therefore, infer
that language was in him a supernatural and miraculous endowment. That
his understanding was, as to its capacity, deep and large beyond any of
his posterity, must follow from the perfection in which he was created;
and his acquisitions of knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy.
It was, however, in moral and religious truth, as being of the first
concern to him, that we are to suppose the excellency of his knowledge
to have consisted. “His reason would be clear, his judgment uncorrupted,
and his conscience upright and sensible.” The best knowledge would, in
him, be placed first, and that of every other kind be made subservient
to it, according to its relation to that. The Apostle adds to knowledge,
“righteousness and true holiness;” terms which express, not merely
freedom from sin, but positive and active virtue.

Sober as these views of man’s primitive state are, it is not, perhaps,
possible for us fully to conceive of so exalted a condition as even
this. Below this standard it could not fall; and that it implied a
glory, and dignity, and moral greatness of a very exalted kind, is made
sufficiently apparent from the degree of guilt charged upon Adam when he
fell: for the aggravating circumstances of his offence may well be
deduced from the tremendous consequences which followed.

5. The salvation of Adam has been disputed; for what reason does not
appear, except that the silence of Scripture, as to his after life, has
given bold men occasion to obtrude their speculations upon a subject
which called for no such expression of opinion. As nothing to the
contrary appears, the charitable inference is, that as he was the first
to receive the promise of redemption, so he was the first to prove its
virtue. It is another presumption, that as Adam and Eve were clothed
with skins of beasts, which could not have been slain for food, these
were the skins of their sacrifices; and as the offering of animal
sacrifice was an expression of faith in the appointed propitiation, to
that refuge we may conclude they resorted, and through its merits were
accepted.

6. The Rabbinical and Mohammedan traditions and fables respecting the
first man are as absurd as they are numerous. Some of them indeed are
monstrous, unless we suppose them to be allegories in the exaggerated
style of the orientals. Some say that he was nine hundred cubits high;
whilst others, not satisfied with this, affirm that his head touched the
heavens. The Jews think that he wrote the ninety-first Psalm, invented
the Hebrew letters, and composed several treatises; the Arabians, that
he preserved twenty books which fell from heaven; and the Musselmen,
that he himself wrote ten volumes.

7. That Adam was a type of Christ, is plainly affirmed by St. Paul, who
calls him “the figure of him who was to come.” Hence our Lord is
sometimes called, not inaptly, the Second Adam. This typical relation
stands sometimes in SIMILITUDE, sometimes in CONTRAST. Adam was formed
immediately by God, as was the humanity of Christ. In each the nature
was spotless, and richly endowed with knowledge and true holiness. Both
are seen invested with dominion over the earth and all its creatures;
and this may explain the eighth Psalm, where David seems to make the
sovereignty of the first man over the whole earth in its pristine glory,
the prophetic symbol of the dominion of Christ over the world restored.
Beyond these particulars fancy must not carry us; and the typical
CONTRAST must also be limited to that which is stated in Scripture, or
supported by its allusions. Adam and Christ were each a public person, a
_federal head_ to the whole race of mankind; but the one was the
fountain of sin and death, the other of righteousness and life. By
Adam’s transgression “many were made sinners,” Rom. v, 14–19. Through
him, “death passed upon all men, because all have sinned” in him. But he
thus prefigured that one man, by whose righteousness the “free gift
comes upon all men to justification of life.” The first man communicated
a living soul to all his posterity; the other is a quickening Spirit, to
restore them to newness of life now, and to raise them up at the last
day. By the imputation of the first Adam’s sin, and the communication of
his fallen, depraved nature, death reigned over those who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; and through the
righteousness of the Second Adam, and the communication of a divine
nature by the Holy Spirit, favour and grace shall much more abound in
Christ’s true followers unto eternal life. See REDEMPTION.

ADAMA, one of the five cities which were destroyed by fire from heaven,
and buried under the waters of the Dead Sea, Gen. xiv, 2; Deut. xxix,
23. It was the most easterly of all those which were swallowed up; and
there is some probability that it was not entirely sunk under the
waters; or that the inhabitants of the country built a new city of the
same name upon the eastern shore of the Dead Sea: for Isaiah, according
to the Septuagint, says, “God will destroy the Moabites, the city of Ar,
and the remnant of Adama.”

ADAMANT, שמיר, Ἀδάμας, Ecclus. xvi, 16. A stone of impenetrable
hardness. Sometimes this name is given to the diamond; and so it is
rendered, Jer. xvii, 1. But the Hebrew word rather means a very hard
kind of stone, probably the _smiris_, which was also used for cutting,
engraving, and polishing other hard stones and crystals. The word occurs
also in Ezek. iii, 9, and Zech. vii, 12. In the former place the Lord
says to the Prophet, “I have made thy forehead as an adamant, firmer
than a rock;” that is, endued thee with undaunted courage. In the
latter, the hearts of wicked men are declared to be as adamant; neither
broken by the threatenings and judgments of God, nor penetrated by his
promises, invitations, and mercies. See DIAMOND.

ADAMITES, sects reputed to have professed the attainment of a perfect
innocence, so that they wore no clothes in their assemblies. But Lardner
doubts their existence in ancient, and Beausobre in modern, times.

ADAR, the twelfth month of the ecclesiastical, and the sixth of the
civil, year among the Hebrews. It contains but twenty-nine days, and
answers to our February, and sometimes enters into March, according to
the course of the moon, by which they regulated their seasons.

ADARCONIM, אדרכונים, a sort of money, mentioned 1 Chron. xxix, 7, and
Ezra viii, 27. The Vulgate translates it, _golden pence_, the LXX,
_pieces of gold_. They were darics, a gold coin, which some value at
twenty drachms of silver.

ADER. Jerom observes, that the place where the angels declared the birth
of Jesus Christ to the shepherds, was called by this name, Luke ii, 8,
9. The empress Helena built a church on this spot, the remains of which
are still visible.

ADDER, a venomous serpent, more usually called the viper. In our
translation of the Bible we find the word adder five times; but without
sufficient authority from the original.

שפיפון, in Gen. xlix, 17, is probably the cerastes; a serpent of the
viper kind, of a light brown colour, which lurks in the sand and the
tracks of wheels in the road, and unexpectedly bites not only the unwary
traveller, but the legs of horses and other beasts. By comparing the
Danites to this artful reptile, the patriarch intimated that by
stratagem, more than by open bravery, they should avenge themselves of
their enemies and extend their conquests.--פתן, in Psalm lviii, 4; xci,
13, signifies an asp. We may perhaps trace to this the Python of the
Greeks, and its derivatives. (See _Asp_.)--עכשוב, עכשוב found only in
Psalm cxl, 3, is derived from a verb which signifies _to bend back on
itself_. The Chaldee Paraphrasts render it עכביש, which we translate
elsewhere, _spider_: they may therefore have understood it to have been
the tarantula. It is rendered _asp_ by the Septuagint and Vulgate, and
is so taken, Rom. iii, 13. The name is from the Arabic _achasa_. But
there are several serpents which coil themselves previously to darting
on their enemy; if this be a character of the asp, it is not peculiar to
that reptile.--צפע, or צפעני, Prov. xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv, 29;
lix, 5; and Jer. viii, 17, is that deadly serpent called the basilisk,
said to kill with its very breath. See COCKATRICE.

In Psalm lviii, 5, reference is made to the effect of musical sounds
upon serpents. That they might be rendered tame and harmless by certain
charms, or soft and sweet sounds, and trained to delight in music, was
an opinion which prevailed very early and universally.

Many ancient authors mention this effect; Virgil speaks of it
particularly, _Æn._ vii, v, 750.

            _Quin et Marrubia venit de gente sacerdos,
            Fronde super galeam et felici comptus oliva,
            Archippi regis missu fortissimus Umbro;
            Vipereo generi, et graviter spirantibus hydris
            Spargere qui somnos cantuque manuque solebat,
            Mulcebatque iras, et morsus arte levabat._

             “Umbro, the brave Marrubian priest, was there,
              Sent by the Marsian monarch to the war.
             The smiling olive with her verdant boughs
             Shades his bright helmet and adorns his brows;
             His charms in peace the furious serpent keep;
             And lull the envenom’d viper’s race to sleep:
             His healing hand allay’d the raging pain,
             And at his touch the poisons fled again.”
                                                  _Pitt._

Mr. Boyle quotes the following passage from Sir H. Blunt’s Voyage into
the Levant:--

“Many rarities of living creatures I saw in Grand Cairo; but the most
ingenious was a nest of serpents, of two feet long, black and ugly, kept
by a Frenchman, who, when he came to handle them, would not endure him,
but ran and hid in their hole. Then he would take his cittern and play
upon it. They, hearing his music, came all crawling to his feet, and
began to climb up him, till he gave over playing, then away they ran.”

The wonderful effect which music produces on the serpent tribes, is
confirmed by the testimony of several respectable moderns. Adders swell
at the sound of a flute, raising themselves up on the one half of their
body, turning themselves round, beating proper time, and following the
instrument. Their head, naturally round and long like an eel, becomes
broad and flat like a fan. The tame serpents, many of which the
orientals keep in their houses, are known to leave their holes in hot
weather, at the sound of a musical instrument, and run upon the
performer. Dr. Shaw had an opportunity of seeing a number of serpents
keep exact time with the Dervishes in their circulatory dances, running
over their heads and arms, turning when they turned, and stopping when
they stopped. The rattlesnake acknowledges the power of music as much as
any of his family; of which the following instance is a decisive proof:
When Chateaubriand was in Canada, a snake of that species entered their
encampment; a young Canadian, one of the party, who could play on the
flute, to divert his associates, advanced against the serpent with his
new species of weapon: on the approach of his enemy, the haughty reptile
curled himself into a spiral line, flattened his head, inflated his
cheeks, contracted his lips, displayed his envenomed fangs, and his
bloody throat, his double tongue glowed like two flames of fire; his
eyes were burning coals; his body, swollen with rage, rose and fell like
the bellows of a forge; his dilated skin assumed a dull and scaly
appearance; and his tail, which sounded the denunciation of death,
vibrated with so great rapidity as to resemble a light vapour. The
Canadian now began to play upon his flute, the serpent started with
surprise, and drew back his head. In proportion as he was struck with
the magic effect, his eyes lost their fierceness, the oscillations of
his tail became slower, and the sound which it emitted became weaker,
and gradually died away. Less perpendicular upon their spiral line, the
rings of the fascinated serpent were by degrees expanded, and sunk one
after another upon the ground, in concentric circles. The shades of
azure, green, white, and gold, recovered their brilliancy on his
quivering skin, and slightly turning his head, he remained motionless,
in the attitude of attention and pleasure. At this moment, the Canadian
advanced a few steps, producing with his flute sweet and simple notes.
The reptile, inclining his variegated neck, opened a passage with his
head through the high grass, and began to creep after the musician,
stopping when he stopped, and beginning to follow him again, as soon as
he moved forward. In this manner he was led out of their camp, attended
by a great number of spectators, both savages and Europeans, who could
scarcely believe their eyes, when they beheld this wonderful effect of
harmony. The assembly unanimously decreed, that the serpent which had so
highly entertained them, should be permitted to escape. Many of them are
carried in baskets through Hindostan, and procure a maintenance for a
set of people who play a few simple notes on the flute, with which the
snakes seem much delighted, and keep time by a graceful motion of the
head, erecting about half their length from the ground, and following
the music with gentle curves, like the undulating lines of a swan’s
neck.

But on some serpents, these charms seem to have no power; and it appears
from Scripture, that the adder sometimes takes precautions to prevent
the fascination which he sees preparing for him: “for the deaf adder
shutteth her ear, and will not hear the voice of the most skilful
charmer.” The threatening of the Prophet Jeremiah proceeds upon the same
fact: “I will send serpents” (cockatrices) “among you, which will not be
charmed, and they shall bite you.” In all these quotations, the sacred
writers, while they take it for granted that many serpents are disarmed
by charming, plainly admit that the powers of the charmer are in vain
exerted upon others.

It is the opinion of some interpreters, that the word שחל, which in some
parts of Scripture denotes a lion, in others means an adder, or some
other kind of serpent. Thus, in the ninety-first Psalm, they render it
the basilisk: “Thou shalt tread upon the adder and the basilisk, the
young lion and the dragon thou shalt trample under foot.” Indeed, all
the ancient expositors agree, that some species of serpent is meant,
although they cannot determine what particular serpent the sacred writer
had in view. The learned Bochart thinks it extremely probable that the
holy Psalmist in this verse treats of serpents only; and, by
consequence, that both the terms שחל and כפיר mean some kind of snakes,
as well as פתן and תנין; because the coherence of the verse is by this
view better preserved, than by mingling lions and serpents together, as
our translators and other interpreters have commonly done; nor is it
easy to imagine what can be meant by treading upon the lion, and
trampling the young lion under foot; for it is not possible in walking
to tread upon the lion, as upon the adder, the basilisk, and other
serpents.

To ADJURE, to bind by oath, as under the penalty of a fearful curse,
Joshua vi, 26; Mark v, 7. 2. To charge solemnly, as by the authority,
and under pain, of the displeasure of God, Matt. xxvi, 63; Acts xix, 13.

ADONAI, one of the names of God. This word in the plural number
signifies _my Lords_. The Jews, who either out of respect or
superstition, do not pronounce the name of Jehovah, read Adonai in the
room of it, as often as they meet with Jehovah in the Hebrew text. But
the ancient Jews were not so scrupulous. Neither is there any law which
forbids them to pronounce any name of God.

ADONIS. The text of the Vulgate in Ezek. viii, 14, says, that the
Prophet saw women sitting in the temple, and weeping for Adonis; but
according to the reading of the Hebrew text, they are said to weep for
Thamuz, or Tammuz, the _hidden one_. Among the Egyptians Adonis was
adored under the name of Osiris, the husband of Isis. But he was
sometimes called by the name of Ammuz, or Tammuz, _the concealed_,
probably to denote his death or burial. The Hebrews, in derision,
sometimes call him the _dead_, Psalm cvi, 28; Lev. xix, 28; because they
wept for him, and represented him as dead in his coffin; and at other
times they denominate him the image of jealousy, Ezek. viii, 3, 5,
because he was the object of the jealousy of Mars. The Syrians,
Phœnicians, and Cyprians, called him Adonis; and Calmet is of opinion
that the Ammonites and Moabites designated him by the name of Baal-peor.

The manner in which they celebrated the festival of this false deity was
as follows: They represented him as lying dead in his coffin, wept for
him, bemoaned themselves, and sought for him with great eagerness and
inquietude. After this, they pretended that they had found him again,
and that he was still living. At this good news they exhibited marks of
the most extravagant joy, and were guilty of a thousand lewd practices,
to convince Venus how much they congratulated her on the return and
revival of her favourite, as they had before condoled with her on his
death. The Hebrew women, of whom the Prophet Ezekiel speaks, celebrated
the feasts of Tammuz, or Adonis, in Jerusalem; and God showed the
Prophet these women weeping for this infamous god, even in his temple.

Fabulous history gives the following account of Adonis: He was a
beautiful young shepherd, the son of Cyniras, king of Cyprus, by his own
daughter Myrrha. The goddess Venus fell in love with this youth, and
frequently met him on mount Libanus. Mars, who envied this rival,
transformed himself into a wild boar, and, as Adonis was hunting, struck
him in the groin and killed him. Venus lamented the death of Adonis in
an inconsolable manner. The eastern people, in imitation of her
mourning, generally established some solemn days for the bewailing of
Adonis. After his death, Venus went to the shades, and obtained from
Proserpine, that Adonis might be with her six months in the year, and
continue the other six in the infernal regions. Upon this were founded
those public rejoicings, which succeeded the lamentations of his death.
Some say that Adonis was a native of Syria; some, of Cyprus; and others,
of Egypt.

ADOPTION. An act by which one takes another into his family, owns him
for his son, and appoints him his heir. The Greeks and Romans had many
regulations concerning adoption. It does not appear that adoption,
properly so called, was formerly in use among the Jews. Moses makes no
mention of it in his laws; and the case of Jacob’s two grandsons, Gen.
xlviii, 14, seems rather a substitution.

2. Adoption in a theological sense is that act of God’s free grace by
which, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into
the family of God, and entitled to the inheritance of heaven. This
appears not so much a distinct act of God, as involved in, and
necessarily flowing from, our justification; so that, at least the one
always implies the other. Nor is there any good ground to suppose that
in the New Testament the term adoption is used with any reference to the
civil practice of adoption by the Greeks, Romans, or other Heathens, and
therefore it is not judicious to illustrate the texts in which the word
occurs by their formalities. The Apostles in using the term appear to
have had before them the simple view, that our sins had deprived us of
our sonship, the favour of God, and the right to the inheritance of
eternal life; but that, upon our return to God, and reconciliation with
him, our forfeited privileges were not only restored, but greatly
heightened through the paternal kindness of God. They could scarcely be
forgetful of the affecting parable of the prodigal son; and it is under
the same view that St. Paul quotes from the Old Testament, “Wherefore
come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch
not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father
unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty.”

Adoption, then, is that act by which we who were alienated, and enemies,
and disinherited, are made the sons of God, and heirs of his eternal
glory. “If children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with
Christ;” where it is to be remarked, that it is not in our own right,
nor in the right of any work done in us, or which we ourselves do,
though it should be an evangelical work, that we become heirs; but
jointly with Christ, and in his right.

3. To this state belong, freedom from a servile spirit, for we are not
servants but sons; the special love and care of God our heavenly Father;
a filial confidence in him; free access to him at all times and in all
circumstances; a title to the heavenly inheritance; and the Spirit of
adoption, or the witness of the Holy Spirit to our adoption, which is
the foundation of all the comfort we can derive from those privileges,
as it is the only means by which we can know that they are ours.

4. The last mentioned great privilege of adoption merits special
attention. It consists in the inward witness or testimony of the Holy
Spirit to the sonship of believers, from which flows a comfortable
persuasion or conviction of our present acceptance with God, and the
hope of our future and eternal glory. This is taught in several passages
of Scripture:--

Rom. viii, 15, 16, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again
to fear, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children
of God.” In this passage it is to be remarked, 1. That the Holy Spirit
takes away “fear,” a servile dread of God as offended. 2. That the
“Spirit of God” here mentioned, is not the personified spirit or genius
of the Gospel, as some would have it, but “the Spirit itself,” or
himself, and hence he is called in the Galatians, “the Spirit of his
Son,” which cannot mean the genius of the Gospel. 3. That he inspires a
filial confidence in God, as our Father, which is opposed to “the fear”
produced by the “spirit of bondage.” 4. That he excites this filial
confidence, and enables us to call God our Father, by witnessing,
bearing testimony with our spirit, “that we are the children of God.”

Gal. iv, 4–6, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; and because
ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.” Here also are to be noted, 1. The means of our
redemption from under (the curse of) the law,--the incarnation and
sufferings of Christ. 2. That the adoption of sons follows upon our
actual redemption from that curse, or, in other words, upon our pardon.
3. That upon our being pardoned, the “Spirit of the Son” is “sent forth
into our hearts,” producing the same effect as that mentioned in the
Epistle to the Romans, viz. filial confidence in God,--“crying, Abba,
Father.” To these texts are to be added all those passages, so numerous
in the New Testament, which express the confidence and the joy of
Christians; their friendship with God; their confident access to him as
their God; their entire union and delightful intercourse with him in
spirit.

This has been generally termed the doctrine of assurance, and, perhaps,
the expressions of St. Paul, “the full assurance of faith,” and “the
full assurance of hope,” may warrant the use of the word. But as there
is a current and generally understood sense of this term, implying that
the assurance of our present acceptance and sonship implies an assurance
of our final perseverance, and of an indefeasible title to heaven; the
phrase, a comfortable persuasion, or conviction of our justification and
adoption, arising out of the Spirit’s inward and direct testimony, is to
be preferred.

There is, also, another reason for the sparing and cautious use of the
term assurance, which is, that it seems to imply, though not
necessarily, the absence of all doubt, and shuts out all those lower
degrees of persuasion which may exist in the experience of Christians.
For, our faith may not at first, or at all times, be equally strong, and
the testimony of the Spirit may have its degrees of clearness.
Nevertheless, the fulness of this attainment is to be pressed upon every
one: “Let us draw near,” says St. Paul to all Christians, “with full
assurance of faith.”

It may serve, also, to remove an objection sometimes made to the
doctrine, and to correct an error which sometimes pervades the statement
of it, to observe that this assurance, persuasion, or conviction,
whichever term be adopted, is not of the essence of justifying faith;
that is, justifying faith does not consist in the assurance that I am
now forgiven, through Christ. This would be obviously contradictory. For
we must believe before we can be justified; much more before we can be
assured, in any degree, that we are justified:--this persuasion,
therefore, follows justification, and is one of its results. But though
we must not only distinguish, but separate, this persuasion of our
acceptance from the faith which justifies, we must not separate it, but
only distinguish it, from justification itself. With that come in as
concomitants, adoption, the “Spirit of adoption,” and regeneration.

ADORATION, the act of rendering divine honours; or of addressing God or
any other being as supposing it to be God. (See _Worship_.) The word is
compounded of _ad_, “to,” and _os_, “mouth;” and literally signifies to
apply the hand to the mouth; _manum ad os admovere_, “to kiss the hand;”
this being in eastern countries one of the great marks of respect and
submission. To this mode of idolatrous worship Job refers, xxxi, 26, 27.
See also 1 Kings xix, 18.

The Jewish manner of adoration was by prostration, bowing, and kneeling.
The Christians adopted the Grecian, rather than the Roman, method, and
always adored uncovered. The ordinary posture of the ancient Christians
was kneeling; but on Sundays, standing.

ADORATION is also used for certain extraordinary acts of civil honour,
which resemble those paid to the Deity, yet are given to men.

We read of adorations paid to kings, princes, emperors, popes, bishops,
abbots, &c, by kneeling, falling prostrate, kissing the feet, hands,
garments, &c.

The Persian manner of adoration, introduced by Cyrus, was by bending the
knee, and falling on the face at the prince’s feet, striking the earth
with the forehead, and kissing the ground. This was an indispensable
condition on the part of foreign ministers and ambassadors, as well as
the king’s own vassals, of being admitted to audience, and of obtaining
any favour. This token of reverence was ordered to be paid to their
favourites as well as to themselves, as we learn from the history of
Haman and Mordecai, in the book of Esther; and even to their statues and
images; for Philostratus informs us that, in the time of Apollonius, a
golden statue of the king was exposed to all who entered Babylon, and
none but those who adored it were admitted within the gates. The
ceremony, which the Greeks called ϖροσκυνεῖν, Conon refused to perform
to Artaxerxes, and Callisthenes to Alexander the Great, as reputing it
impious and unlawful.

The adoration performed to the Roman and Grecian emperors consisted in
bowing or kneeling at the prince’s feet, laying hold of his purple robe,
and then bringing the hand to the lips. Some attribute the origin of
this practice to Constantius. They were only persons of rank or dignity
that were entitled to the honour. Bare kneeling before the emperor to
deliver a petition, was also called adoration.

It is particularly said of Dioclesian, that he had gems fastened to his
shoes, that divine honours might be more willingly paid him, by kissing
his feet. And this mode of adoration was continued till the last age of
the Greek monarchy. When any one pays his respects to the king of Achen
in Sumatra, he first takes off his shoes and stockings, and leaves them
at the door.

The practice of adoration may be said to be still subsisting in England,
in the custom of kissing the king’s or queen’s hand.

Adoration is also used in the court of Rome, in the ceremony of kissing
the pope’s feet. It is not certain at what period this practice was
introduced into the church: but it was probably borrowed from the
Byzantine court, and accompanied the temporal power. Dr. Maclaine, in
the chronological table which he has subjoined to his translation of
Mosheim’s _Ecclesiastical History_, places its introduction in the
eighth century, immediately after the grant of Pepin and Charlemagne.
Baronius traces it to a much higher antiquity, and pretends that
examples of this homage to the vicars of Christ occur so early as the
year 204. These prelates finding a vehement disposition in the people to
fall down before them, and kiss their feet, procured crucifixes to be
fastened on their slippers; by which stratagem, the adoration intended
for the pope’s person is supposed to be transferred to Christ. Divers
acts of this adoration we find offered even by princes to the pope; and
Gregory XIII, claims this act of homage as a duty.

Adoration properly is paid only to the pope when placed on the altar, in
which posture the cardinals, conclavists, alone are admitted to kiss his
feet. The people are afterward admitted to do the like at St. Peter’s
church; the ceremony is described at large by Guicciardin.

Adoration is more particularly used for kissing one’s hand in presence
of another as a token of reverence. The Jews adored by kissing their
hands, and bowing down their heads; whence in their language kissing is
properly used for adoration. This illustrates a passage in Psalm ii,
“Kiss the Son lest he be angry;”--that is, pay him _homage_ and
_worship_.

It was the practice among the Greek Christians to worship with the head
uncovered, 1 Cor. xi; but in the east the ancient custom of worshipping
with the head covered was retained.

ADRAMMELECH, the son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. The king returning
to Nineveh, after his unhappy expedition made into Judea against king
Hezekiah, was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, whilst
at his devotions in the temple of his god Nisroch, Isaiah xxxvii, 38; 2
Kings xix. It is not known what prompted these two princes to commit
this parricide; but after they had committed the murder, they fled for
safety to the mountains of Armenia, and their brother, Esarhaddon,
succeeded to the crown.

ADRAMMELECH was also one of the gods adored by the inhabitants of
Sepharvaim, who were settled in the country of Samaria, in the room of
the Israelites, who were carried beyond the Euphrates. The Sepharvaites
made their children pass through the fire in honour of this idol, and
another, called _Anammelech_, 2 Kings xvii, 31. The Rabbins say, that
Adrammelech was represented under the form of a mule; but there is much
more reason to believe that Adrammelech meant the sun, and Anammelech
the moon; the first signifying _the magnificent king_, the second _the
gentle king_,--many eastern nations adoring the moon as a _god_, not as
a _goddess_.

ADRAMYTTIUM, a city on the west coast of Mysia, in Lesser Asia, over
against the isle of Lesbos. It was in a ship belonging to this place,
that St. Paul sailed from Cesarea to proceed to Rome as a prisoner, Acts
xxvii, 2. It is now called _Edremit_.

ADRIA. This name, which occurs in Acts xxvii, 27, is now confined to the
gulf lying between Italy on the one side, and the coasts of Dalmatia and
Albania on the other. But in St. Paul’s time it was extended to all that
portion of the Mediterranean between Crete and Sicily. Thus Ptolemy says
that Sicily was bounded on the east by the Adriatic, and Crete in a
similar manner on the west; and Strabo says that the Ionian Gulf was a
part of what, in his time, was called the Adriatic Sea.

ADULLAM, a city in the tribe of Judah, to the west of Hebron, whose king
was slain by Joshua, Josh. xii, 15. It is frequently mentioned in the
history of Saul and David; and is chiefly memorable from the cave in its
neighbourhood, where David retired from Achish, king of Gath, when he
was joined by the distressed and discontented, to the number of four
hundred, over whom he became captain, 1 Sam. xxii, 1. Judas Maccabeus
encamped in the plain of Adullam, where he passed the Sabbath day, 2
Mac. xii, 38. Eusebius says that, in his time, Adullam was a very great
town, ten miles to the east of Eleutheropolis.

ADULTERY, the violation of the marriage bed. The law of Moses punished
with death both the man and the woman who were guilty of this crime,
Lev. xx, 10. If a woman was betrothed to a man, and was guilty of this
infamous crime before the marriage was completed, she was, in this case,
along with her paramour, to be stoned, Deut. xxii, 22–24.

When any man among the Jews, prompted by jealousy, suspected his wife of
the crime of adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and
informed them that, in consequence of his suspicions, he had privately
admonished her, but that she was regardless of his admonitions. If
before the judges she asserted her innocency, he required that she
should drink the _waters of jealousy_, that God might by these means
discover what she attempted to conceal, Num. v, 12, &c. The man then
produced his witnesses, and they were heard. After this, both the man
and the woman were conveyed to Jerusalem, and placed before the
sanhedrim; the judges of which, by threats and other means, endeavoured
to confound the woman, and make her confess. If she persisted in denying
the fact, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel,
stripped of her own clothes, and dressed in black, before great numbers
of her own sex. The priest then told her, that if she was really
innocent, she had nothing to fear; but if guilty, she might expect to
suffer all that the law had denounced against her, to which she
answered, “Amen, amen.” The priest then wrote the terms of the law in
this form:--“If a strange man hath not come near you, and you are not
polluted by forsaking the bed of your husband, these bitter waters,
which I have cursed, will not hurt you: but if you have polluted
yourself by coming near to another man, and gone astray from your
husband,--may you be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all
his people; may your thigh rot, and your belly swell till it burst; may
these cursed waters enter into your belly, and being swelled therewith,
may your thighs putrefy.“

After this, the priest filled a pitcher out of the brazen vessel, near
the altar of burnt offerings, cast some dust of the pavement into it,
mingled something with it as bitter as wormwood, and then read the
curses, and received her answer of Amen. Another priest, in the
meantime, tore off her clothes as low as her bosom--made her head
bare--untied the tresses of her hair--fastened her clothes, which were
thus torn, with a girdle under her breasts, and then presented her with
the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints, of barley meal. The
other priest then gave her the _waters of jealousy_, or bitterness, to
drink; and as soon as the woman had swallowed them, he gave her the meal
in a vessel like a frying-pan into her hand. This was stirred before the
Lord, and part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the wife was
innocent, she returned with her husband, and the waters, so far from
injuring her, increased her health, and made her more fruitful; but if
she was guilty, she grew pale immediately, her eyes swelled; and, lest
she should pollute the temple, she was instantly carried out, with these
symptoms upon her, and died instantly, with all the ignominious
circumstances related in the curses.

On this law of Moses, Michaëlis has the following remarks:--

“This oath was, perhaps, a relic of some more severe and barbarous
consuetudinary laws, whose rigours Moses mitigated; as he did in many
other cases, where an established usage could not be conveniently
abolished altogether. Among ourselves, in barbarous times, the _ordeal_,
or trial by fire, was, notwithstanding the parity of our married people,
in common use; and this, in point of equity, was much the same in
effect, as if the husband had had the right to insist on his wife
submitting to the hazardous trial of her purity, by drinking a poisoned
potion; which, according to an ancient superstition, could never hurt
her if she was innocent. And, in fact, such a right is not altogether
unexampled; for, according to Oldendorp’s _History of the Mission of the
Evangelical Brethren, in the Caribbee Islands_, it is actually in use
among some of the savage nations in the interior parts of Western
Africa.

“Now, when in place of a poisoned potion like this, which very few
husbands can be very willing to have administered to their wives, we
see, as among the Hebrews, an imprecation-drink, whose avenger God
himself promises to become, we cannot but be struck with the contrast of
wisdom and clemency which such a contrivance manifests. In the one case,
(and herein consists their great distinction,) innocence can only be
preserved by a miracle; while, on the other, guilt only is revealed and
punished by the hand of God himself.

“By one of the clauses of the oath of purgation, (and had not the
legislator been perfectly assured of his divine mission, the insertion
of any such clause would have been a very bold step indeed,) a visible
and corporeal punishment was specified, which the person swearing
imprecated on herself, and which God himself was understood as engaging
to execute. To have given so accurate a definition of the punishment
that God meant to inflict, and still more one that consisted of such a
rare disease, would have been a step of incomprehensible boldness in a
legislator who pretended to have a divine mission, if he was not, with
the most assured conviction, conscious of its reality.

“Seldom, however, very seldom, was it likely that Providence would have
an opportunity of inflicting the punishment in question. For the oath
was so regulated, that a woman of the utmost effrontery could scarcely
have taken it without changing colour to such a degree as to betray
herself.

“In the _first_ place, it was not administered to the woman in her own
house, but she was under the necessity of going to that place of the
land where God in a special manner had his abode, and took it there.
Now, the solemnity of the place, unfamiliarized to her by daily business
or resort, would have a great effect upon her mind. In the _next_ place,
there was offered unto God what was termed an _execration offering_, not
in order to propitiate his mercy, but to invoke his vengeance on the
guilty. Here the process was extremely slow, which gave her more time
for reflection than to a guilty person could be acceptable, and that,
too, amidst a multitude of unusual ceremonies. For the priest conducted
her to the front of the sanctuary, and took holy water, that is, water
out of the priests’ laver, which stood before it, together with some
earth off its floor, which was likewise deemed holy; and having put the
earth in the water, he then proceeded to uncover the woman’s head, that
her face might be seen, and every change on her countenance during the
administration of the oath accurately observed: and this was a
circumstance which, in the east, where the women are always veiled, must
have had a great effect; because a woman, accustomed to wear a veil,
could, on so extraordinary an occasion, have had far less command of her
eyes and her countenance than a European adulteress, who is generally a
perfect mistress in all the arts of dissimulation, would display. To
render the scene still more awful, the tresses of her hair were
loosened, and then the execration offering was put into _her_ hand,
while the priest held in _his_ the imprecation water. This is commonly
termed the _bitter water_; but we must not understand this as if the
water had really been bitter; for how could it have been so? The earth
of the floor of the tabernacle could not make it bitter. Among the
Hebrews, and other oriental nations, the word _bitter_ was rather used
for _curse_: and, strictly speaking, the phrase does not mean _bitter
water_, but the _water of bitternesses_, that is, of curses. The priest
now pronounced the oath, which was in all points so framed that it could
excite no terrors in the breast of an innocent woman; for it expressly
consisted in this, that the imprecation water should not harm her if she
was innocent. It would seem as if the priest here made a stop, and again
left the woman some time to consider whether she would proceed with the
oath. This I infer from the circumstance of his speech not being
directly continued in verse 21st, which is rather the _apodosis_ of what
goes before; and from the detail proceeding anew in the words of the
historian, _Then shall the priest pronounce the rest of the oath and the
curses to the woman; and proceed thus_.--After this stop he pronounced
the curses, and the woman was obliged to declare her acquiescence in
them by a repeated _Amen_. Nor was the solemn scene yet altogether at an
end; but rather, as it were commenced anew. For the priest had yet to
write the curses in a book, which I suppose he did at great
deliberation; having done so, he washed them out again in the very
imprecation water, which the woman had now to drink; and this water
being now presented to her, she was obliged to drink it, with this
warning and assurance, in the name of God, that if she was guilty, it
would prove within her an absolute curse. Now, what must have been her
feelings, while drinking, if not conscious of purity? In my opinion she
must have conceived that she already felt an alteration in the state of
her body, and the germ, as it were, of the disease springing within her.
Conscience and imagination would conspire together, and render it almost
impossible for her to drink it out. Finally, the execration offering was
taken out of her hand, and burnt upon the altar. I cannot but think
that, under the sanction of such a _purgatorium_, perjury must have been
a very rare occurrence indeed. If it happened but once in an age, God
had bound himself to punish it; and if this took place but once, (if but
one woman who had taken the oath was attacked with that rare disease
which it threatened,) it was quite enough to serve as a determent to all
others for at least one generation.”

This procedure had also the effect of keeping in mind, among the Jews,
God’s high displeasure against this violation of his law; and though
some lax moralists have been found, in modern times, to palliate it, yet
the Christian will always remember the solemn denunciations of the New
Testament against a crime so aggravated, whether considered in its
effects upon the domestic relations, upon the moral character of the
guilty parties, or upon society at large,--“Whoremongers and adulterers
God will judge.”

ADULTERY, in the prophetic scriptures, is often metaphorically taken,
and signifies idolatry, and apostasy from God, by which men basely
defile themselves, and wickedly violate their ecclesiastical and
covenant relation to God, Hos. ii, 2; Ezek. xvi.

ADVOCATE, Παράκλητος, _a patron_, one who pleads the cause of any one
before another. In this sense the term is applied to Christ our
intercessor, 1 John ii, 1. It signifies also a _comforter_, and _an
instructer_; and is used of the Holy Spirit, John xiv, 16, and xv, 26.

ADYTUM is a Greek word, signifying _inaccessible_, by which is
understood the most retired and secret place of the Heathen temples,
into which none but the priests were allowed to enter. The _adytum_ of
the Greeks and Romans answered to the _sanctum sanctorum_ of the Jews,
and was the place from whence oracles were delivered.

ÆRA, a series of years, commencing from a certain point of time called
an _epocha_: thus we say, the Christian æra; that is, the number of
years elapsed since the birth of Christ. The generality of authors use
the terms æra and epocha in a synonymous sense; that is, for the point
of time from which any computation begins.

The ancient Jews made use of several æras in their computation;
sometimes they reckoned from the deluge, sometimes from the division of
tongues; sometimes from their departure out of Egypt; and at other times
from the building of the temple; and sometimes from the restoration
after the Babylonish captivity: but their vulgar æra was from the
creation of the world, which falls in with the year of the Julian period
953; and consequently they supposed the world created 294 years sooner
than according to our computation. But when the Jews became subject to
the Syro-Macedonian kings, they were obliged to make use of the æra of
the Seleucidæ in all their contracts, which from thence was called the
æra of contracts. This æra begins with the year of the world 3692, of
the Julian period 4402, and before Christ 312. The æra in general use
among the Christians is that from the birth of Jesus Christ, concerning
the true time of which chronologers differ; some place it two years,
others four, and again others five, before the vulgar æra, which is
fixed for the year of the world 4004: but Archbishop Usher, and after
him the generality of modern chronologers, place it in the year of the
world 4000.

The ancient Heathens used several æras:

1. The æra of the first olympiad is placed in the year of the world
3228, and before the vulgar æra of Jesus Christ 776. 2. The taking of
Troy by the Greeks, in the year of the world 2820, and before Jesus
Christ 1884. 3. The voyage undertaken for the purpose of bringing away
the golden fleece, in the year of the world 2760. 4. The foundation of
Rome, in 2856. 5. The æra of Nabonassar, in 3257. 6. The æra of
Alexander the Great, or his last victory over Darius, in 3674, and
before Jesus Christ 330.

AERIANS, a sect which arose about the middle of the fourth century,
being the followers of Aërius, (who must be distinguished from Arius and
Aëtius,) a monk and a presbyter of Sebastia, in Pontus. He is charged
with being an Arian, or Semi-Arian; but the heaviest accusation against
him is an attempt to reform the church; and, by rejecting prayers for
the dead, with certain fasts and festivals then superstitiously
observed, to reduce Christianity as nearly as possible “to its primitive
simplicity; a purpose, indeed, laudable and noble,” says Dr. Mosheim,
“when considered in itself: though the principles from _whence_ it
springs, and the means _by_ which it is executed, are sometimes, in many
respects, worthy of censure, and _may_ have been so in the case of this
reformer.” This gentle rebuke probably refers to a report that the zeal
of Aërius originated in his being disappointed of the bishopric of
Sebastia, (conferred on Eustathius,) which led him to affirm that the
Scriptures make no distinction between a presbyter and a bishop, which
he founded chiefly on 1 Tim. iv, 14. Hence he is considered by many, as
the father of the modern Presbyterians.--“For this opinion, _chiefly_,”
says Dr. Turner, “he is ranked among the heretics, by Epiphanius, his
contemporary, who calls it a notion _full of folly and madness_. His
followers were driven from the churches, and out of all the towns and
villages, and were obliged to assemble in the woods, caverns, and open
defiles.”

AETIANS, another branch (as it is said) of Arians, so called from
Aëtius, bishop of Antioch, who is also charged with maintaining “faith
without works,” as “sufficient to salvation,” or rather justification;
and with maintaining “that sin is not imputed to believers.” It is
added, that he taught God had revealed to him things which he had
“concealed from the Apostles;” which, perhaps, is only a
misrepresentation of what he taught on the doctrine of divine
influences.

AFFINITY. There are several degrees of affinity, wherein marriage was
prohibited by the law of Moses: thus the son could not marry his mother,
nor his father’s wife, Lev. xviii, 7, &c. The brother could not marry
his sister, whether she were so by the father only, or only by the
mother, and much less if she were his sister both by the same father and
mother. The grandfather could not marry his granddaughter, either by his
son or daughter. No one could marry the daughter of his father’s wife;
nor the sister of his father or mother; nor the uncle, his niece; nor
the aunt, her nephew; nor the nephew, the wife of his uncle by the
father’s side. The father-in-law could not marry his daughter-in-law;
nor the brother the wife of his brother, while living; nor even after
the death of his brother, if he left children. If he left no children,
the surviving brother was to raise up children to his deceased brother
by marrying his widow. It was forbidden to marry the mother and the
daughter at one time, or the daughter of the mother’s son, or the
daughter of her daughter, or two sisters, together.

It is true the patriarchs, before the law, married their sisters, as
Abraham married Sarah, who was his father’s daughter by another mother;
and two sisters together, as Jacob married Rachel and Leah; and their
own sisters, both by father and mother, as Seth and Cain. But these
cases are not to be proposed as examples; because in some they were
authorized by necessity; in others, by custom; and the law as yet was
not in being. If some other examples may be found, either before or
since the law, the Scripture expressly disapproves of them; as Reuben’s
incest with Balah, his father’s concubine; and the action of Amnon with
his sister Tamar; and that of Herod Antipas, who married Herodias, his
sister-in-law, his brother Philip’s wife, while her husband was yet
living; and that which St. Paul reproves and punishes among the
Corinthians, 1 Cor. v, 1.

AGABUS, a prophet, and as the Greeks say, one of the seventy disciples
of our Saviour. He foretold that there would be a great famine over all
the earth; which came to pass accordingly, under the emperor Claudius,
in the fourth year of his reign, A. D. 44, Acts xi, 28.

Ten years after this, as St. Paul was going to Jerusalem, and had
already landed at Cæsarea, in Palestine, the same prophet, Agabus,
arrived there, and coming to visit St. Paul and his company, he took
this Apostle’s girdle, and binding himself hand and feet, he said, “Thus
saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that
owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the
Gentiles,” Acts xxi, 10. We know no other particulars of the life of
Agabus. The Greeks say that he suffered martyrdom at Antioch.

AGAG. This seems to have been a common name of the princes of Amalek,
one of whom was very powerful as early as the time of Moses, Num. xxiv,
7. On account of the cruelties exercised by this king and his army
against the Israelites, as they returned from Egypt, a bloody and long
contested battle took place between Joshua and the Amalekites, in which
the former was victorious, Exod. xvii, 8–13. At the same time, God
protested with an oath to destroy Amalek, verses 14–16; Deut. xxv,
17–19, A. M. 2513. About four hundred years after this, the Lord
remembered the cruel treatment of his people, and his own oath; and he
commanded Saul, by the mouth of Samuel, to destroy the Amalekites. Saul
mustered his army, and found it two hundred thousand strong, 1 Sam. xv,
1, &c. Having entered into their country, he cut in pieces all he could
meet with from Havilah to Shur. Agag their king, and the best of their
cattle, were however spared, an act of disobedience on the part of Saul,
probably dictated by covetousness. But Agag did not long enjoy this
reprieve; for Samuel no sooner heard that he was alive, than he sent for
him; and notwithstanding his insinuating address, and the vain hopes
with which he flattered himself that the bitterness of death was past,
he caused him to be hewed to pieces in Gilgal before the Lord, saying,
“As, כאשר, _in the same identical mode as_, thy sword hath made women
childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.” This savage
chieftain had hewed many prisoners to death; and, therefore, by command
of the Judge of the whole earth, he was visited with the same punishment
which he had inflicted upon others.

AGAPÆ. See LOVE FEAST.

AGAR, mount Sinai, so called, Gal. iv, 24, 25. But this reading is
doubtful, many MSS. having the verse, “for this Sinai is a mountain of
Arabia.” Some critics however contend for the reading of the received
text, and urge that _Agar_, which signifies “a rocky mountain,” is the
Arabic name for _Sinai_.

AGATE, שבו, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12. In the Septuagint ἀχάτης, and
Vulgate, _achates_. A precious stone, semi-pellucid. Its variegations
are sometimes most beautifully disposed, representing plants, trees,
rivers, clouds, &c. Its Hebrew name is, perhaps, derived from the
country whence the Jews imported it; for the merchants of Sheba brought
to the market of Tyre all kinds of precious stones, Ezek. xxvii, 22. The
agate was the second stone in the third row of the pectoral of the high
priest, Exod. xxviii, 19, and xxxix, 12.

AGE, in the most general sense of the term, denotes the duration of any
substance, animate or inanimate; and is applied either to the whole
period of its existence, or to that portion of it which precedes the
time to which the description of it refers. In this sense it is used to
signify either the whole natural duration of the LIFE of man, or any
interval of it that has elapsed before the period of which we speak.
When age is understood of a certain portion of the life of man, its
whole duration is divided into four different ages, viz. infancy, youth,
manhood, and old age: the first extending to the fourteenth year; the
second, denominated youth, adolescence, or the age of puberty,
commencing at fourteen, and terminating at about twenty-five; manhood,
or the virile age, concluding at fifty; and the last ending at the close
of life. Some divide the first period into infancy and childhood; and
the last likewise into two stages, calling that which succeeds the age
of seventy-five, decrepit old age. Age is applicable to the duration of
things inanimate or factitious; and in this use of the term we speak of
the age of a house, of a country, of a state or kingdom, &c.

AGE, in _chronology_, is used for a century, or a period of one hundred
years: in which sense it is the same with _seculum_, and differs from
_generation_. It is also used in speaking of the times past since the
creation of the world. The several ages of the world may be reduced to
three grand epochas, viz. the age of the law of nature, called by the
Jews the void age, from Adam to Moses. The age of the Jewish law, from
Moses to Christ, called by the Jews the present age. And the age of
grace, from Christ to the present year. The Jews call the third age, the
age to come, or the future age; denoting by it the time from the advent
of the Messiah to the end of the world. The Romans distinguished the
time that preceded them into three ages: the obscure or uncertain age,
which reached down as low as Ogyges king of Attica, in whose reign the
deluge happened in Greece; the fabulous or heroic age, which ended at
the first olympiad; and the historical age, which commenced at the
building of Rome. Among the poets, the four ages of the world are, the
golden, the silver, the brazen, and the iron age.

Age is sometimes used among the ancient poets in the same sense as
_generation_, or a period of thirty years. Thus Nestor is said to have
lived three ages, when he was ninety years old.

The period preceding the birth of Jesus Christ has been generally
divided into six ages. The first extends from the creation to the
deluge, and comprehends 1656 years. The second age, from the deluge to
Abraham’s entering the land of promise, A. M. 2082, comprehends 426
years. The third age from Abraham’s entrance into the promised land to
the Exodus, A. M. 2512, includes 430 years. The fourth age, from the
Exodus to the building of the temple by Solomon, A. M. 2992, contains
480 years. The fifth age from the foundation of Solomon’s temple to the
Babylonish captivity, A. M. 3416, comprehends 424 years. The sixth age,
from the Babylonish captivity to the birth of Jesus Christ, A. M. 4000,
the fourth year before the vulgar æra, includes 584 years. Those who
follow the Septuagint, or Greek version, divide this period into seven
ages, viz. 1. From the creation to the deluge, 2262 years. 2. From the
deluge to the confusion of tongues, 738 years. 3. From this confusion to
the calling of Abraham, 460 years. 4. From this period to Jacob’s
descent into Egypt, 215 years; and from this event to the Exodus, 430
years, making the whole 645 years. 5. From the Exodus to Saul, 774
years. 6. From Saul to Cyrus, 583 years. 7. From Cyrus to the vulgar æra
of Christians, 538 years; the whole period from the creation to this
period containing 6000 years.

AGRIPPA, surnamed Herod, the son of Aristobulus and Mariamne, and
grandson of Herod the Great, was born A. M. 3997, three years before the
birth of our Saviour, and seven years before the vulgar æra. After the
death of his father Aristobulus, Josephus informs us that Herod, his
grandfather, took care of his education, and sent him to Rome to make
his court to Tiberius. Agrippa, having a great inclination for Caius,
the son of Germanicus, and grandson of Antonia, chose to attach himself
to this prince, as if he had some prophetic views of the future
elevation of Caius, who at that time was beloved by all the world. The
great assiduity and agreeable behaviour of Agrippa so far won upon this
prince, that he was unable to live without him. Agrippa, being one day
in conversation with Caius, was overheard by one Eutychus, a slave whom
Agrippa had emancipated, to say that he should be glad to see the old
emperor take his departure for the other world and leave Caius master of
this, without meeting with any obstacle from the emperor’s grandson,
Tiberius Nero. Eutychus, some time after this, thinking he had reason to
be dissatisfied with Agrippa, communicated the conversation to the
emperor; whereupon Agrippa was loaded with fetters, and committed to the
custody of an officer. Soon after this, Tiberius dying, and Caius
Caligula succeeding him, the new emperor heaped many favours and much
wealth upon Agrippa, changed his iron fetters into a chain of gold, set
a royal diadem on his head, and gave him the tetrarchy which Philip, the
son of Herod the Great, had been possessed of, that is, Batanæa and
Trachonitis. To this he added that of Lysanias; and Agrippa returned
very soon into Judea, to take possession of his new kingdom. The emperor
Caius, desiring to be adored as a god, commanded to have his statue set
up in the temple of Jerusalem. But the Jews opposed this design with so
much resolution, that Petronius was forced to suspend his proceedings in
this affair, and to represent, in a letter to the emperor, the
resistance he met with from the Jews. Agrippa, who was then at Rome,
coming to the emperor at the very time he was reading the letter, Caius
told him that the Jews were the only people of all mankind who refused
to own him for a deity; and that they had taken arms to oppose his
resolution. At these words Agrippa fainted away, and, being carried home
to his house, continued in that state for a long time. As soon as he was
somewhat recovered, he wrote a long letter to Caius, wherein he
endeavoured to soften him; and his arguments made such an impression
upon the emperor’s mind, that he desisted, in appearance, from the
design which he had formed of setting up his statue in the temple. Caius
being killed in the beginning of the following year, A. D. 41, Agrippa,
who was then at Rome, contributed much by his advice to maintain
Claudius in possession of the imperial dignity, to which he had been
advanced by the army. The emperor, as an acknowledgment for his kind
offices, gave him all Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis, which had been
possessed by Herod his brother. Thus Agrippa became of a sudden one of
the greatest princes of the east, and was possessed of as much, if not
more territory, than had been held by Herod the Great, his grandfather.
He returned to Judea, and governed it to the great satisfaction of the
Jews. But the desire of pleasing them, and a mistaken zeal for their
religion, induced him to put to death the Apostle James, and to cast
Peter into prison with the same design; and, but for a miraculous
interposition, which, however, produced no effect upon the mind of the
tyrant, his hands would have been imbrued in the blood of two Apostles,
the memory whereof is preserved in Scripture. At Cæsarea, he had games
performed in honour of Claudius. Here the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon
waited on him to sue for peace. Agrippa being come early in the morning
into the theatre, with a design to give them audience, seated himself on
his throne, dressed in a robe of silver tissue, worked in the most
admirable manner. The rising sun darted his golden beams thereon, and
gave it such a lustre as dazzled the eyes of the spectators; and when
the king began his speech to the Tyrians and Sidonians, the parasites
around him began to say, it was “the voice of a god and not of man.”
Instead of rejecting these impious flatteries, Agrippa received them
with an air of complacency; and the angel of the Lord smote him because
he did not give God the glory. Being therefore carried home to his
palace, he died, at the end of five days, racked with tormenting pains
in his bowels, and devoured with worms. Such was the death of Herod
Agrippa, A. D. 44, after a reign of seven years. He left a son of the
same name, and three daughters--Bernice, who was married to her uncle
Herod, her father’s brother; Mariamne, betrothed to Julius Archelaus;
and Drusilla, promised to Epiphanius, the son of Archelaus, the son of
Comagena.

AGRIPPA, son of the former Agrippa, was at Rome with the emperor
Claudius when his father died. The emperor, we are told by Josephus, was
inclined to give him all the dominions that had been possessed by his
father, but was dissuaded from it, Agrippa being only seventeen years of
age; and he kept him therefore at his court four years.

Three years after this, Herod, king of Chalcis, and uncle to young
Agrippa, dying, the emperor gave his dominions to this prince, who,
notwithstanding, did not go into Judea till four years after, A. D. 53;
when, Claudius taking from him the kingdom of Chalcis, gave him the
provinces of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanæa, Paneas, and Abylene,
which formerly had been in the possession of Lysanias. After the death
of Claudius, his successor, Nero, who had a great affection for Agrippa,
to his other dominions added Julias in Peræa, and that part of Galilee
to which Tarichæa and Tiberias belonged. Festus governor of Judea,
coming to his government, A. D. 60, king Agrippa and Bernice, his
sister, went as far as Cæsarea to salute him; and as they continued
there for some time, Festus talked with the king concerning the affair
of St. Paul, who had been seized in the temple about two years before,
and within a few days previous to his visit had appealed to the emperor.
Agrippa wishing to hear Paul, that Apostle delivered that noble address
in his presence which is recorded, Acts xxvi.

AGUR. The thirtieth chapter of Proverbs begins with this title: “The
words of Agur, the son of Jakeh;” and the thirty-first, with “the words
of king Lemuel;” with respect to which some conjecture that Solomon
describes himself under these appellations; others, that these chapters
are the productions of persons whose real names are prefixed. Scripture
history, indeed, affords us no information respecting their situation
and character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding
their works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have
been admitted into the sacred canon.

They are called _Massa_, a term frequently applied to the undoubted
productions of the prophetic Spirit; and it is not improbable that the
authors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the
character of inspiration. A succession of virtuous and eminent men,
favoured with divine illuminations, flourished in Judea till the final
completion of the sacred code; and, most likely, many more than those
whose writings have been preserved. Agur may then have been one of those
prophets whom Divine providence raised up to comfort or admonish his
chosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the
son of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the
thirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be considered as mere
conjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture
to pronounce with certainty? The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel
are appellations of Solomon, is sanctioned by so many and such
respectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination.

The knowledge of names was anciently regarded as a matter of the highest
importance, in order to understand the nature of the persons or things
which they designate; and, in the opinion of the rabbins, was preferable
even to the study of the written law. The Heathens paid considerable
attention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some of the
Christian fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge.
The Jewish doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing
degree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd
fancies; yet it is unquestionable that many of the proper names in
Scripture are significant and characteristic. Thus the names Eve, Cain,
Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c, were imposed by reason of their being
expressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent.
Reasoning from analogy, we may infer that all the proper names in the
Old Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to denote
some quality or circumstance in the person or thing to which they
belong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to be personally
characteristic, yet are they all significative.

As the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive
ages, it is not impossible that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated to
Solomon, and Jakeh to David as mystic appellations significative of
their respective characters. It is even some confirmation of this
opinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by
the Prophet Nathan; and that in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles
himself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does
not appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It is foreign to the
simplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary to their custom in similar
cases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging
the reasons for its adoption. In the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, &c,
before alluded to; in the appellation Nabal; in the enigmatical names in
the first chapter of Hosea; in the descriptive names given to places, as
Beersheba, Jehovah-jireh, Peniel, Bethel, Gilgal; and in many other
instances, the meaning of the terms is either explained, or the
circumstances are mentioned which led to their selection. When Solomon
is called Jedidiah, it is added that it was “because of the Lord;” and
when he styles himself Koheleth, an explanatory clause is annexed,
describing himself “the son of David, the king of Jerusalem.” But if
Solomon be meant by the titles Agur and Lemuel, he is so called without
any statement of the reasons for their application, and without any
explanation of their import; a circumstance unusual with the sacred
writers, and the reverse to what is practised in the book of Proverbs,
where his proper name, Solomon, is attributed to him in three different
places. Nor is anything characteristic of the Jewish monarchs
discoverable in the terms themselves. Jakeh, which denotes _obedient_,
is no more applicable to David than to Nathan, or any other personage of
eminent worth and piety among the Israelites. The name of Agur is not of
easy explanation; some giving it the sense of _recollectus_, that is,
recovered from his errors, and become penitent; an explanation more
applicable to David than to Solomon. Simon, in his lexicon, says it may
perhaps denote “him who applies to the study of wisdom;” an
interpretation very suitable to the royal philosopher, but not supported
by adequate authority; and in his Onomasticon he explains it in a
different manner. Others suppose that it means _collector_; though it
has been argued, that, as it has a passive form, it cannot have an
active sense. But this is not a valid objection, as several examples may
be produced from the Bible of a similar form with an active
signification. If such be its meaning, it is suitable to Solomon, who
was not the collector or compiler, but the author, of the Proverbs. With
respect to the name Lemuel, it signifies one that is for God, or devoted
to God; and is not, therefore, peculiarly descriptive of Solomon. It
appears, then, that nothing can be inferred from the signification of
the names Agur and Lemuel in support of the conjecture, that they are
appellations of Solomon. The contents, likewise, of the two chapters in
question strongly militate against this hypothesis.

When all these circumstances are taken into consideration, together with
the extreme improbability that Solomon should be denominated three times
by his proper name, and afterward, in the same work, by two different
enigmatical names, we are fully warranted in rejecting the notion, that
the wise monarch is designed by the appellations Agur and Lemuel. And it
seems most reasonable to consider them as denoting real persons.

AHAB, the son and successor of Omri. He began his reign over Israel, A.
M. 3086, and reigned 22 years. In impiety he far exceeded all the kings
of Israel. He married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon,
who introduced the whole abominations and idols of her country, Baal and
Ashtaroth.

2. AHAB the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, were two
false prophets, who, about A. M. 3406, seduced the Jewish captives at
Babylon with hopes of a speedy deliverance, and stirred them up against
Jeremiah. The Lord threatened them with a public and ignominious death,
before such as they had deceived; and that their names should become a
curse; men wishing that their foes might be made like Ahab and Zedekiah,
whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon roasted in the fire, Jer. xxix, 21,
22.

AHASUERUS was the king of Persia, who advanced Esther to be queen, and
at her request delivered the Jews from the destruction plotted for them
by Haman. Archbishop Usher is of opinion that this Ahasuerus was Darius
Hystaspes; and that Atossa was the Vashti, and Artystona the Esther, of
the Scriptures. But, according to Herodotus, the latter was the daughter
of Cyrus, and therefore could not be Esther; and the former had four
sons by Darius, besides daughters, born to him after he was king; and
therefore she could not be the queen Vashti, divorced from her husband
in the third year of his reign, nor he the Ahasuerus who divorced her.
Besides, Atossa retained her influence over Darius to his death, and
obtained the succession of the crown for his son, Xerxes; whereas Vashti
was removed from the presence of Ahasuerus by an irrevocable decree,
Esther i, 19. Joseph Scaliger maintains that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus,
and Hamestris his queen, the Esther, of Scripture. The opinion is
founded on the similitude of names, but contradicted by the
dissimilitude of the characters of Hamestris and Esther. Besides,
Herodotus says that Xerxes had a son by Hamestris that was marriageable
in the seventh year of his reign; and therefore she could not be Esther.
The Ahasuerus of Scripture, according to Dr. Prideaux, was Artaxerxes
Longimanus. Josephus positively says that this was the person. The
Septuagint, through the whole book of Esther, uses Artaxerxes for the
Hebrew Ahasuerus wherever the appellation occurs; and the apocryphal
additions to that book every where call the husband of Esther
Artaxerxes; and he could be no other than Artaxerxes Longimanus. The
extraordinary favour shown to the Jews by this king, first in sending
Ezra, and afterward Nehemiah, to relieve this people, and restore them
to their ancient prosperity, affords strong presumptive evidence that
they had near his person and high in his regard such an advocate as
Esther. Ahasuerus is also a name given in Scripture, Ezra iv, 6, to
Cambyses, the son of Cyrus; and to Astyages, king of the Medes, Dan. ix,
1.

AHAVA. The name of a river of Babylonia, or rather of Assyria, where
Ezra assembled those captives whom he afterward brought into Judea, Ezra
viii, 15. The river Ahava is thought to be that which ran along the
Adabene, where a river Diava, or Adiava, is mentioned, and on which
Ptolemy places the city Abane or Aavane. This is probably the country
called Ava, whence the kings of Assyria translated the people called
Avites into Palestine, and where they settled some of the captive
Israelites, 2 Kings xvii, 24; xviii, 34; xix, 13; xvii, 31. Ezra,
intending to collect as many Israelites as he could, who might return to
Judea, halted in the country of Ava, or Aahava, whence he sent agents
into the Caspian mountains, to invite such Jews as were willing to join
him, Ezra viii, 16. The history of Izates, king of the Adiabenians, and
of his mother Helena, who became converts to Judaism some years after
the death of Jesus Christ, sufficiently proves that there were many Jews
still settled in that country.

AHAZ succeeded his father Jotham, as king of Israel, at the age of
twenty years, reigned till the year before Christ, 726, and addicted
himself to the practice of idolatry. After the customs of the Heathen,
he made his children to pass through fire; he shut up the temple, and
destroyed its vessels. He became tributary to Tiglath-pileser, whose
assistance he supplicated against the kings of Syria and Israel. Such
was his impiety, that he was not allowed burial in the sepulchres of the
kings of Israel, 2 Kings xvi; 2 Chron. xxviii.

AHAZIAH, the son of Ahab, king of Israel. Ahaziah reigned two years,
partly alone, and partly with his father Ahab, who appointed him his
associate in the kingdom a year before his death. Ahaziah imitated his
father’s impieties, 1 Kings xxii, 52, &c, and paid his adorations to
Baal and Ashtaroth, the worship of whom had been introduced into Israel
by Jezebel his mother. The Moabites, who had been always obedient to the
kings of the ten tribes, ever since their separation from the kingdom of
Judah, revolted after the death of Ahab, and refused to pay the ordinary
tribute. Ahaziah had not leisure or power to reduce them, 2 Kings i, 1,
2, &c, for, about the same time, having fallen through a lattice from
the top of his house, he was considerably injured, and sent messengers
to Ekron to consult Baalzebub, the god of that place, whether he should
recover, 2 Kings i, 1–17. Elijah met the messengers, and informed them
he should certainly die; and he died accordingly.

2. AHAZIAH, king of Judah, the son of Jehoram and Athaliah. He succeeded
his father in the kingdom of Judah, A. M. 3119; being in the
twenty-second year of his age, 2 Kings viii, 26, &c; and he reigned one
year only in Jerusalem. He walked in the ways of Ahab’s house, to which
he was related, his mother being of that family. Joram, king of Israel,
2 Kings viii, going to attack Ramoth Gilead, which the kings of Syria
had taken from his predecessors, was there dangerously wounded, and
carried by his own appointment to Jezreel, for the purpose of surgical
assistance. Ahaziah, Joram’s friend and relation, accompanied him in
this war, and came afterward to visit him at Jezreel. In the meantime,
Jehu, the son of Nimshi, whom Joram had left besieging the fortress of
Ramoth, rebelled against his master, and set out with a design of
extirpating the house of Ahab, according to the commandment of the Lord,
2 Kings ix. Joram and Ahaziah, who knew nothing of his intentions, went
to meet him. Jehu killed Joram dead upon the spot: Ahaziah fled, but
Jehu’s people overtook him at the going up of Gur, and mortally wounded
him; notwithstanding which, he had strength enough to reach Megiddo,
where he died. His servants, having laid him in his chariot, carried him
to Jerusalem, where he was buried with his fathers, in the city of
David.

AHIJAH, the prophet of the Lord, who dwelt in Shiloh. He is thought to
be the person who spoke twice to Solomon from God, once while he was
building the temple, 1 Kings vi, 11, at which time he promised him the
divine protection; and again, 1 Kings xi, 11, after his falling into his
irregularities, with great threatenings and reproaches. Ahijah was one
of those who wrote the history or annals of this prince, 2 Chron. ix,
29. The same prophet declared to Jeroboam, that he would usurp the
kingdom, 1 Kings xi, 29, &c; and, about the end of Jeroboam’s reign, he
also predicted the death of Abijah, the only pious son of that prince,
as is recorded 1 Kings xiv, 2, &c. Ahijah, in all probability, did not
long survive the delivery of this last prophecy; but we are not informed
of the time and manner of his death.

AHIKAM, the son of Shaphan, and father of Gedaliah. He was sent by
Josiah, king of Judah, to Huldah the prophetess, 2 Kings xxii, 12, to
consult her concerning the book of the law, which had been found in the
temple.

AHIMAAZ, the son of Zadok, the high priest. Ahimaaz succeeded his father
under the reign of Solomon. He performed a very important piece of
service for David during the war with Absalom. While his father Zadok
was in Jerusalem, 2 Sam. xv, 29, Ahimaaz and Jonathan continued without
the city, xvii, 17, near En-Rogel, or the fountain of Rogel; thither a
maid servant came to tell them the resolution which had been taken in
Absalom’s council: whereupon they immediately departed to give the king
intelligence. But being discovered by a young lad who gave information
concerning them to Absalom, that prince sent orders to pursue them:
Ahimaaz and Jonathan, fearing to be taken, retired to a man’s house at
Baharim, in whose court-yard there was a well, wherein they concealed
themselves. After the battle, in which Absalom was overcome and slain,
xviii, Ahimaaz desired leave of Joab to carry the news thereof to David.
But instead of him Joab sent Cushi to carry the news, and told Ahimaaz
that he would send him to the king upon some other occasion; but soon
after Cushi was departed, Ahimaaz applied again to Joab, praying to be
permitted to run after Cushi; and, having obtained leave, he ran by the
way of the plain, and outran Cushi. He was succeeded in the priesthood
by his son Azariah.

AHIMELECH. He was the son of Ahitub, and brother of Ahia, whom he
succeeded in the high priesthood. He is called Abiathar, Mark ii, 26.
During his priesthood the tabernacle was at Nob, where Ahimelech, with
other priests, had their habitation. David, being informed by his friend
Jonathan that Saul was determined to destroy him, thought it prudent to
retire. He therefore went to Nob, to the high priest Ahimelech, who gave
him the shew bread, and the sword of Goliath. One day, when Saul was
complaining of his officers, that no one was affected with his
misfortunes, or gave him any intelligence of what was carrying on
against him, 1 Sam. xxii, 9, &c, Doeg related to him what had occurred
when David came to Ahimelech the high priest. On this information, Saul
convened the priests, and having charged them with the crime of treason,
ordered his guards to slay them, which they refusing to do, Doeg, who
had been their accuser, at the king’s command became their executioner,
and with his sacrilegious hand massacred no less than eighty-five of
them; the Septuagint and Syriac versions make the number of priests
slain by Doeg three hundred and five. Nor did Saul stop here; but,
sending a party to Nob, he commanded them to slay men, women, and
children, and even cattle, with the edge of the sword. Only one son of
Ahimelech, named Abiathar, escaped the carnage and fled to David.

AHITHOPHEL, a native of Giloh, who, after having been David’s
counsellor, joined in the rebellion of Absalom, and assisted him with
his advice. Hushai, the friend of David, was employed to counteract the
counsels of Ahithophel, and to deprive Absalom, under a pretence of
serving him, of the advantage that was likely to result from the
measures which he proposed. One of these measures was calculated to
render David irreconcilable, and was immediately adopted; and the other
to secure, or to slay him. Before the last counsel was followed,
Hushai’s advice was desired; and he recommended their assembling
together the whole force of Israel, putting Absalom at their head, and
overwhelming David by their number. The treacherous counsel of Hushai
was preferred to that of Ahithophel; with which the latter being
disgusted he hastened to his house at Giloh, where he put an end to his
life. He probably foresaw Absalom’s defeat, and dreaded the punishment
which would be inflicted on himself as a traitor, when David was
resettled on the throne. A. M. 2981. B. C. 1023. 2 Sam. xv, xvii.

AHOLIBAH. This and Aholah are two feigned names made use of by Ezekiel,
xxiii, 4, to denote the two kingdoms of Judah and Samaria. Aholah and
Aholibah are represented as two sisters of Egyptian extraction. Aholah
stands for Samaria, and Aholibah for Jerusalem. The first signifies a
_tent_, and the second, _my tent is in her_. They both prostituted
themselves to the Egyptians and Assyrians, in imitating their
abominations and idolatries; for which reason the Lord abandoned them to
those very people for whose evil practices they had shown so passionate
an affection. They were carried into captivity, and reduced to the
severest servitude.

AI, called by the LXX, Gai, by Josephus Aina, and by others Ajah, a town
of Palestine, situate west of Bethel, and at a small distance north-west
of Jericho. The three thousand men, first sent by Joshua to reduce this
city, were repulsed, on account of the sin of Achan, who had violated
the anathema pronounced against Jericho, by appropriating a part of the
spoil. After the expiation of this offence, the whole army of Israel
marched against Ai, with orders to treat that city as Jericho had been
treated, with this difference, that the plunder was to be given to the
army. Joshua, having appointed an ambush of thirty thousand men, marched
against the city, and by a feigned retreat, drew out the king of Ai with
his troops; and upon a signal given by elevating his shield on the top
of a pike, the men in ambush entered the city and set fire to it. Thus
the soldiers of Ai, placed between two divisions of Joshua’s army, were
all destroyed; the king alone being preserved for a more ignominious
death on a gibbet, where he hung till sunset. The spoil of the place was
afterward divided among the Israelites. The men appointed for ambush
are, in one place, said to be thirty thousand, and in another five
thousand. For reconciling this apparent contradiction, most commentators
have generally supposed, that there were two bodies placed in ambuscade
between Bethel and Ai, one of twenty-five thousand and the other of five
thousand men; the latter being probably a detachment from the thirty
thousand first sent, and ordered to lie as near to the city as possible.
Masius allows only five thousand men for the ambuscade, and twenty-five
thousand for the attack.

AICHMALOTARCH, Ἀιχμαλοτάρχης signifies _the prince of the captivity_, or
_chief of the captives_. The Jews pretend that this was the title of him
who had the government of their people during the captivity of Babylon;
and they believe these princes or governors to have been constantly of
the tribe of Judah, and family of David. But they give no satisfactory
proof of the real existence of these Aichmalotarchs. There was no prince
of the captivity before the end of the second century, from which period
the office continued till the eleventh century. The princes of the
captivity resided at Babylon, where they were installed with great
ceremony, held courts of justice, &c, and were set over the eastern
Jews, or those settled in Babylon, Chaldæa, Assyria, and Persia. Thus
they affected to restore the splendour of their ancient monarchy, and in
this view the following account may be amusing. The ceremonial of the
installation is thus described: The spiritual heads of the people, the
masters of the learned schools, the elders, and the people, assembled in
great multitudes within a stately chamber, adorned with rich curtains,
in Babylon, where, during his days of splendour, the Resch-Glutha fixed
his residence. The prince was seated on a lofty throne. The heads of the
schools of Sura and Pumbeditha on his right hand and left. These chiefs
of the learned men then delivered an address, exhorting the new monarch
not to abuse his power; and reminded him that he was called to slavery
rather than to sovereignty, for he was prince of a captive people. On
the next Thursday he was inaugurated by the laying on of hands, and the
sound of trumpets, and acclamations. He was escorted to his palace with
great pomp, and received magnificent presents from all his subjects. On
the Sabbath all the principal people being assembled before his house,
he placed himself at their head, and, with his face covered with a
silken veil, proceeded to the synagogue. Benedictions and hymns of
thanksgiving announced his entrance. They then brought him the book of
the law, out of which he read the first line, afterward he addressed the
assembly, with his eyes closed out of respect. He exhorted them to
charity, and set the example by offering liberal alms to the poor. The
ceremony closed with new acclamations, and prayers to God that, under
the new prince, he would be pleased to put an end to their calamities.
The prince gave his blessing to the people, and prayed for each
province, that it might be preserved from war and famine. He concluded
his orisons in a low voice, lest his prayer should be repeated to the
jealous ears of the native monarchs, for he prayed for the restoration
of the kingdom of Israel, which could not rise but on the ruins of their
empire. The prince returned to his palace, where he gave a splendid
banquet to the chief persons of the community. After that day he lived
in a sort of stately oriental seclusion, never quitting his palace,
except to go to the schools of the learned, where, as he entered, the
whole assembly rose and continued standing, till he took his seat. He
sometimes paid a visit to the native sovereign in Babylon (Bagdad.) This
probably refers to a somewhat later period. On these great occasions his
imperial host sent his own chariot for his guest; but the prince of the
captivity dared not accept the invidious distinction, he walked in
humble and submissive modesty behind the chariot. Yet his own state was
by no means wanting in splendour: he was arrayed in cloth of gold; fifty
guards marched before him; all the Jews who met him on the way paid
their homage, and fell behind into his train. He was received by the
eunuchs, who conducted him to the throne, while one of his officers, as
he marched slowly along, distributed gold and silver on all sides. As
the prince approached the imperial throne, he prostrated himself on the
ground, in token of vassalage. The eunuchs raised him and placed him on
the left hand of the sovereign. After the first salutation, the prince
represented the grievances, or discussed the affairs, of his people.

The court of the Resch-Glutha is described as splendid. In imitation of
his Persian master, he had his officers, counsellors, and cup-bearers;
and rabbins were appointed as satraps over the different communities.
This state, it is probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the
body of the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times was
paid for the temple in Jerusalem. His subjects in Babylonia were many of
them wealthy.

AIJALON, a city of the Canaanites; the valley adjoining to which is
memorable in sacred history from the miracle of Joshua, in arresting the
course of the sun and moon, that the Israelites might have sufficient
light to pursue their enemies, Joshua x, 12, 13. Aijalon was afterward a
Levitical city, and belonged to the tribe of Dan; who did not, however,
drive out the Amorite inhabitants, Judges i, 35.

AIR, that thin, fluid, elastic, transparent, ponderous, compressible
body which surrounds the terraqueous globe to a considerable height. In
Scripture it is sometimes used for _heaven_; as, “the birds of the air;”
“the birds of heaven.” To “beat the air,” and “to speak to the air,” 1
Cor. ix, 26, signify to fatigue ourselves in vain, and to speak to no
purpose. “The prince of the power of the air” is the head and chief of
the evil spirits, with which both Jews and Heathens thought the air was
filled.

ALABASTER, Ἀλάβαϛρον, the name of a genus of fossils nearly allied to
marble. It is a bright elegant stone, sometimes of a snowy whiteness. It
may be cut freely, and is capable of a fine polish; and, being of a soft
nature, it is wrought into any form or figure with ease. Vases or
cruises were anciently made of it, wherein to preserve odoriferous
liquors and ointments. Pliny and others represent it as peculiarly
proper for this purpose; and the druggists in Egypt have, at this day,
vessels made of it, in which they keep their medicines and perfumes.

In Matt. xxvi, 6, 7, we read that Jesus being at table in Bethany, in
the house of Simon the leper, a woman came thither and poured an
alabaster box of ointment on his head. St. Mark adds, “She brake the
box,” which merely refers to the seal upon the vase which closed it, and
kept the perfume from evaporating. This had never been removed, but was
on this occasion broken, that is, first opened.

ALBIGENSES. See WALDENSES.

ALEPH, א, the name of the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, from
which the alpha of the Syrians and Greeks was formed. This word
signifies, _prince_, _chief_, or _thousand_, expressing, as it were, a
leading number.

ALEXANDER, commonly called the Great, son and successor of Philip, king
of Macedon, is denoted in the prophecies of Daniel by a leopard with
four wings, signifying his great strength, and the unusual rapidity of
his conquests, Dan. vii, 6; and by a one-horned he-goat running over the
earth so swiftly as not to touch it, attacking a ram with two horns,
overthrowing him, and trampling him under foot, without any being able
to rescue him, Dan. viii, 4–7. The he-goat prefigured Alexander; the
ram, Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian kings. In the statue
beheld by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, Dan. ii, 39, the belly of brass
was the emblem of Alexander. He was appointed by God to destroy the
Persian empire, and to substitute in its room the Grecian monarchy.

Alexander succeeded his father Philip, A. M. 3668, and B. C. 336. He was
chosen, by the Greeks, general of their troops against the Persians, and
entered Asia at the head of thirty-four thousand men, A. M. 3670. In one
campaign, he subdued almost all Asia Minor; and afterward defeated, in
the narrow passes which led from Syria to Cilicia, the army of Darius,
which consisted of four hundred thousand foot, and one hundred thousand
horse. Darius fled, and left in the hands of the conqueror, his camp,
baggage, children, wife, and mother.

After subduing Syria, Alexander came to Tyre; and the Tyrians refusing
him entrance into their city, he besieged it. At the same time he wrote
to Jaddus, high priest of the Jews, that he expected to be acknowledged
by him, and to receive from him the same submission which had hitherto
been paid to the king of Persia. Jaddus refusing to comply under the
plea of having sworn fidelity to Darius, Alexander resolved to march
against Jerusalem, when he had reduced Tyre. After a long siege, this
city was taken and sacked; and Alexander entered Palestine, A. M. 3672,
and subjected it to his obedience. As he was marching against Jerusalem,
the Jews became greatly alarmed, and had recourse to prayers and
sacrifices. The Lord, in a dream, commanded Jaddus to open the gates to
the conqueror, and, at the head of his people, dressed in his pontifical
ornaments, and attended by the priests in their robes, to advance and
meet the Macedonian king. Jaddus obeyed; and Alexander perceiving this
company approaching, hastened toward the high priest, whom he saluted.
He then adored God, whose name was engraven on a thin plate of gold,
worn by the high priest upon his forehead. The kings of Syria who
accompanied him, and the great officers about Alexander, could not
comprehend the meaning of his conduct. Parmenio alone ventured to ask
him why he adored the Jewish high priest; Alexander replied, that he
paid this respect to God, and not to the high priest. “For,” added he,
“whilst I was yet in Macedonia, I saw the God of the Jews, who appeared
to me in the same form and dress as the high priest at present, and who
encouraged me and commanded me to march boldly into Asia, promising that
he would be my guide, and give me the empire of the Persians. As soon,
therefore, as I perceived this habit, I recollected the vision, and
understood that my undertaking was favoured by God, and that under his
protection I might expect prosperity.”

Having said this, Alexander accompanied Jaddus to Jerusalem, where he
offered sacrifices in the temple according to the directions of the high
priest. Jaddus is said to have showed him the prophecies of Daniel, in
which the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander is declared.
The king was therefore confirmed in his opinion, that God had chosen him
to execute this great work. At his departure, Alexander bade the Jews
ask of him what they would. The high priest desired only the liberty of
living under his government according to their own laws, and an
exemption from tribute every seventh year, because in that year the Jews
neither tilled their grounds, nor reaped their fruits. With this request
Alexander readily complied.

Having left Jerusalem, Alexander visited other cities of Palestine, and
was every where received with great testimonies of friendship and
submission. The Samaritans who dwelt at Sichem, and were apostates from
the Jewish religion, observing how kindly Alexander had treated the
Jews, resolved to say that they also were by religion Jews. For it was
their practice, when they saw the affairs of the Jews in a prosperous
state, to boast that they were descended from Manasseh and Ephraim; but
when they thought it their interest to say the contrary, they failed not
to affirm, and even to swear, that they were not related to the Jews.
They came, therefore, with many demonstrations of joy, to meet
Alexander, as far almost as the territories of Jerusalem. Alexander
commended their zeal; and the Sichemites entreated him to visit their
temple and city. Alexander promised this at his return; but as they
petitioned him for the same privileges as the Jews, he asked them if
they were Jews. They replied, they were Hebrews, and were called by the
Phœnicians, Sichemites. Alexander said that he had granted this
exemption only to the Jews, but that at his return he would inquire into
the affair, and do them justice.

This prince having conquered Egypt, and regulated it, gave orders for
the building of the city of Alexandria, and departed thence, about
spring, in pursuit of Darius. Passing through Palestine, he was informed
that the Samaritans, in a general insurrection, had killed Andromachus,
governor of Syria and Palestine, who had come to Samaria to regulate
some affairs. This action greatly incensed Alexander, who loved
Andromachus. He therefore commanded all those who were concerned in his
murder to be put to death, and the rest to be banished from Samaria; and
settled a colony of Macedonians in their room. What remained of their
lands he gave to the Jews, and exempted them from the payment of
tribute. The Samaritans who escaped this calamity, retired to Sichem, at
the foot of mount Gerizim, which afterward became their capital. Lest
the eight thousand men of this nation, who were in the service of
Alexander, and had accompanied him since the siege of Tyre, if permitted
to return to their own country, should renew the spirit of rebellion, he
sent them into Thebais, the most remote southern province of Egypt,
where he assigned them lands.

Alexander, after defeating Darius in a pitched battle, and subduing all
Asia and the Indies with incredible rapidity, gave himself up to
intemperance. Having drunk to excess, he fell sick and died, after he
had obliged “all the world to be quiet before him,” 1 Macc. i, 3. Being
sensible that his end was near, he sent for the grandees of his court,
and declared that “he gave the empire to the most deserving.” Some
affirm that he regulated the succession by a will. The author of the
first book of Maccabees says, that he divided his kingdom among his
generals while he was living, 1 Macc. i, 7. This he might do; or he
might express his foresight of what actually took place after his death.
It is certain, that a partition was made of Alexander’s dominions among
the four principal officers of his army, and that the empire which he
founded in Asia subsisted for many ages. Alexander died, A. M. 3684, and
B. C. 323, in the thirty-third year of his age, and the twelfth of his
reign. The above particulars of Alexander are here introduced because,
from his invasion of Palestine, the intercourse of the Jews with the
Greeks became intimate, and influenced many events of their subsequent
history.

On the account above given of the interview between Alexander and the
Jewish high priest, by Josephus, many doubts have been cast by critics.
But the sudden change of his feelings toward them, and the favour with
which the nation was treated by him, render the story not improbable.

ALEXANDRIA, a famous city of Egypt, and, during the reign of the
Ptolemies, the regal capital of that kingdom. It was founded by
Alexander the Great: who being struck with the advantageous situation of
the spot where the city afterward stood, ordered its immediate erection;
drew the plan of the city himself, and peopled it with colonies of
Greeks and Jews: to which latter people, in particular, he gave great
encouragement. They were, in fact, made free citizens, and had all the
privileges of Macedonians granted to them; which liberal policy
contributed much to the rise and prosperity of the new city; for this
enterprising and commercial people knew much better than either the
Greeks or the Egyptians how to turn the happy situation of Alexandria to
the best account. The fall of Tyre happening about the same time, the
trade of that city was soon drawn to Alexandria, which became the centre
of commercial intercourse between the east and the west; and in process
of time grew to such an extent, in magnitude and wealth, as to be second
in point of population and magnificence to none but Rome itself.

Alexandria owed much of its celebrity as well as its population to the
Ptolemies. Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander’s captains, who, after the
death of this monarch, was first governor of Egypt, and afterward
assumed the title of king, made this city the place of his residence,
about B. C. 304. This prince founded an academy, called the Museum, in
which a society of learned men devoted themselves to philosophical
studies, and the improvement of all the other sciences; and he also gave
them a library, which was prodigiously increased by his successors. He
likewise induced the merchants of Syria and Greece to reside in this
city, and to make it a principal mart of their commerce. His son and
successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, pursued the designs of his father.

In the hands of the Romans, the successors of the Macedonians in the
government of Egypt, the trade of Alexandria continued to flourish,
until luxury and licentiousness paved the way, as in every similar
instance, for its overthrow.

Alexandria, together with the rest of Egypt, passed from the dominion of
the Romans to that of the Saracens. With this event, the sun of
Alexandria may be said to have set: the blighting hand of Islamism was
laid on it; and although the genius and the resources of such a city
could not be immediately destroyed, it continued to languish until the
passage by the Cape of Good Hope, in the fifteenth century, gave a new
channel to the trade which for so many centuries had been its support;
and at this day, Alexandria, like most eastern cities, presents a mixed
spectacle of ruins and wretchedness,--of fallen greatness and enslaved
human beings.

Some idea may be formed of the extent and grandeur of Alexandria, by the
boast made by Amrou: “I have taken,” said he, “the great city of the
west. It is impossible for me to enumerate the variety of its riches and
beauty. I shall content myself with observing, that it contains four
thousand palaces, four thousand baths, four hundred theatres or places
of amusement, twelve thousand shops for the sale of vegetable foods, and
forty thousand tributary Jews.”

It was in Alexandria chiefly that the Grecian philosophy was engrafted
upon the stock of ancient oriental wisdom. The Egyptian method of
teaching by allegory was peculiarly favourable to such a union: and we
may well suppose that when Alexander, in order to preserve by the arts
of peace that extensive empire which he had obtained by the force of
arms, endeavoured to incorporate the customs of the Greeks with those of
the Persian, Indian, and other eastern nations, the opinions as well as
the manners of this feeble and obsequious race would, in a great
measure, be accommodated to those of their conquerors. This influence of
the Grecian upon the oriental philosophy continued long after the time
of Alexander, and was one principal occasion of the confusion of
opinions which occurs in the history of the Alexandrian and Christian
schools. Alexander, when he built the city of Alexandria, with a
determination to make it the seat of his empire, and peopled it with
emigrants from various countries, opened a new mart of philosophy, which
emulated the fame of Athens itself. A general indulgence was granted to
the promiscuous crowd assembled in this rising city, whether Egyptians,
Grecians, Jews, or others, to profess their respective systems of
philosophy without molestation. The consequence was, that Egypt was soon
filled with religious and philosophical sectaries of every kind; and
particularly, that almost every Grecian sect found an advocate and
professor in Alexandria. The family of the Ptolemies, as we have seen,
who after Alexander obtained the government of Egypt, from motives of
policy encouraged this new establishment. Ptolemy Lagus, who had
obtained the crown of Egypt by usurpation, was particularly careful to
secure the interest of the Greeks in his favour, and with this view
invited people from every part of Greece to settle in Egypt, and removed
the schools of Athens to Alexandria. This enlightened prince spared no
pains to raise the literary, as well as the civil, military, and
commercial credit of his country. Under the patronage first of the
Egyptian princes, and afterward of the Roman emperors, Alexandria long
continued to enjoy great celebrity as the seat of learning, and to send
forth eminent philosophers of every sect to distant countries. It
remained a school of learning, as well as a commercial emporium, till it
was taken, and plundered of its literary treasures by the Saracens.
Philosophy, during this period, suffered a grievous corruption from the
attempt which was made by philosophers of different sects and countries,
Grecian, Egyptian, and oriental, who were assembled in Alexandria, to
frame, from their different tenets, one general system of opinions. The
respect which had long been universally paid to the schools of Greece,
and the honours with which they were now adorned by the Egyptian
princes, induced other wise men, and even the Egyptian priests and
philosophers themselves, to submit to this innovation. Hence arose a
heterogeneous mass of opinions, under the name of the _Eclectic
philosophy_, and which was the foundation of endless confusion, error,
and absurdity, not only in the Alexandrian school, but among Jews and
Christians; producing among the former that specious kind of philosophy,
which they called their _Cabala_, and among the latter innumerable
corruptions of the Christian faith.

At Alexandria there was, in a very early period of the Christian æra, a
Christian school of considerable eminence. St. Jerome says, the school
at Alexandria had been in being from the time of St. Mark. Pantænus,
placed by Lardner at the year 192, presided in it. St. Clement of
Alexandria succeeded Pantænus in this school about the year 190; and he
was succeeded by Origen. The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its
proximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion, and
when Adrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and
Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive
prince. The theological system of Plato was introduced into both the
philosophical and Christian schools of Alexandria; and of course many of
his sentiments and expressions were blended with the opinions and
language of the professors and teachers of Christianity.

Alexandria was the source, and for some time the principal stronghold,
of Arianism; which had its name from its founder, Arius, a presbyter of
the church of this city, about the year 315. His doctrines were
condemned by a council held here in the year 320; and afterward by a
general council of three hundred and eighty fathers, held at Nice, by
order of Constantine, in 325. These doctrines, however, which suited the
reigning taste for disputative theology, and the pride and
self-sufficiency of nominal Christians, better than the unsophisticated
simplicity of the Gospel, spread widely and rapidly notwithstanding.
Arius was steadfastly opposed by the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, the intrepid champion of the catholic faith, who was raised
to the archiepiscopal throne of Alexandria in 326.

This city was, in 415, distinguished by a fierce persecution of the Jews
by the patriarch Cyril. They who had enjoyed the rights of citizens, and
the freedom of religious worship, for seven hundred years, ever since
the foundation of the city, incurred the hatred of this ecclesiastic;
who, in his zeal for the extermination of heretics of every kind, pulled
down their synagogues, plundered their property, and expelled them, to
the number of forty thousand, from the city.

It was in a ship belonging to the port of Alexandria, that St. Paul
sailed from Myra, a city of Lycia, on his way to Rome, Acts xxvii, 5, 6.
Alexandria was also the native place of Apollos.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. This celebrated collection of books was first
founded by Ptolemy Soter, for the use of the academy, or society of
learned men, which he had founded at Alexandria. Beside the books which
he procured, his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, added many more, and left in
this library at his death a hundred thousand volumes; and the succeeding
princes of this race enlarged it still more, till at length the books
lodged in it amounted to the number of seven hundred thousand volumes.
The method by which they are said to have collected these books was
this: they seized all the books that were brought by the Greeks or other
foreigners into Egypt, and sent them to the academy, or museum, where
they were transcribed by persons employed for that purpose. The
transcripts were then delivered to the proprietors, and the originals
laid up in the library. Ptolemy Euergetes, for instance, borrowed of the
Athenians the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æschylus, and only
returned them the copies, which he caused to be transcribed in as
beautiful a manner as possible; the originals he retained for his own
library, presenting the Athenians with fifteen talents for the exchange,
that is, with three thousand pounds sterling and upwards. As the museum
was at first in the quarter of the city called Bruchion, the library was
placed there; but when the number of books amounted to four hundred
thousand volumes, another library, within the Serapeum, was erected by
way of supplement to it, and, on that account, called the daughter of
the former. The books lodged in this increased to the number of three
hundred thousand volumes; and these two made up the number of seven
hundred thousand volumes, of which the royal libraries of the Ptolemies
were said to consist. In the war which Julius Cæsar waged with the
inhabitants of Alexandria, the library of Bruchion was accidentally, but
unfortunately, burnt. But the library in Serapeum still remained, and
there Cleopatra deposited the two hundred thousand volumes of the
Pergamean library with which she was presented by Marc Antony. These,
and others added to them from time to time, rendered the new library
more numerous and considerable than the former; and though it was
plundered more than once during the revolutions which happened in the
Roman empire, yet it was as frequently supplied with the same number of
books, and continued, for many ages, to be of great fame and use, till
it was burnt by the Saracens, A. D. 642. Abulpharagius, in his history
of the tenth dynasty, gives the following account of this catastrophe:
John Philoponus, surnamed the Grammarian, a famous Peripatetic
philosopher, being at Alexandria when the city was taken by the
Saracens, was admitted to familiar intercourse with Amrou, the Arabian
general, and presumed to solicit a gift, inestimable in his opinion, but
contemptible in that of the barbarians; and this was the royal library.
Amrou was inclined to gratify his wish, but his rigid integrity scrupled
to alienate the least object without the consent of the caliph. He
accordingly wrote to Omar, whose well known answer was dictated by the
ignorance of a fanatic: “If these writings of the Greeks agree with the
Koran, or book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if
they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.” The
sentence of destruction was executed with blind obedience: the volumes
of paper or parchment were distributed to the four thousand baths of the
city; and such was their number, that six months were barely sufficient
for the consumption of this precious fuel.

ALGUM, אלגם or אלגומים, 1 Kings x, 11, 12. This is the name of a kind of
wood, or tree, large quantities of which were brought by the fleet of
Solomon from Ophir, of which he made pillars for the house of the Lord,
and for his own palace; also musical instruments. See ALMUG.

ALLEGORY, a figure in rhetoric, whereby we make use of terms which, in
their proper signification, mean something else than what they are
brought to denote; or it is a figure whereby we say one thing, expecting
it shall be understood of another, to which it alludes; or which, under
the literal sense of the words, conceals a foreign or distant meaning.
An allegory is, properly, a continued metaphor, or a series of several
metaphors in one or more sentences. Such is that beautiful allegory in
Horace, lib. i, Od. 14.

                  “_O navis, referent in mare te novi
                  Fluctus_,” _&c._

[O ship, shall new billows drive thee again to sea, &c.]

Where the ship is usually held to stand for the republic; waves, for
civil war; port, for peace and concord; oars, for soldiers; and mariners
for magistrates. Thus, also, in Prior’s Henry and Emma, Emma describes
her constancy to Henry in the following allegorical manner:--

            “Did I but purpose to embark with thee
            On the smooth surface of a summer’s sea,
            While gentle zephyrs play with prosperous gales,
            And fortune’s favour fills the swelling sails;
            But would forsake the ship, and make the shore,
            When the winds whistle, and the tempests roar?”

Cicero, likewise, speaking of himself, in Pison. c. 9, tom. vi, p. 187,
uses this allegorical language: “Nor was I so timorous, that, after I
had steered the ship of the state through the greatest storms and waves,
and brought her safe into port, I should fear the cloud of your
forehead, or your colleague’s pestilential breath. I saw other winds, I
perceived other storms, I did not withdraw from other impending
tempests; but I exposed myself singly to them for the common safety.”
Here the state is compared to a ship, and all the things said of it
under that image, are expressed in metaphors made use of to denote the
dangers with which it had been threatened. We have also a very fine
example of an allegory in Psalm lxxx; in which the people of Israel are
represented under the image of a vine, and the figure is supported
throughout with great correctness and beauty. Whereas, if, instead of
describing the vine as wasted by the boar from the wood, and devoured by
the wild beasts of the field, the Psalmist had said, it was afflicted by
Heathens, or overcome by enemies, which is the real meaning, the
figurative and the literal meaning would have been blended, and the
allegory ruined. The learned Bishop Lowth, _De Sacrâ Poesi Hebræorum,
Præl._ 10, 11, has specified three forms of allegory that occur in
sacred poetry. The first is that which rhetoricians call a continued
metaphor. When several metaphors succeed each other, they alter the form
of the composition; and this succession has very properly, in reference
to the etymology of the word, been denominated by the Greeks αλληγορια,
an allegory; although Aristotle, instead of considering it as a new
species of figure, has referred it to the class of metaphors. The
principle of allegory in this sense of the term, and of the simple
metaphor, is the same; nor is it an easy matter to restrict each to its
proper limit, and to mark the precise termination of the one, and the
commencement of the other. This eminently judicious critic observes,
that when the Hebrew poets use the congenial figures of metaphor,
allegory, and comparison, particularly in the prophetic poetry, they
adopt a peculiar mode of doing it, and seldom regulate the imagery which
they introduce by any fixed principle or standard. Not satisfied with a
simple metaphor, they often run it into an allegory, or blend with it a
direct comparison. The allegory sometimes follows, and sometimes
precedes the simile: to this is added a frequent change of imagery, as
well as of persons and tenses; and thus are displayed an energy and
boldness, both of expression and meaning, which are unconfined by any
stated rules, and which mark the discriminating genius of the Hebrew
poetry. Thus, in Gen. xlix, 9, “Judah is a lion’s whelp;” this metaphor
is immediately drawn out into an allegory, with a change of person:
“From the prey, my son, thou art gone up,” that is, to the mountains,
which is understood; and in the succeeding sentences the person is again
changed, the image is gradually advanced, and the metaphor is joined
with a comparison that is repeated.

               “He stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion;
               And as a lioness; who shall rouse him?”

A similar instance occurs in the prophecy, recorded in Psalm cx, 3,
which explicitly foretels the abundant increase of the Gospel on its
first promulgation. This kind of allegory, however, sometimes assumes a
more regular and perfect form, and then occupies the whole subject and
compass of the discourse. An example of this kind occurs in Solomon’s
well known allegory, Eccles. xii, 2–6, in which old age is so admirably
depicted. There is also, in Isaiah xxviii, 24–29, an allegory, which,
with no less elegance of imagery, is more simple and regular, as well as
more just and complete, both in the form and the method of treating it.
Another kind of allegory is that which, in the proper and more
restricted sense, may be called a parable; and consists of a continued
narration of some fictitious event, accommodated, by way of similitude,
to the illustration of some important truth. The Greeks call these
allegories αινοι or apologues, and the Latins _fabulæ_, or fables. (See
_Parable_.) The third species of allegory, which often occurs in the
prophetic poetry, is that in which a double meaning is couched under the
same words, or when the same discourse, differently interpreted,
designates different events, dissimilar in their nature, and remote as
to time. These different relations are denominated the literal and
mystical senses. This kind of allegory, which the learned prelate calls
mystical, seems to derive its origin from the principles of the Jewish
religion; and it differs from the two former species in a variety of
respects. In these allegories the writer may adopt any imagery that is
most suitable to his fancy or inclination; but the only proper materials
for this allegory must be supplied from the sacred rites of the Hebrews
themselves; and it can only be introduced in relation to such things as
are immediately connected with the Jewish religion, or their immediate
opposites. The former kinds partake of the common privileges of poetry;
but the mystical allegory has its foundation in the nature of the Jewish
economy, and is adapted solely to the poetry of the Hebrews. Besides, in
the other forms of allegory, the exterior or ostensible imagery is mere
fiction, and the truth lies altogether in the interior or remote sense;
but in this allegory each idea is equally agreeable to truth. The
exterior or ostensible image is itself a reality; and although it
sustains another character, it does not wholly lay aside its own. There
is also a great variety in the use and conduct of the mystical allegory;
in the modes in which the corresponding images are arranged, and in
which they are obscured or eclipsed by one another. Sometimes the
obvious or literal sense is so prominent and conspicuous, both in the
words and sentiments, that the remote or figurative sense is scarcely
permitted to glimmer through it. On the other hand, the figurative sense
is more frequently found to beam forth with so much perspicuity and
lustre, that the literal sense is quite cast into the shade, or becomes
indiscernible. Sometimes the principal or figurative idea is exhibited
to the attentive eye with a constant and equal light; and sometimes it
unexpectedly glares upon us, and breaks forth with sudden and
astonishing coruscations, like a flash of lightning bursting from the
clouds. But the mode or form of this figure which possesses the chief
beauty and elegance, is, when the two images, equally conspicuous, run,
as it were, parallel throughout the whole poem, mutually illustrating
and correspondent to each other. The learned author has illustrated
these observations by instances selected from Psalms ii, and lxxii. He
adds, that the mystical allegory is, on account of the obscurity
resulting from the nature of the figure, and the style of the
composition, so agreeable to the nature of the prophecy, that it is the
form which it generally, and indeed lawfully, assumes, as best adapted
to the prediction of future events. It describes events in a manner
exactly conformable to the intention of prophecy; that is, in a dark,
disguised, and intricate manner, sketching out, in a general way, their
form and outline; and seldom descending to a minuteness of description
and exactness of detail.

ALLELUIA, or HALLELU-JAH, הללו־יה, _praise the Lord_; or, _praise to the
Lord_: compounded of הללו, _praise ye_, and יה, _the Lord_. This word
occurs at the beginning, or at the end, of many Psalms. Alleluia was
sung on solemn days of rejoicing: “And all her streets shall sing
Alleluia,” says Tobit, speaking of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, Tob.
xiii, 18. St. John, in the Revelation, xix, 1, 3, 4, 6, says, “I heard a
great voice of much people in heaven, who cried, Alleluia; and the four
living creatures fell down, and worshipped God, saying, Alleluia.” This
expression of joy and praise was transferred from the synagogue to the
church. At the funeral of Fabiola, “several psalms were sung with loud
alleluias,” says Jerom, in _Epitaphio Paulæ_, “The monks of Palestine
were awaked at their midnight watchings, with the singing of alleluias.”
It is still occasionally used in devotional psalmody.

ALMAH, עלמה, a Hebrew word signifying properly _a virgin_, a young woman
unacquainted with man. In this sense it occurs in the famous passage of
Isaiah, vii, 14: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” The
Hebrew has no term that more properly signifies a virgin than _almah_.
St. Jerom, in his commentary on this passage, observes, that the Prophet
declined using the word _bethaul_ which signifies any young woman, or
young person, but employed the term _almah_, which denotes a virgin
never seen by man. This is the import of the word _almah_, which is
derived from a root which signifies _to conceal_. It is very well known,
that young women in the east do not appear in public, but are shut up in
their houses, and their mothers’ apartments, like nuns. The Chaldee
paraphrast and the Septuagint translate _almah_ “a virgin;” and Akiba,
the famous rabbin, who was a great enemy to Christ and Christians, and
lived in the second century, understands it in the same manner. The
Apostles and Evangelists, and the Jews of our Saviour’s time, explained
it in the same sense, and expected a Messiah born of a virgin.

The Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof
of the truth of the Christian religion, pretend that the Hebrew word
signifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this corrupt translation
is easily confuted. 1. Because this word constantly denotes a virgin in
all other passages of Scripture in which it is used. 2. From the intent
of the passage, which was to confirm their faith by a strange and
wonderful sign. It surely could be no wonder, that a young woman should
conceive a child; but it was a very extraordinary circumstance that a
virgin should conceive and bear a son.

ALMIGHTY, an attribute of the Deity, Gen. xvii, 1. The Hebrew name, שדי,
_Shaddai_, signifies also _all-sufficient_, or _all-bountiful_. See Gen.
xxviii, 3; xxxv, 11; xliii, 14; xlix, 25. Of the omnipotence of God, we
have a most ample revelation in the Scriptures, expressed in the most
sublime language. From the annunciation by Moses of a divine existence
who was “in the beginning,” before all things, the very first step is to
the display of his almighty power in the creation out of nothing, and
the immediate arrangement in order and perfection, of the “_heaven and
the earth_;” by which is meant, not this globe only with its atmosphere,
or even with its own celestial system, but the universe itself; for “_he
made the stars also_.” We are thus at once placed in the presence of an
agent of unbounded power; for we must all feel that a being which could
create such a world as this, must, beyond all comparison, possess a
power greater than any which we experience in ourselves, than any which
we observe in other visible agents, and to which we are not authorized
by our observation or knowledge to assign any limits of space or
duration.

2. That the sacred writers should so frequently dwell upon the
omnipotence of God, has important reasons which arise out of the very
design of the revelation which they were the means of communicating to
mankind. Men were to be reminded of their obligations to obedience; and
God is therefore constantly exhibited as the Creator, the Preserver, and
Lord of all things. His solemn worship and fear were to be enjoined upon
them; and, by the manifestation of his works, the veil was withdrawn
from his glory and majesty. Idolatry was to be checked and reproved, and
the true God was therefore placed in contrast with the limited and
powerless gods of the Heathen: “Among the gods of the nations, is there
no god like unto thee; neither are there any works like thy works.”
Finally, he is exhibited as the object of _trust_ to creatures
constantly reminded by experience of their own infirmity and dependence;
and to them it is essential to know, that his power is absolute,
unlimited, and irresistible, and that, in a word, he is “mighty to
save.”

3. In a revelation which was thus designed to awe and control the
wicked, and to afford strength of mind and consolation to good men under
all circumstances, the omnipotence of God is therefore placed in a great
variety of impressive views, and connected with the most striking
illustrations.

It is declared by the fact of _creation_, the creation of beings out of
_nothing_; which itself, though it had been confined to a single object,
however minute, exceeds finite comprehension, and overwhelms the
faculties. This with God required no effort: “He spake and it was done,
he commanded and it stood fast.” The _vastness_ and _variety_ of his
works enlarge the conception: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and
the firmament showeth his handy work.” “He spreadeth out the heavens,
and treadeth upon the waves of the sea; he maketh Arcturus, Orion, and
Pleiades, and the chambers of the south; he doeth great things, past
finding out, yea, and wonders without number. He stretcheth out the
north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He
bindeth up the waters in the thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent
under them; he hath compassed the waters with bounds until the day and
night come to an end.” The _ease_ with which he sustains, orders, and
controls the most powerful and unruly of the elements, arrays his
omnipotence with an aspect of ineffable dignity and majesty: “By him all
things consist.” “He brake up for the sea a decreed place, and set bars
and doors, and said, Hitherto shalt thou come and no farther, and here
shall thy proud waves be stayed.” “He looketh to the end of the earth,
and seeth under the whole heaven, to make the weight for the winds, to
weigh the waters by measure, to make a decree for the rain, and a way
for the lightning of the thunder.” “Who hath measured the waters in the
hollow of his hand, meted out heaven with a span, comprehended the dust
of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the
hills in a balance.” The descriptions of the divine power are often
_terrible_: “The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his
reproof; he divideth the sea by his power.” “He removeth the mountains,
and they know it not; he overturneth them in his anger; he shaketh the
earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; he commandeth
the sun and it riseth not, and sealeth up the stars.” The same absolute
subjection of creatures to his dominion is seen among the intelligent
inhabitants of the material universe; and angels, mortals the most
exalted, and evil spirits, are swayed with as much ease as the most
passive elements: “He maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a
flame of fire.” They veil their faces before his throne, and acknowledge
themselves his servants: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers,” “as the dust of
the balance, less than nothing and vanity.” “He bringeth princes to
nothing.” “He setteth up one and putteth down another;” “for the kingdom
is the Lord’s, and he is governor among the nations.” “The angels that
sinned he cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment.” The closing scenes of this world complete
these transcendent conceptions of the majesty and power of God. The dead
of all ages rise from their graves at his _voice_: and the sea gives up
the dead which are in it. Before his _face_ heaven and earth fly away;
the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven are shaken. The
dead, small and great, stand before God, and are divided as a shepherd
divideth the sheep from the goats. The wicked go away into everlasting
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.

4. Of these amazing views of the omnipotence of God, spread almost
through every page of the Scriptures, the power lies in their _truth_.
They are not eastern exaggerations, mistaken for sublimity. Every thing
in nature answers to them, and renews from age to age the energy of the
impression which they cannot but make on the reflecting mind. The order
of the astral revolutions indicates the constant presence of an
invisible but incomprehensible power. The seas hurl the weight of their
billows upon the rising shores, but every where find a “_bound_ fixed by
a perpetual decree.” The tides reach their height; if they flowed on for
a few hours, the earth would change places with the bed of the sea; but,
under an invisible control, they become refluent. The expression, “He
toucheth the mountains and they smoke,” is not mere imagery:--every
volcano is a testimony of its truth; and earthquakes proclaim, that,
before him, “the pillars of the world tremble.” Men collected into
armies, or populous nations, give us vast ideas of human power; but let
an army be placed amidst the sand storms and burning winds of the
desert, as, in the east; or, before “_his frost_,” as in our own day in
Russia, where one of the mightiest armaments was seen retreating before,
or perishing under, an unexpected visitation of snow and storm; or let
the utterly helpless state of a populous country which has been visited
by famine, or by a resistless pestilential disease, be reflected upon;
and we feel that it is scarcely a figure of speech to say, that “all
nations before him are _less than nothing_ and _vanity_.”

5. Nor, in reviewing this doctrine of Scripture, ought the great
practical uses made of the omnipotence of God, by the sacred writers, to
be overlooked. By them nothing is said for the mere display of
knowledge, as in Heathen writers; and we have no speculations without a
subservient _moral_. To excite and keep alive in man the fear and
worship of God, and to bring him to a felicitous confidence in that
almighty power which pervades and controls all things, are the noble
ends of those ample displays of the omnipotence of God, which roll
through the sacred volume with a sublimity that inspiration only could
supply. “Declare his glory among the Heathen, his marvellous works among
all nations; for great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised.--Glory
and honour are in his presence, and strength and gladness in his
place.--Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the
Lord glory and strength; give unto the Lord the glory due unto his
name.--The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?--The
Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? If God be
for us, who _then_ can be against us? Our help standeth in the name of
the Lord, who made heaven and earth.--What time I am afraid, I will
trust in thee.”--Thus, as one observes, “our natural fears, of which we
must have many, remit us to God, and remind us, since we know what God
is, to lay hold on his almighty power.”

6. Ample, however, as are these views of the power of God, the subject
is not exhausted. As, when the Scriptures speak of the eternity of God,
they declare it so as to give us a mere glimpse of that fearful
peculiarity of the divine nature, that God is the fountain of being to
himself, and that he is eternal, because he is the “I AM;” so we are
taught not to measure God’s omnipotence by the actual displays of it
which we see around us. These are the _manifestations_ of the fact, but
not the _measure_ of the attribute; and should we resort to the
discoveries of modern philosophy, which, by the help of instruments, has
so greatly enlarged the known boundaries of the visible universe, and
add to the stars which are visible to the naked eye, those new
exhibitions of the divine power in the nebulous appearances of the
heavens which are resolvable into myriads of distinct celestial
luminaries, whose immense distances commingle their light before it
reaches our eyes; we thus almost infinitely expand the circle of created
existence, and enter upon a formerly unknown and overwhelming range of
divine operation. But still we are only reminded, that his power is
truly _almighty_ and _measureless_--“Lo, all these are parts of his
ways; but how little a portion is known of him, and the thunder of his
power who can understand?” It is a mighty conception that we form of a
power from which all other power is derived, and to which it is
subordinate; which nothing can oppose; which can beat down and
annihilate all other power whatever; which operates in the most perfect
manner, at once, in an instant, with the utmost ease; but the Scriptures
lead us to the contemplation of greater and even unfathomable depths.
The omnipotence of God is inconceivable and boundless. It arises from
the infinite perfection of God, that his power can never be actually
exhausted; and, in every imaginable instant in eternity, that
inexhaustible power of God can, if it please him, be adding either more
creatures to those in existence, or greater perfection to them; since
“it belongs to self-existent being, to be always full and communicative,
and, to the communicated contingent being, to be ever empty and
craving.”

7. One limitation of the divine power it is true we can conceive, but it
detracts nothing from its perfection. Where things in themselves imply a
contradiction, as that a body may be extended and not extended, in a
certain place and not in it, at the same time; such things cannot be
done by God, because contradictions are impossible in their own nature.
Nor is it any derogation from the divine power to say, they cannot be
done; for as the object of the understanding, of the eye, and the ear,
is that which is intelligible, visible, and audible; so the object of
power must be that which is possible; and as it is no prejudice to the
most perfect understanding, or sight, or hearing, that it does not
understand what is not intelligible, or see what is not visible, or hear
what is not audible; so neither is it any diminution to the most perfect
power, that it does not do what is not possible. In like manner, God
cannot do any thing that is repugnant to his other perfections: he
cannot lie, nor deceive, nor deny himself; for this would be injurious
to his truth. He cannot love sin, nor punish innocence; for this would
destroy his holiness and goodness: and therefore to ascribe a power to
him that is inconsistent with the rectitude of his nature, is not to
magnify but debase him; for all unrighteousness is weakness, a defection
from right reason, a deviation from the perfect rule of action, and
arises from a want of goodness and power. In a word, since all the
attributes of God are essentially the same, a power in him which tends
to destroy any other attribute of the divine nature, must be a power
destructive of itself. Well, therefore, may we conclude him absolutely
omnipotent, who, by being able to effect all things consistent with his
perfections, showeth infinite ability, and, by not being able to do any
thing repugnant to the same perfections, demonstrates himself subject to
no infirmity.

8. Nothing certainly in the finest writings of antiquity, were all their
best thoughts collected as to the majesty and power of God, can bear any
comparison with the views thus presented to us by divine revelation.
Were we to forget, for a moment, what is the fact, that their noblest
notions stand connected with fancies and vain speculations which deprive
them of their force, still their thoughts never rise so high; the
current is broken, the round of lofty conception is not completed, and,
unconnected as their views of divine power were with the eternal destiny
of man, and the very reason of creation, we never hear in them, as in
the Scriptures, “the THUNDER of his power.”

ALMOND TREE, לוז. Arabic, _lauz_. Translated _hazel_, Gen. xxx, 37; שקד,
rendered _almond_, Gen. xliii, 11; Exod. xxv, 33, 34; xxxvii, 19, 20;
Num. xvii, 8; Eccles. xii, 5; and Jer. i, 11. The first name may be that
of the _tree_; the other, that of the _fruit_, or _nut_.

A tree resembling the peach tree in its leaves and blossoms, but the
fruit is longer and more compressed, the outer green coat is thinner and
drier when ripe, and the shell of the stone is not so rugged. This
stone, or nut, contains a kernel, which is the only esculent part. The
whole arrives at maturity in September, when the outer tough cover
splits open and discharges the nut. From the circumstance of its
blossoming the earliest of any of the trees, beginning as soon as the
rigour of winter is past, and before it is in leaf, it has its Hebrew
name _shakad_, which comes from a verb signifying _to make haste_, _to
be in a hurry_, or _to awake early_. To the forwardness of the almond
tree there seems to be a reference in Jeremiah: “The word of the Lord
came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod
of an almond tree. Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for
I will hasten my word to perform it;” or rather, “I am hastening, or
watching over my word to fulfil it,” Jer. i, 11, 12. In this manner it
is rendered by the Seventy; and by the Vulgate, _Vigilabo ego super
verbum meum_. [I will watch over my word.] This is the first vision with
which the Prophet was honoured; and his attention is roused by a very
significant emblem of that severe correction with which the Most High
was hastening to visit his people for their iniquity; and from the
species of tree to which the rod belonged, he is warned of its near
approach. The idea which the appearance of the almond rod suggested to
his mind, is confirmed by the exposition of God himself: “I am watching
over, or on account of, my word to fulfil it;” and this double mode of
instruction, first by emblem, and then by exposition, was certainly
intended to make a deeper impression on the mind both of Jeremiah and of
the people to whom he was sent.

It is probable that the rods which the princes of Israel bore, were
scions of the almond tree, at once the ensign of their office, and the
emblem of their vigilance. Such, we know from the testimony of
Scripture, was the rod of Aaron; which renders it exceedingly probable,
that the rods of the other chiefs were from the same tree.

The hoary head is beautifully compared by Solomon to the almond tree,
covered in the earliest days of spring with its snow white flowers,
before a single leaf has budded: “The almond tree shall flourish, and
the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail,” Eccl. xii, 5.
Man has existed in this world but a few days, when old age begins to
appear, sheds its snows upon his head, prematurely nips his hopes,
darkens his earthly prospects, and hurries him into the grave.

ALMUG TREE, a certain kind of wood, mentioned 1 Kings, x, 11; 2 Chron.
ii, 8; ix, 10, 11. Jerom and the Vulgate render it, _ligna thyina_, and
the Septuagint ξύλα ϖελεκητὰ, _wrought wood_. Several critics understand
it to mean _gummy wood_; but a wood abounding in resin must be very
unfit for the uses to which this is said to be applied. Celsus queries
if it be not the sandal; but Michaelis thinks the particular species of
wood to be wholly unknown to us. Dr. Shaw supposes that the almug tree
was the cypress; and he observes that the wood of this tree is still
used in Italy and other places for violins, harpsichords, and other
stringed instruments.

ALOE, עלר, a plant with broad leaves, nearly two inches thick, prickly
and serrated. It grows about two feet high. A very bitter gum is
extracted from it, used for medicinal purposes, and anciently for
embalming dead bodies. Nicodemus is said, John xix, 39, to have brought
one hundred pounds’ weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm the body of
Jesus. The quantity has been exclaimed against by certain Jews, as being
enough for fifty bodies. But instead of ἑκατὸν it might originally have
been written δέκατον, _ten_ pounds’ weight. However, at the funeral of
Herod there were five hundred ἀρωματόφορους, _spice bearers_; and at
that of R. Gamaliel, eighty pounds of opobalsamum were used.

The wood which God showed Moses, that with it he might sweeten the
waters of Marah, is called _alvah_, Exod. xv, 25. The word has some
relation to aloe; and some interpreters are of opinion that Moses used a
bitter sort of wood, that so the power of God might be the more
remarkable. Mr. Bruce mentions a town, or large village, by the name of
Elvah. It is thickly planted with trees; is the _oasis parva_ of the
ancients; and the last inhabited place to the west that is under the
jurisdiction of Egypt. He also observes that the Arabs call a shrub or
tree, not unlike our hawthorn, either in wood or flower, by the name of
elvah. “It was this,” say they, “with which Moses sweetened the waters
of Marah; and with this, too, did Kalib Ibn el Walid sweeten those of
Elvah, once bitter, and give the place the name of this circumstance.”
It may be that God directed Moses to the very wood proper for the
purpose. M. Neibuhr, when in these parts, inquired after wood capable of
this effect, but could gain no information of any such. It will not,
however, from hence follow that Moses really used a bitter wood; but, as
Providence usually works by the proper and fit means to accomplish its
ends, it seems likely that the wood he made use of was, in some degree
at least, corrective of that quality which abounded in the water, and so
rendered it potable. This seems to have been the opinion of the author
of Ecclesiasticus, xxxviii, 5. That other water, also, requires some
correction, and that such a correction is applied to it, appears from
the custom in Egypt in respect to that of the Nile, which, though
somewhat muddy, is rendered pure and salutary by being put into jars,
the inside of which is rubbed with a paste made of bitter almonds. The
first discoverers of the Floridas are said to have corrected the
stagnant and fetid water they found there, by infusing in it branches of
sassafras; and it is understood that the first inducement of the Chinese
to the general use of tea, was to correct the water of their ponds and
rivers.

The LIGN-ALOE, or agallochum, Num. xxiv, 6; Psalm xlv, 9; and Cantic.
iv, 14. אהלת, masculine, אהל, whose plural is אהלים, is a small tree
about eight or ten feet high. That the flower of this plant yielded a
fragrance, is assured to us in the following extract from Swinburne’s
Travels, letter xii: “This morning, like many of the foregoing ones, was
delicious. The sun rose gloriously out of the sea, and all the air
around was perfumed with the effluvia of the aloe, as its rays sucked up
the dew from the leaves.” This extremely bitter plant contains under the
bark three sorts of wood. The first is black, solid, and weighty; the
second is of a tawny colour, of a light spongy texture, very porous, and
filled with a resin extremely fragrant and agreeable; the third kind of
wood, which is the heart, has a strong aromatic odour, and is esteemed
in the east more precious than gold itself. It is used for perfuming
habits and apartments, and is administered as a cordial in fainting and
epileptic fits. These pieces, called calunbac, are carefully preserved
in pewter boxes, to prevent their drying. When they are used they are
ground upon a marble with such liquids as are best suited to the purpose
for which they are intended. This wood, mentioned Cantic. iv, 14, in
conjunction with several other odoriferous plants there referred to, was
in high esteem among the Hebrews for its exquisite exhalations.

            The scented aloe, and each shrub that showers
            Gum from its veins, and odours from its flowers.

Thus the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 15: “I gave a sweet smell
like the cinnamon and aspalathus. I yielded a pleasant odour like the
best myrrh; like galbanum and onyx, and fragrant storax, and like the
fume of frankincense in the tabernacle.” It may not be amiss to observe
that the Persian translator renders _ahalim_, sandal wood; and the same
was the opinion of a certain Jew in Arabia who was consulted by Neibuhr.

ALPHA, the first letter of the Greek alphabet; Omega being the last
letter. Hence Alpha and Omega is a title which Christ appropriates to
himself, Rev. i, 8; xxi, 6; xxii, 13; as signifying the beginning and
the end, the first and the last, and thus properly denoting his
perfection and eternity.

ALPHEUS, father of James the less, Matt. x, 3; Luke vi, 15. Alpheus was
the husband of Mary, believed to have been sister to the mother of
Christ; for which reason, James is called the Lord’s brother; but the
term brother is too general in its application to fix their relation,
though the fact is probable. Many are of opinion that Cleopas, mentioned
Luke xxiv, 18, is the same as Alpheus; Alpheus being his Greek name, and
Cleopas his Hebrew, or Syriac name, according to the custom of this
province, (or of the time,) where men often had two names; by one of
which they were known to their friends and countrymen, by the other to
the Romans or strangers.

2. ALPHEUS, father of Levi, or Matthew, whom Jesus took to be an Apostle
and Evangelist, Mark ii, 14.

ALTAR. Sacrifices are nearly as ancient as worship, and altars are of
almost equal antiquity. Scripture speaks of altars, erected by the
patriarchs, without describing their form, or the materials of which
they were composed. The altar which Jacob set up at Bethel, was the
stone which had served him for a pillow; Gideon sacrificed on the rock
before his house. The first altars which God commanded Moses to raise,
were of earth or rough stones; and it was declared that if iron were
used in constructing them they would become impure, Exod. xx, 24, 25.
The altar which Moses enjoined Joshua to build on Mount Ebal, was to be
of unpolished stones, Deut. xxvii, 5; Josh. viii, 31; and it is very
probable that such were those built by Samuel, Saul, and David. The
altar which Solomon erected in the temple was of brass, but filled, it
is believed, with rough stones, 2 Chron. iv, 1–3. It was twenty cubits
long, twenty wide, and ten high. That built at Jerusalem, by Zerubbabel,
after the return from Babylon, was of rough stones; as was that of
Maccabees. Josephus says that the altar which in his time was in the
temple was of rough stones, fifteen cubits high, forty long, and forty
wide.

Among the Romans altars were of two kinds, the higher and the lower; the
higher were intended for the celestial gods, and were called _altaria_,
from _altus_; the lower were for the terrestrial and infernal gods, and
were called _aræ_. Those dedicated to the heavenly gods were raised a
great height above the surface of the earth; those of the terrestrial
gods were almost even with the surface; and those for the infernal
deities were only holes dug in the ground called _scrobiculi_.

Before temples were in use the altars were placed in the groves,
highways, or on tops of mountains, inscribed with the names, ensigns, or
characters of the respective gods to whom they belonged. The great
temples at Rome generally contained three altars; the first in the
sanctuary, at the foot of the statue, for incense and libations; the
second before the gate of the temple, for the sacrifices of victims; and
the third was a portable one for the offerings and sacred vestments or
vessels to lie upon. The ancients used to swear upon the altars upon
solemn occasions, such as confirming alliances, treaties of peace, &c.
They were also places of refuge, and served as an asylum and sanctuary
to all who fled to them, whatever their crimes were.

The principal altars among the Jews were those of incense, of
burnt-offering, and the altar or table for the shew bread. The altar of
incense was a small table of shittim wood covered with plates of gold.
It was a cubit long, a cubit broad, and two cubits high. At the four
corners were four horns. The priest, whose turn it was to officiate,
burnt incense on this altar, at the time of the morning sacrifice
between the sprinkling of the blood and the laying of the pieces of the
victim on the altar of burnt-offering. He did the same also in the
evening, between the laying of the pieces on the altar and the
drink-offering. At the same time the people prayed in silence, and their
prayers were offered up by the priests. The altar of burnt-offering was
of shittim wood also, and carried upon the shoulders of the priests, by
staves of the same wood overlaid with brass. In Moses’s days it was five
cubits square, and three high: but it was greatly enlarged in the days
of Solomon, being twenty cubits square, and ten in height. It was
covered with brass, and had a horn at each corner to which the sacrifice
was tied. This altar was placed in the open air, that the smoke might
not sully the inside of the tabernacle or temple. On this altar the holy
fire was renewed from time to time, and kept constantly burning. Hereon,
likewise, the sacrifices of lambs and bullocks were burnt, especially a
lamb every morning at the third hour, or nine of the clock, and a lamb
every afternoon at three, Exod. xx, 24, 25; xxvii, 1, 2, 4; xxxviii, 1.
The altar of burnt-offering had the privilege of being a sanctuary or
place of refuge. The wilful murderer, indeed, sought protection there in
vain; for by the express command of God he might be dragged to justice,
even from the altar. The altar or table of shew bread was of shittim
wood also, covered with plates of gold, and had a border round it
adorned with sculpture. It was two cubits long, one wide, and one and a
half in height. This table stood in the _sanctum sanctorum_, [holy of
holies,] and upon it were placed the loaves of shew bread. After the
return of the Jews from their captivity, and the building of the second
temple, the form and size of the altars were somewhat changed.

Sacrifices according to the laws of Moses, could not be offered except
by the priests; and at any other place than on the altar of the
tabernacle or the temple. Furthermore, they were not to be offered to
idols, nor with any superstitious rites. See Lev. xvii, 1–7; Deut. xii,
15, 16. Without these precautionary measures, the true religion would
hardly have been secure. If a different arrangement had been adopted, if
the priests had been scattered about to various altars, without being
subjected to the salutary restraint which would result from a mutual
observation of each other, they would no doubt some of them have
willingly consented to the worship of idols; and others, in their
separate situation, would not have been in a condition to resist the
wishes of the multitude, had those wishes been wrong. The necessity of
sacrificing at one altar, (that of the tabernacle or temple,) is
frequently and emphatically insisted on, Deut. xii, 13, 14; and all
other altars are disapproved, Lev. xxvi, 30, compare Joshua xxii, 9–34.
Notwithstanding this, it appears that, subsequently to the time of
Moses, especially in the days of the kings, altars were multiplied; but
they fell under suspicions, although some of them were perhaps sacred to
the worship of the true God. It is, nevertheless, true, that prophets,
whose characters were above all suspicion, sacrificed, in some
instances, in other places than the one designated by the laws, 1 Sam.
xiii, 3–14; xvi, 1–5; 1 Kings xviii, 21–40.

AMALEKITES, a people whose country adjoined the southern border of the
land of Canaan, in the north-western part of Arabia Petræa. They are
generally supposed to have been the descendants of Amalek, the son of
Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau. But Moses speaks of the Amalekites long
before this Amalek was born; namely in the days of Abraham, when
Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, devastated their country, Gen. xiv, 7; from
which it may be inferred that there was some other and more ancient
Amalek, from whom this people sprang. The Arabians have a tradition that
this Amalek was a son of Ham; and when we consider that so early as the
march from Egypt the Amalekites were a people powerful enough to attack
the Israelites, it is far more probable that they should derive their
ancestry from Ham, than from the then recent stock of the grandson of
Esau. It may also be said, that the character and fate of this people
were more consonant with the dealings of Providence toward the families
of the former. This more early origin of the Amalekites will likewise
explain why Balaam called them the “first of the nations.”

They are supposed by some to have been a party or tribe of the shepherds
who invaded Egypt, and kept it in subjection for two hundred years. This
will agree with the Arabian tradition as to their descent. It also
agrees with their pastoral and martial habits, as well as with their
geographical position; which was perhaps made choice of on their
retiring from Egypt, adjoining that of their countrymen the Philistines,
whose history is very similar. It also furnishes a motive for their
hostility to the Jews, and their treacherous attempt to destroy them in
the desert. The ground of this hostility has been very generally
supposed to have been founded in the remembrance of Jacob’s depriving
their progenitor of his birthright. But we do not find that the
Edomites, who had this ground for a hatred to the Jews, made any attempt
to molest them, nor that Moses ever reproaches the Amalekites for
attacking the Israelites as their brethren; nor do we ever find in
Scripture that the Amalekites joined with the Edomites, but always with
the Canaanites and the Philistines. These considerations would be
sufficient, had we no other reasons for believing them not to be of the
stock of Esau. They may, however, be deduced from a higher origin; and
viewing them as Cuthite shepherds and warriors, we have an adequate
explanation both of their imperious and warlike character, and of the
motive of their hostility to the Jews in particular. If expelled with
the rest of their race from Egypt, they could not but recollect the
fatal overthrow at the Red Sea; and if not participators in that
catastrophe, still, as members of the same family, they must bear this
event in remembrance with bitter feelings of revenge. But an additional
motive is not wanting for this hostility, especially for its first act.
The Amalekites probably knew that the Israelites were advancing to take
possession of the land of Canaan, and resolved to frustrate the purposes
of God in this respect. Hence they did not wait for their near approach
to that country, but came down from their settlements, on its southern
borders, to attack them unawares at Rephidim. Be this as it may, the
Amalekites came on the Israelites, when encamped at that place, little
expecting such an assault. Moses commanded Joshua, with a chosen band,
to attack the Amalekites; while he, with Aaron and Hur, went up the
mountain Horeb. During the engagement, Moses held up his hands to
heaven; and so long as they were maintained in this attitude, the
Israelites prevailed, but when through weariness they fell, the
Amalekites prevailed. Aaron and Hur, seeing this, held up his hands till
the latter were entirely defeated with great slaughter, Exod. xvii.

The Amalekites were indeed the earliest and the most bitter enemies the
Jews had to encounter. They attacked them in the desert; and sought
every opportunity afterward of molesting them. Under the judges, the
Amalekites, in conjunction with the Midianites, invaded the land of
Israel; when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi, vii. But God, for
their first act of treachery, had declared that he would “utterly put
out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;” a denunciation which
was not long after accomplished. Saul destroyed their entire army, with
the exception of Agag their king; for sparing whom, and permitting the
Israelites to take the spoil of their foes, he incurred the displeasure
of the Lord, who took the sceptre from him. Agag was immediately
afterward hewn in pieces by Samuel, 1 Sam. xv. It is remarkable, that
most authors make Saul’s pursuit of the Amalekites to commence from the
lower Euphrates, instead of from the southern border of the land of
Canaan. (See _Havilah_.) David a few years after, defeated another of
their armies; of whom only four hundred men escaped on camels, 1 Sam.
xxx; after which event, the Amalekites appear to have been obliterated
as a nation.

AMASA, the son of Ithra and Abigail, David’s sister, whom Absalom, when
he rebelled against his father, appointed general of his army, 2 Sam.
xvii, 25. Amasa having thus received the command of Absalom’s troops,
engaged his cousin Joab, general of David’s army, and was worsted. But,
after the defeat of Absalom’s party, David, being angry at Joab for
killing Absalom, pardoned Amasa, and gave him the command of his own
army. Upon the revolt of Sheba, the son of Bichri, David gave orders to
Amasa to assemble all Judah and march against Sheba. Amasa not being
able to form his army in the time prescribed, David directed Abishai to
pursue Sheba with the guards. Joab, with his people, accompanied him;
and these troops were scarcely got as far as the great stone in Gibeon,
before Amasa came and joined them with his forces. Then said Joab to
Amasa, “Art thou in health, my brother?” and took him by the beard with
his right hand to kiss him; and treacherously smote him under the fifth
rib, so that he expired.

AMAZIAH, one of the kings of Judah, 2 Chron. xxiv, 27, son of Joash,
succeeded his father A. M. 3165, B. C. 839. He was twenty-five years of
age when he began to reign, and reigned twenty-nine years at Jerusalem.
“He did good in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.”
When settled in his kingdom, he put to death the murderers of his
father, but avoided a barbarous practice then too common, to destroy
also their children; in which he had respect to the precept, “The
fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to
death for his own sin,” Deut. xxiv, 16; 2 Chron. xxv, 1–3.

In the muster which Amaziah made of his people, he found three hundred
thousand men able to bear arms. He hired, besides, one hundred thousand
men of Israel; for which he paid the king of Israel a hundred talents,
about thirty-four thousand pounds English. His design was to employ
these troops against Edom, which had revolted from Judah, in the reign
of Joram, about fifty-four years before, 2 Kings, viii, 20. But a
prophet of the Lord came to him, and said, “O king, let not the army of
Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel.” Amaziah,
hereupon, sent back those troops; and they returning, strongly irritated
against Amaziah, dispersed themselves over the cities of Judah, from
Bethoron to Samaria, killed three thousand men, and carried off a great
booty, to make themselves amends for the loss of the plunder of Edom.
Amaziah, with his own forces gave battle to the Edomites in the Valley
of Salt, and defeated them; but having thus punished Edom, and taken
their idols, he adored them as his own deities. This provoked the Lord,
who permitted Amaziah to be so blinded as to believe himself invincible.
He therefore sent to defy the king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look
one another in the face.” The motive of this challenge was probably to
oblige Joash, king of Israel, to repair the ravages which his troops had
committed on their return homewards. Joash answered him by the fable of
the cedar of Lebanon, and the thistle trodden down by a beast, 2 Kings
xiv, 8, 9. But Amaziah, deaf to these reasonings, advanced to
Bethshemesh, and was defeated and taken prisoner there, by Joash, who
carried him to Jerusalem. Joash ordered the demolition of four hundred
cubits of the city wall, carried to Samaria all the gold and silver, the
rich vessels of the house of God, the treasuries of the royal palace,
and the sons of those among his own people who had been hostages there.
Amaziah reigned after this, fifteen or sixteen years at Jerusalem, but
returned not to the Lord. He endeavoured to escape from a conspiracy to
Lachish; but was assassinated. He was buried with his ancestors in the
city of David, and Uzziah, or Azariah, his son, about sixteen years of
age, succeeded him.

AMBASSADOR, a messenger sent by a sovereign, to transact affairs of
great moment. Ministers of the Gospel are called ambassadors, because,
in the name of Jesus Christ the King of kings, they declare his will to
men, and propose the terms of their reconciliation to God, 2 Cor. v, 20;
Eph. vi, 20. Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, the servants of king Hezekiah,
were called “ambassadors of peace.” In their master’s name they
earnestly solicited a peace from the Assyrian monarch, but were made “to
weep bitterly” with the disappointment and refusal, Isaiah xxxiii, 7.

AMBER, השמל, Ezek. i, 4, 27; viii, 2. The amber is a hard inflammable
bitumen. When rubbed it is highly endowed with that remarkable property
called electricity, a word which the moderns have formed from its Greek
name ἠλέκτρον. But the ancients had also a mixed metal of fine copper
and silver, resembling the amber in colour, and called by the same name.
From the version of Ezekiel i, 4, by the LXX, Καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσω ἀυτου ὡς
ὅρασις ἠλεκτρȣ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ϖυρὸς, “And in the midst of it as the
appearance of electrum in the midst of the fire,” it appears that those
translators by ἠλέκτρον, could not mean amber, which grows dim as soon
as it feels the fire, and quickly dissolves into a resinous or pitchy
substance; but the mixed metal above mentioned, which is much celebrated
by the ancients for its beautiful lustre, and which, when exposed to the
fire like other metals, grows more bright and shining. St. Jerom,
Theodoret, St. Gregory and Origen think, that, in the above cited
passages from Ezekiel, a precious and highly polished metal is meant.

AMEN. אמן, in Hebrew, signifies _true_, _faithful_, _certain_. It is
used likewise in affirmation; and was often thus employed by our
Saviour: “Amen, amen,” that is, “Verily, verily.” It is also understood
as expressing a wish, “Amen! so be it!” or an affirmation, “Amen, yes, I
believe it:” Num. v, 22. She shall answer, “Amen! Amen!” Deut. xxvii,
15, 16, 17, &c. “All the people shall answer, Amen! Amen!” 1 Cor. xiv,
16. “How shall he who occupieth the place of the unlearned, say, Amen!
at thy giving of thanks? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest.”
“The promises of God are Amen in Christ;” that is, certain, confirmed,
granted, 2 Cor. i, 20. The Hebrews end the five books of Psalms,
according to their distribution of them, with “Amen, amen;” which the
Septuagint translate, Γένοιτο, γένοιτο, and the Latins, _Fiat, fiat_.
The Gospels, &c, are ended with AMEN. The Greek, Latin, and other
churches, preserve this word in their prayers, as well as alleluia and
hosanna. At the conclusion of the public prayers, the people anciently
answered with a loud voice, “Amen!” and Jerom says, that, at Rome, when
the people answered, “Amen!” the sound was like a clap of thunder, _in
similitudinem cœlestis tonitrui Amen reboat_. [Amen rings again like
a peal of thunder.] The Jews assert that the gates of heaven are opened
to him who answers, “Amen!” with all his might.

The Jewish doctors give three rules for pronouncing the word: 1. That it
be not pronounced too hastily and rapidly, but with a grave and distinct
voice. 2. That it be not louder than the tone of him that blesses. 3.
That it be expressed in faith, with a certain persuasion that God would
bless them, and hear their prayers.

AMEN is a title of our Lord, “The Amen, the true and faithful witness,”
Rev. i, 14.

AMETHYST. אחלמה, Exod. xxviii, 19; and xxix, 12; and once in the New
Testament, Rev. XXI, 20, ἀμέθυϛος.

A transparent gem, of a colour which seems composed of a strong blue and
deep red; and, according as either prevails, affords different tinges of
purple, sometimes approaching to violet, and sometimes even fading to a
rose colour. The stone called amethyst by the ancients was evidently the
same with that now generally known by this name; which is far from being
the case with regard to some other gems. The oriental is the hardest,
scarcest, and most valuable. It was the ninth stone in the pectoral of
the high priest, and is mentioned as the twelfth in the foundations of
the New Jerusalem.

AMMINADAB, or ABINADAB, a Levite, and an inhabitant of Kirjath-jearim,
with whom the ark was deposited after it was brought back from the land
of the Philistines, 1 Sam. vii. This Amminadab dwelt in Gibeath, that is
to say, in the highest part of the city of Kirjath-jearim.

2. The chariots of Amminadab are mentioned, Canticles vi, 12, as being
extremely light. He is thought to have been some celebrated charioteer,
whose horses were singularly swift.

AMMON, or HAMMON, or JUPITER-AMMON, an epithet given to Jupiter in
Lybia, where was a celebrated temple of that deity under the
denomination of Jupiter Ammon, which was visited by Alexander the Great.

The word _Amoun_, which imports “shining,” according to Jablonski,
denoted the effects produced by the sun on attaining the equator, such
as the increase of the days; a more splendid light; and, above all, the
fortunate presage of the inundation of the Nile, and its consequent
abundance.

Ammon is by others derived from Ham, the son of Noah, who first peopled
Egypt and Lybia, after the flood; and, when idolatry began to gain
ground soon after this period, became the chief deity of those two
countries, in which his descendants continued. A temple, it is said, was
built to his honour, in the midst of the sandy deserts of Lybia, upon a
spot of good ground, about two leagues broad, which formed a kind of
island or oasis in a sea of sand. He was esteemed the Zeus of Greece,
and the Jupiter of Latium, as well as the Ammon of the Egyptians. In
process of time, these two names were joined; and he was called Jupiter
Ammon. For this reason the city of Ammon, No-ammon, or the city of Ham,
was called by the Greeks Diospolis, or the city of Jupiter. Plutarch
says, that of all the Egyptian deities which seemed to have any
correspondence with the Zeus of Greece, Amon or Ammon was the most
peculiar and appropriate. From Egypt his name and worship were brought
into Greece; as indeed were almost all the names of all the deities that
were there worshipped. Jupiter Ammon, or the Egyptian Jupiter, was
usually represented under the figure of a ram; though in some medals he
appears of a human shape, having only two ram’s horns growing out
beneath his ears. The Egyptians, says Proclus, in the Timæus of Plato,
had a singular veneration for the ram, because the image of Ammon bore
its head, and because this first sign of the zodiac was the presage of
the fruits of the earth. Eusebius adds, that this symbol marked the
conjunction of the sun and moon in the sign of the ram.

2. AMMON, or BEN-AMMI, the son of Lot, by his youngest daughter, Gen.
xix, 38. He was the father of the Ammonites, and dwelt on the east side
of the Dead Sea, in the mountains of Gilead.

AMMONIANS, the disciples of Ammonius Saccas, of the Alexandrian school.
His character was so equivocal, that it is disputed whether he was a
Heathen or a Christian. Mr. Milner calls him “a Pagan Christian,” who
imagined “that all religions, vulgar and philosophical, Grecian and
barbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing in substance. He
undertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems,
to make up a coalition of all sects and religions; and from his labours,
continued by his disciples,--some of whose works still remain,--his
followers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar, Pagan, and
Christian, as all of the same creed,” and worshippers of the same God,
whether denominated “Jehovah, Jove, or Lord.”

AMMONITES, the descendants of Ammon, the son of Lot. They took
possession of the country called by their name, after having driven out
the Zamzummims, who were its ancient inhabitants. The precise period at
which this expulsion took place is not ascertained. The Ammonites had
kings, and were uncircumcised, Jer. ix, 25, 26, and seem to have been
principally addicted to husbandry. They, as well as the Moabites, were
among the nations whose peace or prosperity the Israelites were
forbidden to disturb, Deut. ii, 19, &c. However, neither the one nor the
other were to be admitted into the congregation to the tenth generation,
because they did not come out to relieve them in the wilderness, and
were implicated in hiring Balaam to curse them. Their chief and peculiar
deity is, in Scripture, called Moloch. Chemosh was also a god of the
Ammonites. Before the Israelites entered Canaan, the Amorites conquered
a great part of the country belonging to the Ammonites and Moabites; but
it was retaken by Moses, and divided between the tribes of Gad and
Reuben. Previous to the time of Jephthah, B. C. 1188, the Ammonites
engaged as principals in a war, under a king whose name is not given,
against the Israelites. This prince, determining to recover the ancient
country of the Ammonites, made a sudden irruption into it, reduced the
land, and kept the inhabitants in subjection for eighteen years. He
afterward crossed Jordan with a design of falling upon the tribes of
Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. The Israelites resisted the invader; and,
assembling at Mizpeh, chose Jephthah for their general, and sent an
expostulatory message to the king of the Ammonites, Judges x, xi. The
king replied, that those lands belonged to the Ammonites, who had been
unjustly dispossessed of them by the Israelites, when they came out of
Egypt, and exhorted Jephthah to restore them peaceably to the lawful
owners. Jephthah remonstrated on the injustice of his claim; but finding
a war inevitable, he fell upon the Ammonites near Aroer, and defeated
them with great slaughter. On this occasion the Ammonites lost twenty
cities; and thus an end was put, after eighteen years’ bondage, to the
tyranny of Ammon over the Israelites beyond Jordan. In the days of Saul,
1 Sam. xi, B. C. 1095, the old claim of the Ammonites was revived by
Nahash their king, and they laid siege to the city of Jabesh. The
inhabitants were inclined to acknowledge Nahash as their sovereign; but
he would accept their submission only on condition that every one of
them should consent to lose his right eye, and that thus he might fix a
lasting reproach upon Israel: but from this humiliating and severe
requisition they were delivered by Saul, who vanquished and dispersed
the army of Nahash. Upon the death of Nahash, David sent ambassadors to
his son and successor Hanun, to congratulate him on his accession; but
these ambassadors were treated as spies, and dismissed in a very
reproachful manner, 2 Sam. x. This indignity was punished by David with
rigour. Rabbah, the capital of Hanun, and the other cities of Ammon,
which resisted the progress of the conqueror, were destroyed and razed
to the ground; and the inhabitants were put to death or reduced to
servitude. In the reign of Jehoshaphat the Ammonites united with their
brethren, the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Mount Seir, against the
king of Judah; but they were completely routed. They were afterward
overthrown by Uzziah, king of Judah, and made tributary, 2 Chron. xxvi,
8; and rebelling in the reign of his son Jotham, they were reduced to
the necessity of purchasing peace at a very dear rate. After the tribes
of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, were carried into
captivity by Tiglath Pileser, B. C. 740, the Ammonites and Moabites took
possession of the cities belonging to these tribes, and were reproached
for it by Jeremiah, xlix, 1. Their ambassadors were exhorted to submit
to Nebuchadnezzar, and threatened, on their refusal, with captivity and
slavery, Jer. xxvii, 2, 3, 4. The Prophet Ezekiel, xxv, 4–10, denounces
their entire destruction, and informs them, that God would deliver them
up to the people of the east; and that the Ammonites should no more be
mentioned among the nations: and this punishment they were to suffer for
insulting the Israelites on account of their calamities, and the
destruction of their temple by the Chaldeans. This malediction began to
be inflicted upon them in the fifth year after the taking of Jerusalem,
when Nebuchadnezzar made war against all the people around Judea, A. M.
3420 or 3421, B. C. 583. It is probable that Cyrus granted to the
Ammonites and Moabites liberty to return into their own country, whence
they had been removed by Nebuchadnezzar; for they were exposed to the
revolutions that were common to the people of Syria and Palestine, and
were subject sometimes to the kings of Egypt, and sometimes to the kings
of Syria. Polybius informs us, that Antiochus the Great took Rabboth, or
Philadelphia, the capital of the Ammonites, demolished the walls, and
put a garrison into it, A. M. 3806, B. C. 198. During the persecutions
of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Ammonites manifested their hatred to the
Jews, and exercised great cruelties against such of them as lived in
their parts. At length their city Jaser, and the neighbouring town, fell
a prey to the Jews, who smote the men, carried their wives and children
into captivity, and plundered and burned the city. Thus ended their last
conflict with the descendants of Israel. Ammon was, however, a highly
productive and populous country when the Romans became masters of all
the provinces of Syria; and several of the ten allied cities, which gave
name to the celebrated Decapolis, were included within its boundaries.
Even when first invaded by the Saracens, this country, including Moab,
was enriched by the various benefits of trade, covered with a line of
forts, and possessed some strong and populous cities. Volney bears
witness, “that in the immense plains of the Hauran, ruins are
continually to be met with, and that what is said of its actual
fertility perfectly corresponds with the idea given of it in the Hebrew
writings.” The fact of its natural fertility is corroborated by every
traveller who has visited it. And “it is evident,” says Burckhardt,
“that the whole country must have been extremely well cultivated in
order to have afforded subsistence to the inhabitants of so many towns,”
as are now visible only in their ruins. While the fruitfulness of the
land of Ammon, and the high degree of prosperity and power in which it
subsisted long prior and long subsequent to the date of the predictions,
are thus indisputably established by historical evidence and by existing
proofs, the researches of recent travellers (who were actuated by the
mere desire of exploring these regions and obtaining geographical
information) have made known its present aspect; and testimony the most
clear, unexceptionable, and conclusive, has been borne to the state of
dire desolation to which it is and has long been reduced.

It was prophesied concerning Ammon, “Son of man, set thy face against
the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. I will make Rabbah of the
Ammonites a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks. Behold, I
will stretch out my hand upon thee, and deliver thee for a spoil to the
Heathen; I will cut thee off from the people, and cause thee to perish
out of the countries; I will destroy thee. The Ammonites shall not be
remembered among the nations. Rabbah” (the chief city) “of the Ammonites
shall be a desolate heap. Ammon shall be a perpetual desolation,” Ezek.
xxv, 2, 5, 7, 10; xxi, 32; Jer. xlix, 2; Zeph. ii, 9.

Ammon was to be delivered to be a spoil to the Heathen--to be destroyed,
and to be a perpetual desolation. “All this country, formerly so
populous and flourishing, is now changed into a vast desert.”
(_Seetzen’s Travels._) Ruins are seen in every direction. The country is
divided between the Turks and the Arabs, but chiefly possessed by the
latter. The extortions of the one, and the depredations of the other,
keep it in “perpetual desolation,” and make it “a spoil to the Heathen.”
“The far greater part of the country is uninhabited, being abandoned to
the wandering Arabs, and the towns and villages are in a state of total
ruin.” (_Ibid._) “At every step are to be found the vestiges of ancient
cities, the remains of many temples, public edifices, and Greek
churches.” (_Burckhardt’s Travels._) The cities are left desolate. “Many
of the ruins present no objects of any interest. They consist of a few
walls of dwelling houses, heaps of stones, the foundations of some
public edifices, and a few cisterns filled up; there is nothing entire,
though it appears that the mode of building was very solid, all the
remains being formed of large stones. In the vicinity of Ammon there is
a fertile plain interspersed with low hills, which for the greater part
are covered with ruins.” (_Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria._) While the
country is thus despoiled and desolate, there are valleys and tracts
throughout it which “are covered with a fine coat of verdant pasture,
and are places of resort to the Bedouins, where they pasture their
camels and their sheep.” (_Buckingham’s Travels in Palestine._) “The
whole way we traversed,” says Seetzen, “we saw villages in ruins, and
met numbers of Arabs with their camels,” &c. Mr. Buckingham describes a
building among the ruins of Ammon, “the masonry of which was evidently
constructed of materials gathered from the ruins of other and older
buildings on the spot. On entering it at the south end,” he adds, “we
came to an open square court, with arched recesses on each side, the
sides nearly facing the cardinal points. The recesses in the northern
and southern wall were originally open passages, and had arched door
ways facing each other; but the first of these was found wholly closed
up, and the last was partially filled up, leaving only a narrow passage,
just sufficient for the entrance of one man and of the goats, which the
Arab keepers drive in here occasionally for shelter during the night.”
He relates that he lay down among “flocks of sheep and goats,” close
beside the ruins of Ammon; and particularly remarks that, during the
night, he “was almost entirely prevented from sleeping by the bleating
of flocks.” So literally true is it, although Seetzen, and Burckhardt,
and Buckingham, who relate the facts, make no reference or allusion
whatever to any of the prophecies, and travelled for a different object
than the elucidation of the Scriptures,--that “the chief city of the
Ammonites is a stable for camels, and a couching place for flocks.”

“The Ammonites shall not be remembered among the nations.” While the
Jews, who were long their hereditary enemies, continue as distinct a
people as ever, though dispersed among all nations, no trace of the
Ammonites remains; none are now designated by their name, nor do any
claim descent from them. They did exist, however, long after the time
when the eventual annihilation of their race was foretold; for they
retained their name, and continued a great multitude until the second
century of the Christian æra. (_Justin Martyr._) “Yet they are cut off
from the people. Ammon has perished out of the countries; it is
destroyed.” No people is attached to its soil; none regard it as their
country and adopt its name: “And the Ammonites are not remembered among
the nations.”

“Rabbah” (Rabbah Ammon, the chief city of Ammon) “shall be a desolate
heap.” Situated, as it was, on each side of the borders of a plentiful
stream, encircled by a fruitful region, strong by nature and fortified
by art, nothing could have justified the suspicion, or warranted the
conjecture in the mind of an uninspired mortal, that the royal city of
Ammon, whatever disasters might possibly befal it in the fate of war or
change of masters, would ever undergo so total a transmutation as to
become a desolate heap. But although, in addition to such tokens of its
continuance as a city, more than a thousand years had given
uninterrupted experience of its stability, ere the prophets of Israel
denounced its fate; yet a period of equal length has now marked it out,
as it exists to this day, a desolate heap, a perpetual or permanent
desolation. Its ancient name is still preserved by the Arabs, and its
site is now “covered with the ruins of private buildings--nothing of
them remaining except the foundations and some of the door posts. The
buildings, exposed to the atmosphere, are all in decay,” (_Burckhardt’s
Travels in Syria_,) so that they may be said literally to form a
desolate heap. The public edifices, which once strengthened or adorned
the city, after a long resistance to decay, are now also desolate; and
the remains of the most entire among them, subjected as they are to the
abuse and spoliation of the wild Arabs, can be adapted to no better
object than “a stable for camels.” Yet these broken walls and ruined
palaces, says Mr. Keith, which attest the ancient splendour of Ammon,
can now be made subservient, by means of a single act of reflection, to
a far nobler purpose than the most magnificent edifices on earth can be,
when they are contemplated as monuments on which the historic and
prophetic truth of Scripture is blended in one bright inscription.

AMORITES, the descendants of Amori, or Hæmorri, or Amorrhæus, Gen. x,
16, the fourth son of Canaan, whose first possessions were in the
mountains of Judea, among the other families of Canaan: but, growing
strong above their fellows, and impatient of confinement within the
narrow boundaries of their native district, they passed the Jordan, and
extended their conquests over the finest provinces of Moab and Ammon;
seizing and maintaining possession of that extensive and almost
insulated portion of country included between the rivers Jordan, Jabbok,
and Arnon. This was the kingdom, and Heshbon the capital, of the
Amorites, under Sihon their king, when the Israelites, in their way from
Egypt, requested a passage through their country. This request, however,
Sihon refused; and came out against them with all his force, when he was
slain, his people extirpated, and his kingdom taken possession of by the
Israelites. It was subsequently divided between the tribes of Reuben and
Gad, Num. xiii, 29; xxi, 13, 25; Joshua v, 1; xi, 3; Judges xi, 19, 22.

AMOS, the fourth of the minor prophets, who in his youth had been a
herdsman in Tekoa, a small town about four leagues southward of
Jerusalem. He was sent to the people of Samaria, to bring them back to
God by repentance, and reformation of manners. Hence it is natural to
suppose that he must have been born within the territories of Israel,
and that he only retired to Tekoa, on being expelled from Bethel by
Amaziah, the priest of the calves at Bethel. He frequently complains of
the violence offered him by those who endeavoured to impose silence on
him. He boldly inveighs against the crying sins of the Israelites, such
as idolatry, oppression, wantonness, and obstinacy. Nor does he spare
the sins of Judah, such as their carnal security, sensuality, and
injustice. He utters frequent threatenings against them both, and
predicts their ruin. It is observable in this prophecy, that, as it
begins with denunciations of judgment and destruction against the
Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, and other enemies of the Jews, so it
concludes with comfortable promises of the restoration of the tabernacle
of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Amos was
called to the prophetic office in the time of Uzziah, king of Judah, and
Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.

Some writers, in adverting to the condition of Amos, have, with a minute
affectation of criticism, pretended to discover a certain rudeness and
vulgarity in his style; and even Jerom is of opinion that he is
deficient in magnificence and sublimity. He applies to him the words
which St. Paul speaks of himself, that he was rude in speech, though not
in knowledge; and his authority, says Bishop Lowth, “has influenced many
commentators to represent him as entirely rude, and void of elegance;
whereas it requires but little attention to be convinced that he is not
a whit behind the very chiefest of the prophets;” equal to the greatest
in loftiness of sentiment, and scarcely inferior to any in the splendour
of his diction, and in the elegance of his composition. Mr. Locke has
observed, that his comparisons are chiefly drawn from lions, and other
animals, because he lived among, and was conversant with, such objects.
But, indeed, the finest images and allusions, which adorn the poetical
parts of Scripture, in general are drawn from scenes of nature, and from
the grand objects that range in her walks; and true genius ever delights
in considering these as the real sources of beauty and magnificence. The
whole book of Amos is animated with a fine and masculine eloquence.

AMULET, a charm or supposed preservative against diseases, witchcraft,
or any other mischief. They were very frequent among the Jews, the
Greeks, and the Romans, and were made of stone, metal, animal
substances, or, in short, any thing which a weak imagination suggested.
The Jews were very superstitious in the use of amulets, but the Mishna
forbids them, unless received from some person of whose cures, at least,
three instances could be produced. The phylacteries worn by the
Pharisees and others of the Jewish nation were a sort of amulets.

Amulets among the Greeks were called, φυλακτήρια, περιάπτα,
ἀποτέλεσματα, περιάμματα, βρήβια, and εξκόλπια. The Latins called them
_amuleta, appensa, pentacula, &c._ Remains of this superstition continue
among ignorant people even in this country, which ought to be strongly
discountenanced as weak or wicked. The word amulet is probably derived
from _amula_, a small vessel with lustral water in it, anciently carried
in the pocket for the sake of purification and expiation.

AMYRALDISM, a name given by some writers to the doctrine of universal
grace, as explained and asserted by Amyraldus, or Moses Amyraut, and his
followers, among the reformed in France, toward the middle of the
seventeenth century. This doctrine principally consisted of the
following particulars, viz. that God desires the happiness of all men,
from which none are excluded by a divine decree; that none can obtain
salvation without faith in Christ; that God refuses to none the power of
believing, though he does not grant to all his assistance, that they may
improve this power to saving purposes; and that many perish through
their own fault. Those who embraced this doctrine were called
Universalists, although, it is evident that they rendered grace
universal in words, but partial in reality, and are chargeable with
greater inconsistencies than the Supralapsarians. Amyraldus is said to
have formed his system with a view of producing a reconciliation between
the Lutherans and Calvinists. This theory was supported in England by
Baxter. See BAXTERIANISM.

ANABAPTISTS, a name given to those Christians who maintain that baptism
ought always to be performed by immersion; that it ought not to be
administered to children before the age of discretion; and that at this
age it ought to be readministered to those who have been baptized in
their infancy. They affirm that the administration of this sacrament is
neither valid nor useful, if it be done by sprinkling only, and not by
immersion; or if the persons who receive it be not in a condition to
give the reasons of their belief. The Anabaptists of Germany brought the
name into great odium by their turbulent conduct; but by the people of
this persuasion generally, the conduct of these fanatics was at all
times condemned. In England they form a most respectable, though not a
very numerous body.

The word Anabaptist is compounded of ἀνὰ, new, and βαπτιϛὴς, a baptist;
and has been indiscriminately applied to people of very different
principles. Many of them object to the name, because the baptism of
infants by sprinkling is, in their opinion, no baptism; and others hold
nothing in common excepting some one or other of the above mentioned
opinions concerning baptism. See BAPTISM.

ANAGOGICAL. This is one of the four senses in which Scripture may be
interpreted, viz. the literal, allegorical, anagogical, and
tropological. The anagogical sense is given when the text is explained
with regard to the end which Christians should have in view, that is,
eternal life: for example, the rest of the Sabbath, in the anagogical
sense, corresponds to the repose of everlasting blessedness.

ANAK, ANAKIM, famous giants in Palestine. Anak, father of the Anakim,
was son of Arba, who gave his name to Kirjath-Arba, or Hebron. Anak had
three sons, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, whose descendants were terrible
for their fierceness and stature. The Hebrew spies reported that in
comparison of those monstrous men, they themselves were but
grasshoppers. Some have thought that the name _Phœnician_, given to
the Canaanites, and particularly to the Sidonians, was originally from
_Bene-Anak_, sons of Anak. Caleb, assisted by the tribe of Judah, took
Kirjath-Arba, and destroyed the Anakim, A. M. 2559. Josh. xv, 14; Judg.
i, 20.

ANALOGY OF FAITH. This has been often and largely descanted upon as an
important rule for interpreting Scripture, founded, as it is said, upon
Rom. xii, 6, “Let us prophesy according to the proportion” (_analogy_)
“of faith.”

The principle of this rule has been thus stated: It is evident the
Almighty doth not act without a design in the system of Christianity,
any more than in the works of nature. Now this design must be uniform;
for as in the system of the universe every part is proportioned to the
whole, and made subservient to it,--so, in the system of the Gospel, all
the various truths, doctrines, declarations, precepts, and promises must
correspond with, and tend to, the end designed. For instance, supposing
the glory of God in the salvation of sinners by free grace be the grand
design,--then, whatever doctrine, assertion, or hypothesis agrees not
with this, it is to be considered as false. The effect however of this
view of the case appears to be often delusive. If nothing more be meant
than that, what is obscure in a revelation should be interpreted by that
which is plain, the same rule applies to all sober interpretations of
any book whatever; but if we call our opinions, perhaps hastily taken
up, or admitted on some authority without examination by the light of
Scripture, “the analogy of faith,” we shall greatly err. On this subject
Dr. Campbell remarks:--

“In vain do we search the Scriptures for their testimony concerning
Christ, if, independently of these Scriptures, we have received a
testimony from another quarter, and are determined to admit nothing as
the testimony of Scripture which will not perfectly quadrate with that
formerly received. This was the very source of the blindness of the Jews
in our Saviour’s time. They searched the Scriptures as much as we do;
but, in the disposition they were in, they would never have discovered
what that sacred volume testifies of Christ. Why? because their great
rule of interpretation was _the analogy of the faith_; or, in other
words, the system of the Pharisean scribes, the doctrine then in vogue,
and in the profound veneration of which they had been educated. This is
that veil by which the understandings of that people were darkened, even
in reading the law, and of which the Apostle observed, that it remained
unremoved in his day, and of which we ourselves have occasion to
observe, that it remains unremoved in ours. And is it not precisely in
the same way that the phrase is used by every sect of Christians, for
the particular system or digest of tenets for which they themselves have
the greatest reverence? The Latin church, and even the Greek, are
explicit in their declarations on this article. With each, _the analogy
of the faith_ is their own system alone. And that different parties of
Protestants, though more reserved in their manner of speaking, aim at
the same thing, is undeniable; the same, I mean, considered relatively
to the speakers; for, absolutely considered, every party means a
different thing. ‘But,’ say some, ‘is not this mode of interpretation
warranted by Apostolical authority? Does not Paul, Rom. xii, 6, in
speaking of the exercise of the spiritual gifts, enjoin the prophets to
prophesy κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς ϖίϛεως, _according to the proportion of
faith_, as our translators render it, but as some critics explain it,
_according to the analogy of the faith_?’ Though this exposition has
been admitted into some versions, and adopted by Hammond and other
commentators, and may be called literal, it is suited neither to the
ordinary meaning of the words, nor to the tenor of the context. The word
ἀναλογία strictly denotes proportion, measure, rate, but by no means
that complex notion conveyed in the aforesaid phrase by the term
_analogy_, which has been well observed by Whitby to be particularly
unsuitable in this place, where the Apostle treats of those who speak by
inspiration, not of those who explain what has been thus spoken by
others. The context manifestly leads us to understand ἀναλογία ϖίϛεως,
verse 6, as equivalent to μέτρον ϖίστεως, verse 3. And for the better
understanding of this phrase, _the measure of faith_, it may be proper
to observe, 1. That a strong conviction of any tenet, from whatever
cause it arises, is in Scripture sometimes termed _faith_. Thus in the
same epistle, Rom. xiv, 22, the Apostle says, ‘Hast thou faith? have it
to thyself before God.’ The scope of his reasoning shows that nothing is
there meant by faith, but a conviction of the truth in regard to the
article of which he had been treating, namely, the equality of days and
meats, in point of sanctity, under the Gospel dispensation. The same is
evidently the meaning of the word, verse 23, ‘Whatsoever is not of
faith, is sin;’ where, without regard to the morality of an action
abstractly considered, that is concluded to be sin which is done by one
who doubts of its lawfulness. 2. As to spiritual gifts, prophecy and
inspiration in particular, they appear to have been accompanied with
such a faith or conviction that they came from the Spirit, as left no
room for hesitation. And indeed it is easy to perceive that something of
this kind was absolutely necessary to enable the inspired person to
distinguish what proceeded from the Spirit of God, from what was the
creature of his own imagination. The prophets of God were not acted upon
like machines in delivering their predictions, as the diviners were
supposed to be among the Heathen, but had then, as at other times, the
free use of their faculties, both of body and mind.” This caution is
therefore with great propriety given them by the Apostle, to induce them
to be attentive in prophesying, not to exceed the precise measure
allowed them, (for different measures of the same gift were committed to
different persons,) and not to mingle aught of their own with the things
of God’s Spirit. Let him prophesy according to the proportion in which
he has received this gift, which is in proportion to his faith. Though a
sense somewhat different has been given to the words by some ancient
Greek expositors, none of them seems to have formed a conception of that
sense, which, as was observed above, has been given by some moderns.
This has, nevertheless, a sound and sober principle included in it,
although capable of great abuse. Undoubtedly there is a class of great
and leading truths in the Scriptures so clearly revealed as to afford
principles of interpretation in doubtful passages, and these are so
obvious that persons of sound minds and hearts will not need those
formal rules for the application of the analogy of faith to
interpretation, which have been drawn up by several writers, and which
when not misleading, are generally superfluous.

ANANIAS was the son of Nebedæus, high priest of the Jews. According to
Josephus, he succeeded Joseph, the son of Camith, in the forty-seventh
year of the Christian æra; and was himself succeeded by Ishmael, the son
of Tabæus, in the year 63. Quadratus, governor of Syria, coming into
Judæa, on the rumours which prevailed among the Samaritans and Jews,
sent the high priest Ananias to Rome, to vindicate his conduct to the
emperor. The high priest justified himself, was acquitted, and returned.
St. Paul being apprehended at Jerusalem by the tribune of the Roman
troops that guarded the temple, declared to him that he was a citizen of
Rome. This obliged the officer to treat him with some regard. As he was
ignorant of what the Jews accused him, the next day he convened the
priests, and placed St. Paul in the midst of them, that he might justify
himself. St. Paul began as follows: “Men and brethren, I have lived in
all good conscience before God until this day.” He had scarcely spoken
this, when the high priest, Ananias, commanded those who were near him
to smite him on the face. The Apostle immediately replied, “God shall
judge thee, thou whited wall; for, sittest thou to judge me after the
law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” They that
stood by said, “Revilest thou God’s high priest?” And Paul answered, “I
wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou
shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people,” Acts xxii, 23, 24;
xxiii, 1–5; by which words many suppose that the Apostle spake in bitter
irony; or at least that he considered Ananias as a usurper of the office
of the priesthood.

After this, the assembly being divided in opinion, St. Paul was sent by
the tribune to Cæsarea, that Felix, governor of the province, might take
cognizance of the affair. When it was known that the Apostle had arrived
at Cæsarea, Ananias the high priest, and other Jews, went thither to
accuse him; but the affair was adjourned, and St. Paul continued two
years in prison in that city, Acts xxiv.

The Apostle’s prediction that God would smite Ananias, was thus
accomplished: Albinus, governor of Judæa, being come into that country,
Ananias found means to gain him by presents; and Ananias, by reason of
this patronage, was considered as the first man of his nation. However,
there were in his party some violent persons, who plundered the country,
and seized the tithes of the priests; and this they did with impunity,
on account of the great credit of Ananias. At the same time, several
companies of assassins infested Judæa, and committed great ravages. When
any of their companions fell into the hands of the governors of the
province, and were about to be executed, they failed not to seize some
domestic or relation of the high priest Ananias, that he might procure
the liberty of their associates, in exchange for those whom they
detained. Having taken Eleazer, one of Ananias’s sons, they did not
release him till ten of their companions were liberated. By this means
their number considerably increased, and the country was exposed to
their ravages. At length, Eleazer, the son of Ananias, heading a party
of mutineers, seized the temple, and forbade any sacrifices for the
emperor. Being joined by the assassins, he pulled down the house of his
father Ananias, with his brother, hid himself in the aqueducts belonging
to the royal palace, but was soon discovered, and both of them were
killed. Thus God smote this whited wall, in the very beginning of the
Jewish wars.

2. ANANIAS, one of the first Christians of Jerusalem, who being
converted, with his wife Sapphira, sold his estate; (as did the other
Christians at Jerusalem, under a temporary regulation that they were to
have all things in common;) but privately reserved a part of the
purchase money to himself. Having brought the remainder to St. Peter, as
the whole price of the inheritance sold, the Apostle, to whom the Holy
Ghost had revealed this falsehood, rebuked him severely, as having lied
not unto men but unto God, Acts v. At that instant, Ananias, being
struck dead, fell down at the Apostle’s feet; and in the course of three
hours after, his wife suffered a similar punishment. This happened, A.
D. 33, or 34. It is evident, that in this and similar events, the
spectators and civil magistrates must have been convinced that some
extraordinary power was exerted; for if Peter had himself slain Ananias,
he would have been amenable to the laws as a murderer. But, if by
forewarning him that he should immediately die, and the prediction came
to pass, it is evident that the power which attended this word of Peter
was not from Peter, but from God. This was made the more certain by the
death of two persons, in the same manner, and under the same
circumstances, which could not be attributed to accident.

3. _Ananias_, a disciple of Christ, at Damascus, whom the Lord directed
to visit Paul, then lately converted. Ananias answered, “Lord, I have
heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at
Jerusalem; and how he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all
that call upon thy name.” But the Lord said unto him, “Go thy way, for
he is a chosen vessel unto me.” Ananias, therefore, went to the house in
which God had revealed unto him that Paul was, and putting his hands on
him, said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared unto thee in the
way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled
with the Holy Ghost,” Acts ix, 10–12, &c. We are not informed of any
other circumstance of the life of Ananias.

ANATHEMA, from ἀνατίθημι, signifies something set apart, separated, or
devoted, Mic. iv, 13, or the _formula_ by which this is effected. To
anathematize is generally understood to denote the cutting off or
separating any one from the communion of the faithful, the number of the
living, or the privileges of society; or the devoting of an animal,
city, or other thing, to destruction. See ACCURSED.

ANATHEMA MARANATHA. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him
be Anathema Maranatha,” 1 Cor. xvi, 22. Why these two words, one Greek
and the other Syriac, were not translated, is not obvious. They are the
words with which the Jews began their greater excommunication, whereby
they not only excluded sinners from their society, but delivered them up
to the divine _cherem_, or anathema, that is, to misery in this life,
and perdition in the life to come. “Let him be Anathema” is, “Let him be
accursed.” Maranatha signifies, “The Lord cometh,” or, “will come;” that
is, to take vengeance. See See ACCURSED.

ANDREW, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a native of Bethsaida, and the
brother of Peter. He was at first a disciple of John the Baptist, whom
he left to follow our Saviour, after the testimony of John, “Behold the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” John i, 29, and was
the first disciple received by our Saviour. Andrew then introduced his
brother Simon, and they went with him to the marriage in Cana, but
afterward returned to their ordinary occupation, not expecting, perhaps,
to be farther employed in his service. However, some months after, Jesus
meeting them, while fishing together, called them to a regular
attendance upon him, and promised to make them fishers of men, Matt. iv,
19.

After our Saviour’s ascension, tradition states that Andrew was
appointed to preach in Scythia and the neighbouring countries. According
to Eusebius, after this Apostle had planted the Gospel in several
places, he came to Patræ, in Achaia, where, endeavouring to convert the
pro-consul Ægeas, he was, by that governor’s orders, first scourged, and
then crucified. The time of his suffering martyrdom is not known; but
all the ancient and modern martyrologies of the Greeks and Latins agree
in celebrating his festival on the 30th of November. His body was
embalmed, and decently interred at Patræ, by Maximilla, a lady of great
quality and estate. It was afterward removed to Constantinople, by
Constantine the Great, who buried it in the great church which he had
built to the honour of the Apostles. It is not known for what reason
painters represent St. Andrew’s cross like an X. Peter Chrysologus says
that he was crucified upon a tree; and the spurious Hippolytus assures
us that it was an olive tree. Nevertheless, the tradition which
describes him to have been nailed to a cross is very ancient.

ANGEL, a spiritual, intelligent substance, the first in rank and dignity
among created beings. The word angel, ἀγγέλος, is not properly a
denomination of nature but of office; denoting as much as _nuncius_,
messenger, a person employed to carry one’s orders, or declare his will.
Thus it is St. Paul represents angels, Heb. i, 14, where he calls them
“ministering spirits;” and yet custom has prevailed so much, that angel
is now commonly taken for the denomination of a particular order of
spiritual beings, of great understanding and power, superior to the
souls or spirits of men. Some of these are spoken of in Scripture in
such a manner as plainly to signify that they are real beings, of a
spiritual nature, of high power, perfection, dignity, and happiness.
Others of them are distinguished as not having kept their first station,
Jude 6. These are represented as evil spirits, enemies of God, and
intent on mischief. The devil as the head of them, and they as his
angels, are represented as the rulers of the darkness of this world, or
spiritual wickednesses, or wicked spirits, τὰ ϖνευματικὰ τῆς ϖονηρίας ἐν
τοῖς ἐπȣρανίοις, Eph. vi, 12; which may not be unfitly rendered, “the
spiritual managers of opposition to the kingdom of God.”

The existence of angels is supposed in all religions, though it is
incapable of being proved _a priori_. Indeed, the ancient Sadducees are
represented as denying all spirits; and yet the Samaritans, and
Caraites, who are reputed Sadducees, openly allowed them: witness
Abusaid, the author of an Arabic version of the Pentateuch; and Aaron, a
Caraite Jew, in his comment on the Pentateuch; both extant in manuscript
in the king of France’s library. In the Alcoran we find frequent mention
of angels. The Mussulmen believe them of different orders or degrees,
and to be destined for different employments both in heaven and on
earth. They attribute exceedingly great power to the angel Gabriel, as
that he is able to descend in the space of an hour from heaven to earth;
to overturn a mountain with a single feather of his wing, &c. The angel
Asrael, they suppose, is appointed to take the souls of such as die; and
another angel, named Esraphil, they tell us, stands with a trumpet ready
in his mouth to proclaim the day of judgment.

The Heathen philosophers and poets were also agreed as to the existence
of intelligent beings, superior to man; as is shown by St. Cyprian in
his treatise of the vanity of idols; from the testimonies of Plato,
Socrates, Trismegistus, &c. They were acknowledged under different
appellations; the Greeks calling them dæmons, and the Romans genii, or
lares. Epicurus seems to have been the only one among the old
philosophers who absolutely rejected them.

Authors are not so unanimous about the nature as about the existence of
angels. Clemens Alexandrinus believed they had bodies; which was also
the opinion of Origen, Cæsarius, Tertullian, and several others.
Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nicene, St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom,
&c, held them to be mere spirits. It has been the more current opinion,
especially in later times, that they are substances entirely spiritual,
who can, at any time, assume bodies, and appear in human or other
shapes. Ecclesiastical writers make a hierarchy of nine orders of
angels. Others have distributed angels into nine orders, according to
the names by which they are called in Scripture, and reduced these
orders into three hierarchies; to the first of which belong seraphim,
cherubim, and thrones; to the second, dominions, virtues, and powers;
and to the third, principalities, archangels, and angels. The Jews
reckon four orders or companies of angels, each headed by an archangel;
the first order being that of Michael; the second, of Gabriel; the
third, of Uriel; and the fourth, of Raphael. Following the Scripture
account, we shall find mention made of different orders of these
superior beings; for such a distinction of orders seems intimated in the
names given to different classes. Thus we have _thrones_, _dominions_,
_principalities_, or princedoms, _powers_, _authorities_, _living ones_,
_cherubim_, and _seraphim_. That some of these titles may indicate the
same class of angels is probable; but that they all should be but
different appellations of one common and equal order is improbable. We
learn also from Scripture, that they dwell in the immediate presence of
God; that they “excel in strength;” that they are immortal; and that
they are the agents through which God very often accomplishes his
special purposes of judgment and mercy. Nothing is more frequent in
Scripture than the missions and appearances of good and bad angels, whom
God employed to declare his will; to correct, teach, reprove, and
comfort. God gave the law to Moses, and appeared to the old patriarchs,
by the mediation of angels, who represented him, and spoke in his name,
Acts vii, 30, 35; Gal. iii, 19; Heb. xiii, 2.

Though the Jews, in general, believed the existence of angels, there was
a sect among them, namely, the Sadducees, who denied the existence of
all spirits whatever, God only excepted, Acts xxiii, 8. Before the
Babylonish captivity, the Hebrews seem not to have known the names of
any angel. The Talmudists say they brought the names of angels from
Babylon. Tobit, who is thought to have resided in Nineveh some time
before the captivity, mentions the angel Raphael, Tob. iii, 17; xi, 2,
7; and Daniel, who lived at Babylon some time after Tobit, has taught us
the names of Michael and Gabriel, Dan. viii, 16; ix, 21; x, 21. In the
New Testament, we find only the two latter mentioned by name.

There are various opinions as to the time when the angels were created.
Some think this took place when our heavens and the earth were made. For
this opinion, however, there is no just foundation in the Mosaic
account. Others think that angels existed long before the formation of
our solar system; and Scripture seems to favour this opinion, Job
xxxviii, 4, 7, where God says, “Where wast thou when I laid the
foundations of the earth?--and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”
Though it be a universal opinion that angels are of a spiritual and
incorporeal nature, yet some of the fathers, misled by a passage in Gen.
vi, 2, where it is said, “The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that
they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,”
imagined them to be corporeal, and capable of sensual pleasures. But,
without noticing all the wild reveries which have been propagated by
bold or ignorant persons, let it suffice to observe, that by “the sons
of God” we are evidently to understand the descendants of Seth, who, for
the great piety wherein they continued for some time, were so called;
and that “the daughters of men” were the progeny of wicked Cain.

As to the doctrine of tutelary or guarding angels, presiding over the
affairs of empires, nations, provinces, and particular persons, though
received by the later Jews, it appears to be wholly Pagan in its origin,
and to have no countenance in the Scriptures. The passages in Daniel
brought to favour this notion are capable of a much better explanation;
and when our Lord declares that the “_angels_” of little children “do
always behold the face of God,” he either speaks of children as being
the objects of the general ministry of angels, or, still more probably,
by _angels_ he there means the disembodied spirits of children; for that
the Jews called disembodied spirits by the name of angels, appears from
Acts xii, 15.

On this question of guardian angels, Bishop Horsley observes: “That the
holy angels are often employed by God in his government of this
sublunary world, is indeed to be clearly proved by holy writ. That they
have power over the matter of the universe, analogous to the powers over
it which men possess, greater in extent, but still limited, is a thing
which might reasonably be supposed, if it were not declared. But it
seems to be confirmed by many passages of holy writ; from which it seems
also evident that they are occasionally, for certain specific purposes,
commissioned to exercise those powers to a prescribed extent. That the
evil angels possessed before their fall the like powers, which they are
still occasionally permitted to exercise for the punishment of wicked
nations, seems also evident. That they have a power over the human
sensory, which they are occasionally permitted to exercise, and by means
of which they may inflict diseases, suggest evil thoughts, and be the
instruments of temptation, must also be admitted. But all this amounts
not to any thing of a discretional authority placed in the hands of
tutelar angels, or to an authority to advise the Lord God with respect
to the measures of his government. Confidently I deny that a single text
is to be found in holy writ, which, rightly understood, gives the least
countenance to the abominable doctrine of such a participation of the
holy angels in God’s government of the world. In what manner then, it
may be asked, are the holy angels made at all subservient to the
purposes of God’s government? This question is answered by St. Paul in
his Epistle to the Hebrews, in the last verse of the first chapter; and
this is the only passage in the whole Bible in which we have any thing
explicit upon the office and employment of angels: ‘Are they not all,’
saith he, ‘ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them that
shall be heirs of salvation?’ They are all, however high in rank and
order, nothing more than ‘ministering spirits,’ or, literally, ‘serving
spirits;’ not invested with authority of their own, but ‘sent forth,’
occasionally sent forth, to do such service as may be required of them,
‘for them that shall be heirs of salvation.’”

The exact number of angels is no where mentioned in Scripture; but it is
always represented as very great. Daniel, vii, 10, says of the Ancient
of Days, “A fiery stream came from before him; thousand thousands
ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him.” Jesus Christ says, that his heavenly Father could have given him
more than twelve legions of angels, that is, more than seventy-two
thousand, Matt. xxvi, 53; and the Psalmist declares, that the chariots
of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, lxviii, 17, These
are all intended not to express any exact number, but indefinitely a
very large one.

Though all the angels were created alike good, yet Jude informs us,
verse 6, that some of them “kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation,” and these God hath “reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Speculations on the
cause and occasion of their fall are all vain and trifling. Milton is to
be read on this subject, as on others, not as a divine, but as a poet.
All we know, is, that they are not in their first “estate,” or in their
original place; that this was their own fault, for “they left their own
habitation;” that they are in chains, yet with liberty to tempt; and
that they are reserved to the general judgment.

Dr. Prideaux observes, that the minister of the synagogue, who
officiated in offering the public prayers, being the mouth of the
congregation, delegated by them, as their representative, messenger, or
angel, to address God in prayer for them, was in Hebrew called
_sheliack-zibbor_, that is, the _angel of the church_; and that from
hence the chief ministers of the seven churches of Asia are in the
Revelation, by a name borrowed from the synagogue, called angels of
those churches.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD, or _the Angel Jehovah_, a title given to Christ
in his different appearances to the patriarchs and others in the Old
Testament.

When the Angel of the Lord found Hagar in the wilderness, “she called
the name of JEHOVAH that spake to her, Thou God seest me.”--JEHOVAH
appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Abraham lifted up his
eyes, and three _men_, three persons in human form, “stood by him.” One
of the three is called Jehovah. And JEHOVAH said, “Shall I hide from
Abraham the thing that I do?” Appearances of the same personage occur to
Isaac and to Jacob under the name of “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac.”
After one of these manifestations, Jacob says, “I have seen God face to
face;” and at another, “Surely the Lord (JEHOVAH) is in this place.” The
same Jehovah was made visible to Moses, and gave him his commission; and
God said, “I AM THAT I AM; thou shalt say to the children of Israel, I
AM hath sent me unto you.” The same JEHOVAH went before the Israelites
by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire; and by
Him the law was given amidst terrible displays of power and majesty from
Mount Sinai. “I am the Lord (JEHOVAH) thy God, which have brought thee
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: Thou shalt have
no other gods before me,” &c. The collation of a few passages, or of the
different parts of the same passages, of Scripture, will show that
Jehovah, and “the Angel of the Lord,” when used in this eminent sense,
are the same person. Jacob says of Bethel, where he had exclaimed,
“Surely _Jehovah_ is in this place;” “The _Angel_ of God appeared to me
in a dream, saying, I am the God of Bethel.” Upon his death bed he gives
the names of _God_ and _Angel_ to this same person: “The _God_ which fed
me all my life long unto this day, the _Angel_ which redeemed me from
all evil, bless the lads.” So in Hosea xii, 2, 5, it is said, “By his
strength he had power with _God_; yea, he had power over the _Angel_,
and prevailed.” “We found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us,
even the _Lord God of Hosts_; the Lord is his memorial.” Here the same
person has the names, _God_, _Angel_, and _Lord God of Hosts_. “The
_Angel of the Lord_ called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and
said, By _myself_ have I sworn, saith the Lord, (JEHOVAH,) that, since
thou hast done this thing, in blessing will I bless thee.” The _Angel of
the Lord_ appeared to Moses in a flame of fire; but this same Angel
“called to him out of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy fathers,
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and Moses
hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” To omit many other
passages, St. Stephen, in alluding to this part of the history of Moses,
in his speech before the council, says, “There appeared to Moses in the
wilderness of Mount Sinai, _an Angel of the Lord_ in a flame of fire,”
showing that that phraseology was in use among the Jews in his day, and
that this Angel and Jehovah were regarded as the same being; for he
adds, “Moses was in the church in the wilderness with the _Angel_ which
spoke unto him in Mount Sinai.” There is one part of the history of the
Jews in the wilderness, which so fully shows that they distinguished
this Angel of Jehovah from all created angels, as to deserve particular
attention. In Exodus xxiii, 20, God makes this promise to Moses and the
Israelites: “Behold, I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the
way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of
him, and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your
transgressions, for my name is in him.” Of this Angel let it be
observed, that he is here represented as the guide and protector of the
Israelites; to him they were to owe their conquests and their settlement
in the promised land, which are in other places often attributed to the
_immediate_ agency of God; that they are cautioned to “beware of him,”
to reverence and stand in dread of him; that the pardoning of
transgressions belongs to him; finally, “that the _name_ of God was in
him.” This _name_ must be understood of God’s own peculiar name,
JEHOVAH, I AM, which he assumed as his distinctive appellation at his
first appearing to Moses; and as the names of God are indicative of his
nature, he who had a right to bear the peculiar name of God, must also
have his essence. This view is put beyond all doubt by the fact, that
Moses and the Jews so understood the matter; for afterward when their
sins had provoked God to threaten not to go up with them _himself_, but
to commit them to “an angel who should drive out the Canaanite,” &c, the
people mourned over this as a great calamity, and Moses betook himself
to special intercession, and rested not until he obtained the repeal of
the threat, and the renewed promise, “My _presence_ shall go with thee,
and I will give thee rest.” Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than
that Moses and the Israelites considered the promise of the Angel, in
whom was “the name of God,” as a promise that God _himself_ would go
with them. With this uncreated Angel, this _presence_ of the Lord, they
were satisfied, but not with “an angel” indefinitely, who was by
_nature_ of that order of beings usually so called, and therefore a
created being; for at the news of God’s determination not to go up with
them, Moses hastens to the tabernacle to make his intercessions, and
refuses an inferior conductor:--“If thy presence go not with me, carry
us not up hence.”

The Jews held this Word, or Angel of the Lord, to be the future Messiah,
as appears from the writings of their older rabbins. So that he appears
as the Jehovah of all the three dispensations, and yet is invariably
described as a separate person from the unseen Jehovah who sends him. He
was then the Word to be made flesh, and to dwell for a time among us, to
open the way to God by his sacrifice, and to rescue the race, whose
nature he should assume, from sin and death. This he has now actually
effected; and the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian religions are thus
founded upon the same great principles,--the fall and misery of mankind,
and their deliverance by a _Divine Redeemer_.

ANGELICS, worshippers of angels. Those who consider this as a sect of
the Apostolic age, think St. Paul, Coloss. ii, 18, cautions Christians
against a superstitious reverence of these celestial agents of the
Deity, which they conceive to have been borrowed from the idolatrous
reverence paid by the Heathen to genii and demons. The Jews of that time
are also accused of worshipping angels, and probably this superstition
might through them influence the Judaizing members of some of the
Apostolic churches. This idolatry may now be too justly charged upon the
Romish and some other corrupt churches.

ANGER, a resentful emotion of the mind, arising upon the receipt, or
supposed receipt, of an affront or injury; and also simple feeling of
strong displacency at that which is in itself evil, or base, or
injurious to others. In the latter sense it is not only innocent but
commendable. Strong displeasure against evil doers, provided it be free
from hatred and malice, and interferes not with a just placableness, is
also blameless, Eph. iv, 26. When it is vindictive against the person of
our neighbour, or against the innocent creatures of God, it is wicked,
Matt. v, 22. When anger, hatred, wrath, and fury, are ascribed to God,
they denote no tumultuous passion, but merely his holy and just
displeasure with sin and sinners; and the evidence of it in his terrible
threatenings, or righteous judgments, Psalm vi, 1, and vii, 11. We must,
however, take care that we refine not too much. These are Scriptural
terms, and are often used of God; and though they express not a
tumultuous, much less an unjust, passion, there is something in God
which answers to them. In him they are _principles_ arising out of his
holy and just nature; and for this reason they are more steady and
uniform, and more terrible, than if they were emotions, or as we say
passions. Nor can we rightly regard the severity of the judgments which
God has so often executed upon sin without standing in awe of him, “as a
consuming fire” to the ungodly.

ANIMAL, is an organized and living body, endowed with sensation.
Minerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and
animals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into
pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and
offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they
offered, were, 1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could
not be offered, because it was mutilated; and when it is said oxen were
sacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev. xxii, 18, 19. Calmet
thinks, that the mutilation of animals was neither permitted, nor used,
among the Israelites. 2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or
kid, Lev. xxii, 24. 3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it
is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in
burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or
sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered,
provided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev. iii, 1.

Besides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others
might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general
all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev. ix, 2, 3, &c. All
that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed
impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of
animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of
animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death,
Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23–27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which
had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a
wolf, a boar, &c, Exodus xxii, 3; nor of any animal that died of itself.
Whoever touched its carcass was impure until the evening; and till that
time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the
company of other Jews, Lev. xi, 39, 40; xvii, 15; xxii, 8. Fish that had
neither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev. xi, 20. Birds which walk on
the ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were
impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet
higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. These were clean,
and might be eaten, Lev. xi, 21, 22, as they still are in Palestine. The
distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously
accounted for. Some have thought it _symbolical_, intended to teach the
avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were
remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved
from _idolatry_, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which
were sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence
upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the
unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to
be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a _sanative_ regulation.
But it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean
and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the
flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly _sacrificial_; for
before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal
food was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and as no other ground
for the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore
have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to
God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by
expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some it is true, have
regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses
by way of _prolepsis_, or anticipation,--a notion which, if it could not
be refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are
the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean;
but it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark,
a difference is made in the _number_ to be preserved--the _clean_ being
to be received by _sevens_, and the _unclean_ by _two_ of a kind. This
shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the
time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The
critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed
to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed.

A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food,
after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the
“herb of the field.” This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the
Israelites, with this explanation:--“I have given it upon the altar to
make _an atonement_ for your souls.” From this it has indeed been
argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was
then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the
prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That
unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses. 2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration
of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given them the blood for an
atonement,” is an _additional reason_ for the interdict, not to be found
in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Lev. xvii, is,
“And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any
manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it upon the altar, to make
atonement for your souls: _for it is the_ BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh
atonement for the soul.” The great reason, then, of the prohibition of
blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is
_exegetical_ of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or
life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original
prohibition in Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given:
“But the flesh with the blood, which is _the life_ thereof, shall ye not
eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the
exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the
general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for
this cause, that it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” _or life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was _life_
substituted for _life_, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in
which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was
renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “new doctrine;” he does
not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to
make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had
made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with
which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was
sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the
sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a
sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood
not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was
this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks,
who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at
their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they
derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion,
indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods,
is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.

If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed
before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice,
we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it
was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws
for its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal
sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical
only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and
to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the
sins of men;--“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,”--the
victim “without spot,” who suffered the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.

ANISE, an annual umbeliferous plant, the seeds of which have an aromatic
smell, a pleasant warm taste, and a carminative quality. But by ἄνηθον,
Matt. xxiii, 23, the _dill_ is meant. Our translators seem to have been
first misled by a resemblance of the sound. No other versions have
fallen into the mistake. The Greek of _anise_ is ἄνισον; but of _dill_,
ἄνηθον.

ANNA, the daughter of Phanuel, a prophetess and widow, of the tribe of
Asher, Luke ii, 36, 37. She was married early, and had lived only seven
years with her husband. Being then disengaged from the ties of marriage,
she thought only of pleasing the Lord; and continued without ceasing in
the temple, serving God night and day, with fasting and prayer, as the
Evangelist expresses it. However, her serving God at the temple night
and day, says Dr. Prideaux, is to be understood no otherwise than that
she constantly attended the morning and evening sacrifice at the temple;
and then with great devotion offered up her prayers to God; the time of
morning and evening sacrifice being the most solemn time of prayer among
the Jews, and the temple the most solemn place for this devotion. Anna
was fourscore years of age when the holy virgin came to present Jesus in
the temple; and entering accidentally, while Simeon was pronouncing his
thanksgiving, she likewise began to praise God, and to speak of the
Messiah to all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem. We know
nothing more either of the life or death of this holy woman.

ANNAS, or ANANUS, as Josephus calls him, was the son of Seth, and high
priest of the Jews. He succeeded Joazar, the son of Simon, enjoyed the
high priesthood eleven years, and was succeeded by Ishmael, the son of
Phabi. After he was deposed, he still preserved the title of high
priest, and had a great share in the management of public affairs. He is
called high priest in conjunction with Caiaphas, when John the Baptist
entered upon the exercise of his mission; though Calmet thinks that at
that time he did not, strictly speaking, possess or officiate in that
character, Luke iii, 2. On the contrary, Macknight and some others are
of opinion, that at this time Caiaphas was only the deputy of Annas. He
was father-in-law to Caiaphas; and Jesus Christ was carried before him,
directly after his seizure in the garden of Olives, John xviii, 13.
Josephus remarks, that Annas was considered as one of the happiest men
of his nation, for five of his sons were high priests, and he himself
possessed that great dignity many years. This was an instance of good
fortune which, till that time, had happened to no person.

ANOINT, to pour oil upon, Gen. xxviii, 18; xxxi, 13. The setting up of a
stone and anointing it by Jacob, as here recorded, in grateful memory of
his celestial vision, probably became the occasion of idolatry in
succeeding ages, and gave rise to the erection of temples composed of
shapeless masses of unhewn stone, of which so many astonishing remains
are scattered up and down the Asiatic and the European world.

Under the law persons and things set apart for sacred purposes were
anointed with the holy oil; which appears to have been a typical
representation of the communication of the Holy Ghost to Christ and to
his church. See Exod. xxviii, xxix. Hence the Holy Spirit is called an
_unction_ or _anointing_, 1 John ii, 20, 27; and our Lord is called the
“Messiah,” or “Anointed One,” to denote his being called to the offices
of mediator, prophet, priest, and king, to all of which he was
consecrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, Matt. iii, 16, 17.

When we hear of the anointing of the Jewish kings, we are to understand
by it the same as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing was the
principal ceremony on such an occasion, 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 3. As far as we
are informed, however, unction, as a sign of investiture with the royal
authority, was bestowed only upon Saul and David, and subsequently upon
Solomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances,
that there was danger of their right to the succession being forcibly
disputed, 1 Sam. x, 24; 2 Sam. ii, 4; v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xi, 1, 2; 2 Kings
xi, 12–20; 2 Chron. xxiii, 1–21. The ceremony of regal anointing needed
not to be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne,
because the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any
particular line of princes had received was supposed to suffice for the
succeeding incumbents in the same descent.

In the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office
appear to have been inaugurated with some additional ceremonies, 2 Kings
ix, 13. The private anointings which we learn to have been performed by
the prophets, 2 Kings ix, 3, comp. 1 Sam. x, 1; xvi, 1–13, were only
prophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed
should eventually receive the kingdom.

The holy anointing oil which was made by Moses, Exod. xxx, 22–33, for
the maintaining and consecrating of the king, the high priest, and all
the sacred vessels made use of in the house of God, was one of those
things, as Dr. Prideaux observes, which was wanting in the second
temple. The oil made and consecrated for this use was commanded to be
kept by the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and
therefore it was laid up in the most holy place of the tabernacle and
the first temple.

ANOMŒANS, the name by which the pure Arians were called in the fourth
century, in contradistinction to the Semi-Arians. The word is formed
from the Greek ἀνόμοιος, _different_. For the pure Arians asserted, that
the Son was of a nature different from, and in nothing like, that of the
Father; whereas the Semi-Arians acknowledged a likeness of nature in the
Son, at the same time that they denied, with the pure Arians, the
consubstantiality of the Word. The Semi-Arians condemned the Anomœans
in the council of Seleucia; and the Anomœans, in their turn,
condemned the Semi-Arians in the councils of Constantinople and Antioch,
erasing the word _like_ out of the formula of Rimini and Constantinople.

ANSWER. Beside the common usage of this word, in the sense of a reply,
it has other significations. Moses, having composed a thanksgiving,
after the passage of the Red Sea, Miriam, it is said, _answered_, “Sing
ye to the Lord” &c,--meaning, that Moses, with the men on one side, and
Miriam, with the women on the other side, sung the same song, as it
were, in two choruses, or divisions; of which one _answered_ the other.
Num. xxi, 17, “Then Israel sung this song, Spring up, O well, _answer_
unto it;” that is, sing responsively, one side (or choir) singing first,
and then the other. 1 Sam. xxix, 5, “Is not this David of whom they sung
one to another in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and
David his ten thousands?” They sung this song to his honour in distinct
choruses.

This word is taken likewise for, _to accuse_ or to _defend_ any one,
_judicially_. Gen. xxx, 33, “My righteousness shall _answer_ for me;” it
shall be my advocate before thee. Deut. xxxi, 21, “The song which thou
shalt compose and teach them shall _testify_ (answer) against them as a
witness.” Isaiah says, “The show of their countenance will _testify_
(answer) against them;” their impudence will be like a witness and an
accuser. Hosea, v, 5, “The pride of Israel doth _testify_ (answer) to
his face.”

_To answer_, is likewise taken in a bad sense; as when it is said that a
son _answers_ his father insolently, or a servant his master. Rom. ix,
20, “Who art thou that _repliest_ against God?” that is, to contest or
debate with him. John xviii, 22, “Answerest thou the high priest so?”
St. Paul declares that he “had in himself the _answer_ (or sentence) of
death;” 2 Cor. i, 9; like a man who has had notice of condemnation, he
had a certain assurance of dying.

_To answer_ is also used in Scripture for the commencement of a
discourse, when no reply to any question or objection is intended. This
mode of speaking is often used by the evangelists, “And Jesus _answered_
and said.” It is a Hebrew idiom.

ANT, נמלה, in the Turkish and Arabic, _neml_, Prov. vi, 6; xxx, 25. It
is a little insect, famous from all antiquity for its social habits, its
economy, unwearied industry, and prudent foresight. It has afforded a
pattern of commendable frugality to the profuse, and of unceasing
diligence to the slothful. Solomon calls the ants “exceeding wise; for
though a race not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer.” He
therefore sends the sluggard to these little creatures, to learn wisdom,
foresight, care, and diligence.

            “Go to the ant; learn of its ways, be wise;
            It early heaps its stores, lest want surprise.
            Skill’d in the various year, the prescient sage
            Beholds the summer chill’d in winter’s rage.
            Survey its arts; in each partition’d cell
            Economy and plenty deign to dwell.”

That the ant hoarded up grains of corn against winter for its
sustenance, was very generally believed by the ancients, though modern
naturalists seem to question the fact. Thus Horace says,

                                “------_Sicut
            Parvula (nam exemplo est) magni formica laboris
            Ore trahit quodcunque potest, atque addit acervo
            Quem struit, haud ignara ac non incauta futuri;
            Quæ, simul inversum contristat aquarius annum,
            Non usquam prorepit, et illis utitur ante
            Quæsitis sapiens._”

                                                  _Sat._ i, l. i, v. 33.

             “For thus the little ant (to human lore
             No mean example) forms her frugal store,
             Gather’d with mighty toil on every side,
             Nor ignorant nor careless to provide
             For future want; yet, when the stars appear
             That darkly sadden the declining year,
             No more she comes abroad, but wisely lives
             On the fair stores industrious summer gives.”

The learned Bochart, in his _Hierozoicon_, has displayed his vast
reading on this subject, and has cited passages from Pliny, Lucian,
Ælian, Zoroaster, Origen, Basil, and Epiphanius, the Jewish rabbins and
Arabian naturalists, all concurring in opinion that ants cut off the
heads of grain, to prevent their germinating; and it is observable that
the Hebrew name of the insect is derived from the verb נמל, which
signifies _to cut off_, and is used for cutting off ears of corn, Job
xxiv, 24.

The following remarks are from “the Introduction to Entomology,” by
Kirby and Spence:

“Till the manners of exotic ants are more accurately explored, it would
be rash to affirm that no ants have magazines of provisions; for,
although, during the cold of our winters in this country, they remain in
a state of torpidity, and have no need of food, yet in warmer regions,
during the rainy seasons, when they are probably confined to their
nests, a store of provisions may be necessary for them. Even in northern
climates, against wet seasons, they may provide in this way for their
sustenance and that of the young brood, which, as Mr. Smeatham observes,
are very voracious, and cannot bear to be long deprived of their food;
else why do ants carry worms, living insects, and many other such
things, into their nests? Solomon’s lesson to the sluggard has been
generally adduced as a strong confirmation of the ancient opinion: it
can, however, only relate to the species of a warm climate, the habits
of which are probably different from those of a cold one; so that his
words, as commonly interpreted, may be perfectly correct and consistent
with nature, and yet be not at all applicable to the species that are
indigenous to Europe.”

The ant, according to the royal preacher, is one of those things which
are little upon the earth, but exceeding _wise_. The superior wisdom of
the ant has been recognised by many writers. Horace in the passage from
which the preceding quotation is taken, praises its sagacity; Virgil
celebrates its foresight, in providing for the wants and infirmities of
old age, while it is young and vigorous:--

              ----_atque inopi metuens formica senectæ._
              [And the ant dreading a destitute old age.]

And we learn from Hesiod, that among the earliest Greeks it was called
Idris, that is, wise, because it foresaw the coming storm, and the
inauspicious day, and collected her store. Cicero believed that the ant
is not only furnished with senses, but also with mind, reason and
memory:--_In formica non modo sensus sed etiam mens, ratio, memoria_.
[The ant possesses not only senses, but also mind, reason, memory.] The
union of so many noble qualities in so small a corpuscle, is indeed one
of the most remarkable phenomena in the works of nature.

ANTHROPOMORPHITES, a sect of ancient heretics, who were so denominated
from two Greek words ἄνθρωπος, _man_, and μόρφη, _shape_. They
understood every thing spoken in Scripture in a literal sense, and
particularly that passage of Genesis in which it is said, “God made man
after his own image.” Hence they maintained, that God had a human shape.

ANTHROPOPATHY, a metaphor by which things belonging to creatures and
especially to man are ascribed to God. Instances of this abound in the
Scriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking,
and to the limited capacities of men. These anthropopathies we must
however interpret in a manner suitable to the majesty of the divine
nature. Thus, when the members of a human body are ascribed to God, we
must understand by them those perfections of which such members in us
are the instruments. The _eye_, for instance, represents God’s knowledge
and watchful care; the _arm_, his power and strength; the _ears_, the
regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, &c.
Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so
interpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling in
him. When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of
speech, is put for the consequent; and in this case we are to understand
an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the
effect of repenting.

ANTICHRIST, compounded of ἀντὶ, _contra_, _against_, and Χριϛὸς,
_Christ_, in a general sense, denotes an adversary of Christ, or one who
denies that the Messiah is come. In this sense, Jews, infidels, &c, may
be said to be _antichrists_. The epithet, in the _general_ sense of it,
is also applicable to any power or person acting in direct opposition to
Christ or his doctrine. Its _particular_ meaning is to be collected from
those passages of Scripture in which it occurs. Accordingly, it may
either signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, or one
who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him. The Fathers all
speak of antichrist as a single man; though they also assure us, that he
is to have divers precursors, or forerunners. Yet many Protestant
writers apply to the Romish church, and the pope who is at the head of
it, the several marks and signatures of antichrist enumerated in the
Apocalypse, which would imply antichrist to be, not a single person, but
a corrupt society, or a long series of persecuting pontiffs, or rather,
a certain power and government, that may be held for many generations,
by a number of individuals succeeding one another. The antichrist
mentioned by the Apostle John, first Epistle ii, 18, and more
particularly described in the book of Revelation, seems evidently to be
the same with the _man of sin_, &c, characterized by St. Paul in his
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii; and the whole description
literally applies to the Papal power. A late writer, after collecting
the principal prophecies relating to antichrist, infers from them that a
power, sometimes represented as the little horn, the man of sin, the
antichrist, the beast, the harlot, the star falling from heaven, the
false prophet, the dragon, or as the operation of false teachers, was to
be expected to arise in the Christian world to persecute and oppress,
and delude the disciples of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the
primitive church, enact new laws, and establish its dominion over the
minds of mankind. He then proceeds to show, from the application of
prophecy to history, and to the remarkable train of events that are now
passing in the world, how exactly Popery, Mohammedanism, and Infidelity,
correspond with the character given in Scripture of the power of
antichrist, which was to prevail a certain time for the especial trial
and punishment of the corrupted church of Christ. Upon this system, the
different opinions of the Protestants and Papists, concerning the power
of antichrist, derived from partial views of the subject, are not wholly
incompatible with each other. With respect to the commonly received
opinion, that the church of Rome is antichrist, Mede and Newton, Daubuz
and Clarke, Lowman and Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, and many other members of
the Protestant churches who have written upon the subject, concur in
maintaining, that the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John,
point directly to this church. This was likewise the opinion of the
first reformers; and it was the prevalent opinion of Christians, in the
earliest ages, that antichrist would appear soon after the fall of the
Roman empire. Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, applied the
prophecies concerning the beast in the Revelation, the man of sin, and
the apostasy from the faith mentioned by St. Paul, to him who should
presume to claim the title of universal priest, or universal bishop, in
the Christian church; and yet his immediate successor, Boniface III,
received from the tyrant Phocas the precise title which Gregory had thus
censured. At the synod of Rheims, held in the tenth century, Arnulphus,
bishop of Orleans, appealed to the whole council, whether the bishop of
Rome was not the antichrist of St. Paul, “sitting in the temple of God,”
and perfectly corresponding with the description of him given by St.
Paul. In the eleventh century, all the characters of antichrist seemed
to be so united in the person of Pope Hildebrand, who took the name of
Gregory VII, that Johannes Aventinus, a Romish historian, speaks of it
as a subject in which the generality of fair, candid, and ingenuous
writers agreed, that at that time began the reign of antichrist. And the
Albigenses and Waldenses, who may be called the Protestants of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expressly asserted in their
declarations of faith, that the church of Rome was the whore of Babylon.
The Papists imagine they view in the prophetical picture of antichrist,
imperial Rome, elated by her victories, exulting in her sensuality and
her spoils, polluted by idolatry, persecuting the people of God, and
finally falling like the first Babylon; whilst a new and holy city,
represented by their own communion, filled with the spotless votaries of
the Christian faith, rises out of its ruins, and the victory of the
cross is completed over the temples of Paganism. This scheme has had its
able advocates, at the head of whom may be placed Bossuet, bishop of
Meaux, Grotius, and Hammond. Some writers have maintained, that Caligula
was antichrist; and others have asserted the same of Nero. But in order
to establish the resemblance, they violate the order of time, disregard
the opinions of the primitive Christians, and overlook the appropriate
descriptions of the Apostles. After the point had been maturely debated
at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution was taken thereupon to
insert an article in the confession of faith, whereby the Pope is
formally declared to be antichrist. Pope Clement VIII was stung with
this decision; and even king Henry IV, of France was not a little
mortified, to be thus declared, as he said, an imp of antichrist.

In the book of Daniel it is foretold, that this power should exercise
dominion until a time and times, and the dividing of time, Dan. vii, 25.
This expression is generally admitted to denote 1260 years. The Papal
power was completely established in the year 755, when it obtained the
exarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of antichrist in the
year of Christ 606; and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of antichrist
be not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall
will happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began,
according to Mede in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it
must be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If, however, we use prophetical
years, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, and date the rise of
antichrist in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ
2000. Every thing however in the state of the world betokens a speedy
overthrow of the Papal and Mohammedan powers, both of which have indeed
been already greatly weakened.

ANTI-LIBANUS. The Greeks give this name to that chain of mountains east
of Libanus, which, properly speaking, forms, together with Libanus, but
one ridge of mountains, extending from north to south, and afterward
from south to north, in the shape almost of a horse shoe, for the space
of about fourscore leagues. The western part of these mountains was
called Libanus; the eastern was called Antilibanus; the former reached
along the Mediterranean, from Sidon, almost to Arada, or Symira. The
Hebrew text never mentions Antilibanus; but uses the general name
Libanus: and the coins struck at Laodicea and Hierapolis, have the
inscription, “cities of Libanus,” though they belong rather to
Antilibanus. The Septuagint, on the contrary, puts Antilibanus often
instead of Libanus. The valley which separates Libanus from Antilibanus
is very fruitful: it was formerly, on the side of Syria, inclosed with a
wall, whereof there are now no traces. Strabo says, that the name of
Cœlo-Syria, or “the hollow Syria,” belongs principally to the valley
between Libanus and Antilibanus.

ANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or
obligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that
clearly supersede the necessity of good works and a virtuous life. The
Antinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538,
who taught that the law was in no wise necessary under the Gospel; that
good works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that
repentance is not to be preached from the decalogue, but only from the
Gospel. This sect sprung up in England during the protectorate of Oliver
Cromwell; and extended their system of libertinism much farther than
Agricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly
maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the
divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor
are to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law;
and that consequently they have no occasion either to confess their
sins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one
of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they
cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford,
Schlusselburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, &c, have
written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c, defences, of the
Antinomians; Wigandus, a comparison between ancient and modern
Antinomians.

The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and is thought to have
been represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote against
him with acrimony, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians.
Agricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imputed to
him which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth
century are considered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he
acknowledges that, “in respect of the rules of righteousness, or the
matter of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,” as he adds,
“we are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which
no true Christian dares so much as think of.” The following sentiments,
however, among others, are taught in his sermons: “The law is cruel and
tyrannical, requiring what is naturally impossible.” “The sins of the
elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though he did not commit them,
yet they became actually his transgressions, and ceased to be theirs.”
“The feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise
from a want of knowing the truth.” “It is but the voice of a lying
spirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting
their consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for them to bear.”
“Christ’s righteousness is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing
to be sinners, are as righteous as he was, and all that he was.” “An
elect person is not in a condemned state while an unbeliever; and should
he happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.”
“Repentance and confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A
believer may certainly conclude before confession, yea, as soon as he
hath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of
Christ embracing him.” These dangerous sentiments, and others of a
similar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none
more ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his “Checks to
Antinomianism.”

ANTIOCH, a city of Upper Syria, on the river Orontes, about twenty miles
from the place where it discharges itself into the Mediterranean. It was
built by Seleucus Nicanor, about three hundred years before Christ; and
became the seat of empire of the Syrian kings of the Macedonian race,
and afterward of the Roman governors of the eastern provinces; being
very centrally and commodiously situated midway between Constantinople
and Alexandria, about seven hundred miles from each, in 37° 17´ north
latitude, and 36° 45´ east longitude. No city perhaps, Jerusalem
excepted, has experienced more frequent revolutions, or suffered more
numerous and dire calamities, than Antioch; as, besides the common
plagues of eastern cities, pestilence, famine, fire, and sword, it has
several times been entirely overthrown by earthquakes.

In 362, the emperor Julian spent some months at Antioch; which were
chiefly occupied in his favourite object of reviving the mythology of
Paganism. The grove at Daphne, planted by Seleucus, which, with its
temple and oracle, presented, during the reigns of the Macedonian kings
of Syria, the most splendid and fashionable place of resort for Pagan
worship in the east, had sunk into neglect since the establishment of
Christianity. The altar of the god was deserted, the oracle was
silenced, and the sacred grove itself defiled by the interment of
Christians. Julian undertook to restore the ancient honours and usages
of the place; but it was first necessary to take away the pollution
occasioned by the dead bodies of the Christians, which were disinterred
and removed! Among these was that of Babylas, a bishop of Antioch, who
died in prison in the persecution of Decius, and after resting near a
century in his grave within the walls of Antioch, had been removed by
order of Gallus into the midst of the grove of Daphne, where a church
was built over him; the remains of the Christian saint effectually
supplanting the former divinity of the place, whose temple and statue,
however, though neglected, remained uninjured. The Christians of
Antioch, undaunted by the conspiracy against their religion, or the
presence of the emperor himself, conveyed the relics of their former
bishop in triumph back to their ancient repository within the city. The
immense multitude who joined in the procession, chanted forth their
execrations against idols and idolaters; and on the same night the image
and the temple of the Heathen god were consumed by the flames. A
dreadful vengeance might be expected to have followed these scenes; but
the real or affected clemency of Julian contented itself with shutting
up the cathedral, and confiscating its wealth. Many Christians, indeed,
suffered from the zeal of the Pagans; but, as it would appear, without
the sanction of the emperor.

In 1268, Antioch was taken by Bibars, or Bondocdar, sultan of Egypt. The
slaughter of seventeen thousand, and the captivity of one hundred
thousand of its inhabitants, mark the final siege and fall of Antioch;
which, while they close the long catalogue of its public woes, attest
its extent and population. From this time it remained in a ruinous and
nearly deserted condition, till, with the rest of Syria, it passed into
the hands of the Ottoman Turks, with whose empire it has ever since been
incorporated.

To distinguish it from other cities of the same name, the capital of
Syria was called _Antiochia apud Daphnem_, or Antioch near Daphne, a
village in the neighbourhood, where was a temple dedicated to the
goddess of that name; though, in truth, the chief deity of the place was
Apollo, under the fable of his amorous pursuit of the nymph Daphne; and
the worship was worthy of its object. The temple stood in the midst of a
grove of laurels and cypresses, where every thing was assembled which
could minister to the senses; and in whose recesses the juvenile devotee
wanted not the countenance of a libertine god to abandon himself to
voluptuousness. Even those of riper years and graver morals could not
with safety breathe the atmosphere of a place where pleasure, assuming
the character of religion, roused the dormant passions, and subdued the
firmness of virtuous resolution. Such being the source, the stream could
scarcely be expected to be more pure; in fact, the citizens of Antioch
were distinguished only for their luxury in life and licentiousness in
manners. This was an unpromising soil for Christianity to take root in.
But here, nevertheless, it was planted at an early period, and
flourished vigorously. It should be observed, that the inhabitants of
Antioch were partly Syrians, and partly Greeks; chiefly, perhaps, the
latter, who were invited to the new city by Seleucus. To these Greeks,
in particular, certain Cypriot and Cyrenian converts, who had fled from
the persecution which followed the death of Stephen, addressed
themselves; “and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.”
When the heads of the church at Jerusalem were informed of this success,
they sent Barnabas to Antioch, who encouraged the new disciples, and
added many to their number; and finding how great were both the field
and the harvest, went to Tarsus to solicit the assistance of Paul. Both
this Apostle and Barnabas then taught conjointly at Antioch; and great
numbers were, by their labours during a whole year, added to the rising
church, Acts xi, 19–26; xv, 22–35. Here they were also joined by Peter,
who was reproved by Paul for his dissimulation, and his concession to
the Jews respecting the observance of the law, Gal. ii, 11–14.

Antioch was the birthplace of St. Luke and Theophilus, and the see of
the martyr Ignatius. In this city the followers of Christ had first the
name of Christians given them. We have the testimony of Chrysostom, both
of the vast increase of this illustrious church in the fourth century,
and of the spirit of charity which continued to actuate it. It consisted
at this time of not less than a hundred thousand persons, three thousand
of whom were supported out of the public donations. It is painful to
trace the progress of declension in such a church as this. But the
period now referred to, namely, the age of Chrysostom, toward the close
of the fourth century, may be considered as the brightest of its history
subsequent to the Apostolic age, and that from which the church at
Antioch may date its fall. It continued, indeed, outwardly prosperous;
but superstition, secular ambition, the pride of life; pomp and
formality in the service of God, in place of humility and sincere
devotion; the growth of faction, and the decay of charity; showed that
real religion was fast disappearing, and that the foundations were laid
of that great apostasy which, in two centuries from this time,
overspread the whole Christian world, led to the entire extinction of
the church in the east, and still holds dominion over the fairest
portions of the west.

Antioch, under its modern name of Antakia, is now but little known to
the western nations. It occupies, or rather did till lately occupy, a
remote corner of the ancient enclosure of its walls. Its splendid
buildings were reduced to hovels; and its population of half a million,
to ten thousand wretched beings, living in the usual debasement and
insecurity of Turkish subjects. Such was nearly its condition when
visited by Pocock about the year 1738, and again by Kinneir in 1813. But
its ancient subterranean enemy, which, since its destruction in 587,
never long together withheld its assaults, has again triumphed over it:
the earthquake of the 13th of August, 1822, laid it once more in ruins;
and every thing relating to Antioch is past.

ANTIOCH, of Pisidia. Beside the Syrian capital, there was another
Antioch visited by St. Paul when in Asia, and called, for the sake of
distinction, _Antiochia ad Pisidiam_, as belonging to that province, of
which it was the capital. Here Paul and Barnabas preached; but the Jews,
jealous, as usual, of the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles,
raised a sedition against them, and obliged them to leave the city, Acts
xiii, 14, to the end. There were several other cities of the same name,
sixteen in number, in Syria and Asia Minor, built by the Seleucidæ, the
successors of Alexander in these countries; but the above two are the
only ones which it is necessary to describe as occurring in Scripture.

ANTIOCHUS. There were many kings of this name in Syria, much celebrated
in the Greek, Roman, and Jewish histories, after the time of Seleucus
Nicanor, the father of Antiochus Soter, and reckoned the first king of
Syria, after Alexander the Great.

1. ANTIOCHUS SOTER was the son of Seleucus Nicanor, and obtained the
surname of Soter, or Saviour, from having hindered the invasion of Asia
by the Gauls. Some think that it was on the following occasion: The
Galatians having marched to attack the Jews in Babylon, whose army
consisted only of eight thousand men, reinforced with four thousand
Macedonians, the Jews defended themselves with so much bravery, that
they killed one hundred and twenty thousand men, 2 Mac. viii, 20. It was
perhaps, too, on this occasion, that Antiochus Soter made the Jews of
Asia free of the cities belonging to the Gentiles, and permitted them to
live according to their own laws.

2. ANTIOCHUS THEOS, or, the God, was the son and successor of Antiochus
Soter. He married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of
Egypt. Laodice, his first wife, seeing herself despised, poisoned
Antiochus, Berenice, and their son, who was intended to succeed in the
kingdom. After this, Laodice procured Seleucus Callinicus, her son by
Antiochus, to be acknowledged king of Syria. These events were foretold
by Daniel: “And in the end of years,” the king of Egypt, or of the
south, and the king of Syria, or of the north, “shall join themselves
together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of
the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of
the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up,
and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that
strengthened her in these times,” Dan. xi, 6.

3. ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and brother
to Seleucus Ceraunus, whom he succeeded in the year of the world 3781,
and before Jesus Christ 223. He made war against Ptolemy Philopator,
king of Egypt, but was defeated near Raphia, 3 Mac. i. Thirteen years
after, Ptolemy Philopator being dead, Antiochus resolved to become
master of Egypt. He immediately seized Cœlo-Syria, Phenicia, and
Judea; but Scopas, general of the Egyptian army, entered Judea while
Antiochus was occupied by the war against Attalus, and retook those
places. However, he soon lost them again to Antiochus. On this occasion
happened what Josephus relates of this prince’s journey to Jerusalem.
After a victory which he had obtained over Scopas, near the springs of
Jordan, he became master of the strong places in Cœlo-Syria and
Samaria; and the Jews submitted freely to him, received him into their
city and furnished his army plentifully with provisions. In reward for
their affection, Antiochus granted them, according to Josephus, twenty
thousand pieces of silver, to purchase beasts for sacrifice, one
thousand four hundred and sixty measures of meal, and three hundred and
seventy-five measures of salt to be offered with the sacrifices, and
timber to rebuild the porches of the Lord’s house. He exempted the
senators, scribes, and singing men of the temple, from the capitation
tax; and he permitted the Jews to live according to their own laws in
every part of his dominions. He also remitted the third part of their
tribute, to indemnify them for their losses in the war; he forbade the
Heathens to enter the temple without being purified, and to bring into
the city the flesh of mules, asses, and horses to sell, under a severe
penalty.

In the year of the world 3815, Antiochus was overcome by the Romans, and
obliged to cede all his possessions beyond Mount Taurus, to give twenty
hostages, among whom was his own son Antiochus, afterward surnamed
Epiphanes, and to pay a tribute of twelve thousand Euboic talents, each
fourteen Roman pounds in weight. To defray these charges, he resolved to
seize the treasures of the temple of Belus, at Elymais; but the people
of that country, informed of his design, surprised and destroyed him,
with all his army, in the year of the world 3817, and before Jesus
Christ 187. He left two sons, Seleucus Philopator, and Antiochus
Epiphanes, who succeeded him.

4. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, the son of Antiochus the Great, having continued
a hostage at Rome fourteen years, his brother Seleucus resolved to
procure his return to Syria, and sent his own son Demetrius to Rome in
the place of Antiochus. Whilst Antiochus was on his journey to Syria,
Seleucus died, in the year of the world 3829. When, therefore, Antiochus
landed, the people received him as some propitious deity come to assume
the government, and to oppose the enterprises of Ptolemy, king of Egypt,
who threatened to invade Syria. For this reason Antiochus obtained the
surname of Epiphanes, the illustrious, or of one appearing like a god.

Antiochus quickly turned his attention to the possession of Egypt, which
was then enjoyed by Ptolemy Philometor, his nephew, son to his sister
Cleopatra, whom Antiochus the Great had married to Ptolemy Epiphanes,
king of Egypt. He sent Apollonius, one of his officers, into Egypt,
apparently to honour Ptolemy’s coronation, but in reality to obtain
intelligence whether the great men of the kingdom were inclined to place
the government of Egypt in his hands during the minority of the king his
nephew, 2 Mac. iv, 21, &c. Apollonius, however, found them not disposed
to favour his master; and this obliged Antiochus to make war against
Philometor. He came to Jerusalem in 3831, and was received there by
Jason, to whom he had sold the high priesthood. He designed to attack
Egypt, but returned without effecting any thing. The ambition of those
Jews who sought the high priesthood, and bought it of Antiochus, was the
beginning of those calamities which overwhelmed their nation under this
prince. Jason procured himself to be constituted in this dignity in the
stead of Onias III; but Menelaus offering a greater price, Jason was
deprived, and Menelaus appointed in his place. These usurpers of the
high priesthood, to gratify the Syrians, assumed the manners of the
Greeks, their games and exercises, and neglected the worship of the
Lord, and the temple service.

War broke out between Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philometor.
Antiochus entered Egypt in the year of the world 3833, and reduced
almost the whole of it to his obedience, 2 Mac. v, 3–5. The next year he
returned; and whilst he was engaged in the siege of Alexandria, a false
report was spread of his death. The inhabitants of Jerusalem testifying
their joy at this news, Antiochus, when returning from Egypt, entered
this city by force, treated the Jews as rebels, and commanded his troops
to slay all they met. Eighty thousand were killed, made captives, or
sold on this occasion. Antiochus, conducted by the corrupt high priest
Menelaus, entered into the holy of holies, whence he took and carried
off the most precious vessels of that holy place, to the value of one
thousand eight hundred talents. In the year 3835, Antiochus made a third
expedition against Egypt, which he entirely subdued. The year following,
he sent Apollonius into Judea, with an army of twenty-two thousand men,
and commanded him to kill all the Jews who were of full age, and to sell
the women and young men, 2 Mac. v, 24, 25. These orders were too
punctually executed. It was on this occasion that Judas Maccabæus
retired into the wilderness with his father and his brethren, 2 Mac. v,
29. These misfortunes were only preludes of what they were to suffer;
for Antiochus, apprehending that the Jews would never be constant in
their obedience to him, unless he obliged them to change their religion,
and to embrace that of the Greeks, issued an edict, enjoining them to
conform to the laws of other nations, and forbidding their usual
sacrifices in the temple, their festivals, and their Sabbath. The statue
of Jupiter Olympus was placed upon the altar of the temple, and thus the
abomination of desolation was seen in the temple of God. Many corrupt
Jews complied with these orders; but others resisted them. Mattathias
and his sons retired to the mountains. Old Eleazar, and the seven
brethren, suffered death with great courage at Antioch, 2 Mac. vii.
Mattathias being dead, Judas Maccabæus headed those Jews who continued
faithful, and opposed with success the generals whom king Antiochus sent
into Judea. The king, informed of the valour and resistance of Judas,
sent new forces; and, finding his treasures exhausted, he resolved to go
into Persia to levy tributes, and to collect large sums which he had
agreed to pay to the Romans, 1 Mac. iii, 5–31; 2 Mac. ix, 1, &c; 1 Mac.
vi, 1, &c. Knowing that very great riches were lodged in the temple of
Elymaïs, he determined to carry it off; but the inhabitants of the
country made so vigorous a resistance, that he was forced to retreat
toward Babylonia. When he was come to Ecbatana, he was informed of the
defeat of Nicanor and Timotheus, and that Judas Maccabæus had retaken
the temple of Jerusalem, and restored the worship of the Lord, and the
usual sacrifices. On receiving this intelligence, the king was
transported with indignation; and, threatening to make Jerusalem a grave
for the Jews, commanded the driver of his chariot to urge the horses
forward, and to hasten his journey. However, divine vengeance soon
overtook him: he fell from his chariot, and bruised all his limbs. He
was also tormented with such pains in his bowels, as allowed him no
rest; and his disease was aggravated by grief and vexation. In this
condition he wrote to the Jews very humbly, promised them many things,
and engaged even to turn Jew, if God would restore him to health. He
earnestly recommended to them his son Antiochus, who was to succeed him,
and entreated them to favour the young prince, and to continue faithful
to him. He died, overwhelmed with pain and grief, in the mountains of
Paratacene, in the little town of Tabes, in the year of the world 3840,
and before Jesus Christ 164.

5. ANTIOCHUS EUPATOR, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, was only nine years
old when his father died and left him the kingdom of Syria. Lysias, who
governed the kingdom in the name of the young prince, led against Judea
an army of one hundred thousand foot, twenty thousand horse, and thirty
elephants, 1 Mac. vi; 2 Mac. xiii. He besieged and took the fortress of
Bethsura, and thence marched against Jerusalem. The city was ready to
fall into his hands when Lysias received the news that Philip, whom
Antiochus Epiphanes had entrusted with the regency of the kingdom, had
come to Antioch to take the government, according to the disposition of
the late king. He therefore proposed an accommodation with the Jews,
that he might return speedily to Antioch and oppose Philip. After
concluding a peace, he immediately returned into Syria, with the young
king and his army.

In the meantime, Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator, and nephew
to Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom by right the kingdom belonged, having
escaped from Rome, came into Syria. Finding the people disposed for
revolt, Demetrius headed an army, and marched directly to Antioch,
against Antiochus and Lysias. However, the inhabitants did not wait till
he besieged the city; but opened the gates, and delivered to him Lysias
and the young king Antiochus Eupator, whom Demetrius caused to be put to
death, without suffering them to appear in his presence. Antiochus
Eupator reigned only two years, and died in the year of the world 3842,
and before Jesus Christ 162.

6. ANTIOCHUS THEOS, or the _Divine_, the son of Alexander Balas, king of
Syria, was brought up by the Arabian prince Elmachuel, or, as he is
called in the Greek, Simalcue, 1 Mac. xi, 39, 40, &c. Demetrius Nicanor,
king of Syria, having rendered himself odious to his troops, one
Diodotus, otherwise called Tryphon, came to Zabdiel, a king in Arabia,
and desired him to entrust him with young Antiochus, whom he promised to
place on the throne of Syria, which was then possessed by Demetrius
Nicanor. After some hesitation, Zabdiel complied with the request; and
Tryphon carried Antiochus into Syria, and put the crown on his head. The
troops dismissed by Demetrius, came and joined Tryphon, who, having
formed a powerful army, defeated Demetrius, and forced him to retreat to
Seleucia. Tryphon seized his elephants, and rendered himself master of
Antioch, in the year of the world 3859, and before Jesus Christ 145.
Antiochus Theos, to strengthen himself in his new acquisition, sent
letters to Jonathan Maccabæus, high priest and prince of the Jews,
confirming him in the high priesthood, and granting him four toparchies,
or four considerable places, in Judea. He also received Jonathan into
the number of his friends, sent him vessels of gold, permitted him to
use a gold cup, to wear purple, and a golden buckle; and he gave his
brother, Simon Maccabæus, the command of all his troops on the coast of
the Mediterranean, from Tyre to Egypt. Jonathan, engaged by so many
favours, declared resolutely for Antiochus, or rather for Tryphon, who
reigned under the name of this young prince; and on several occasions,
he attacked the generals of Demetrius, who still possessed many places
beyond Jordan and in Galilee, 1 Macc. xi, 63, &c; xii, 24, 34. Tryphon,
seeing young Antiochus in peaceable possession of the kingdom of Syria,
resolved to usurp his crown. He thought it necessary, in the first
place, to secure Jonathan Maccabæus who was one of the most powerful
supporters of Antiochus’s throne. He came, therefore, with troops into
Judea, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, and there, on frivolous pretences,
made him prisoner. However, Simon, Jonathan’s brother, headed the troops
of Judea, and opposed Tryphon, who intended to take Jerusalem. Tryphon,
being disappointed, put Jonathan to death at Bassa or Bascama, and
returned into Syria, where, without delay, he executed his design of
killing Antiochus. He corrupted the royal physicians, who, having
published that Antiochus was tormented with the stone, murdered him, by
cutting him without any necessity. Thus Tryphon was left master of
Syria, in the year of the world 3861, and before Jesus Christ 143.

7. ANTIOCHUS SIDETES, or _Soter_ the Saviour, or _Eusebes_ the pious,
was the son of Demetrius Soter, and brother to Demetrius Nicanor.
Tryphon, the usurper of the kingdom of Syria, having rendered himself
odious to his troops, they deserted him, and offered their services to
Cleopatra, the wife of Demetrius Nicanor. She lived in the city of
Seleucia, shut up with her children, while her husband Demetrius was a
prisoner in Persia, where he had married Rodeguna, the daughter of
Arsaces king of Persia. Cleopatra, therefore sent to Antiochus Sidetes,
her brother-in-law, and offered him the crown of Syria, if he would
marry her; to which Antiochus consented. This prince was then at Cnidus,
where his father, Demetrius Soter had placed him with one of his
friends. He came into Syria, and wrote to Simon Maccabæus, to engage him
against Tryphon, 1 Macc. xv, 1, 2, 3, &c. He confirmed the privileges
which the kings of Syria had granted to Simon, permitted him to coin
money with his own stamp, declared Jerusalem and the temple exempt from
royal jurisdiction, and promised other favours as soon as he should
obtain peaceable possession of the kingdom which had belonged to his
ancestors. Antiochus Sidetes having married his sister-in-law,
Cleopatra, in the year of the world 3865, the troops of Tryphon resorted
to him in crowds. Tryphon, thus abandoned, retired to Dora, in
Phœnicia, whither Antiochus pursued him with an army of 120,000 foot,
800 horse, and a powerful fleet. Simon Maccabæus sent Antiochus two
thousand chosen men, but the latter refused them and revoked all his
promises. He also sent Athenobius to Jerusalem to oblige Simon to
restore to him Gazara and Joppa, with the citadel of Jerusalem; and to
demand of him five hundred talents more, as reparation for injuries the
king had suffered, and as tribute for his own cities. At the same time
he threatened to make war upon him, if he did not comply. Simon showed
Athenobius all the lustre of his wealth and power, told him he had in
his possession no place which belonged to Antiochus, and said that the
cities of Gazara and Joppa had greatly injured his people, and he would
give the king for the property of them one hundred talents. Athenobius
returned with great indignation to Antiochus, who was extremely offended
at Simon’s answer. In the meantime, Tryphon having escaped privately
from Dora, embarked in a vessel and fled. Antiochus pursued him, and
sent Cendebeus with troops into the maritime parts of Palestine, and
commanded him to rebuild Cedron, and fight the Jews. John Hircanus, son
of Simon Maccabæus, was then at Gaza, and gave notice to his father of
the coming of Cendebeus. Simon furnished his sons, John Hircanus and
Judas with troops, and sent them against Cendebeus, whom they routed in
the plain and pursued to Azotus.

Antiochus followed Tryphon, till he forced him to kill himself in the
year of the world 3869. After this, Antiochus thought only of reducing
to his obedience those cities which, in the beginning of his father’s
reign, had shaken off their subjection. Simon Maccabæus, prince and high
priest of the Jews, being treacherously murdered by Ptolemy, his
son-in-law, in the castle of Docus, near Jericho, the murderer
immediately sent to Antiochus Sidetes to demand troops, that he might
recover for him the country and cities of the Jews. Antiochus came in
person with an army, and besieged Jerusalem, which was bravely defended
by John Hircanus. The siege was long protracted; and the king divided
his army into seven parts, and guarded all the avenues of the city. It
being the time for celebrating the feast of tabernacles, the Jews
desired of Antiochus a truce for seven days. The king not only granted
this request, but sent them bulls with gilded horns, and vessels of gold
and silver filled with incense, to be offered in the temple. He also
ordered such provisions as they wanted, to be given to the Jewish
soldiers. This courtesy of the king so won the hearts of the Jews, that
they sent ambassadors to treat of peace, and to desire that they might
live according to their own laws. Antiochus required that they should
surrender their arms, demolish the city walls, pay tribute for Joppa and
the other cities they possessed out of Judea, and receive a garrison
into Jerusalem. To these conditions, except the last, the Jews
consented; for they could not be induced to see an army of strangers in
their capital, and chose rather to give hostages and five hundred
talents of silver. The king entered the city, beat down the breast work
above the walls, and returned to Syria, in the year of the world 3870,
and before Jesus Christ 134. Three years after, Antiochus marched
against the Persians, or Parthians, and demanded the liberty of his
brother Demetrius Nicanor, who had been made prisoner long before by
Arsaces, and was detained for the purpose of being employed in exciting
a war against Antiochus. This war, therefore, Antiochus thought proper
to prevent. With an army of eighty thousand, or, as Orosius says, of one
hundred thousand men, he marched toward Persia, and no sooner appeared
on the frontiers of that country, than several eastern princes,
detesting the pride and avarice of the Persians, came and surrendered.
Antiochus defeated his enemies in three engagements, and took Babylon.
He was accompanied in these expeditions by John Hircanus, high priest of
the Jews, who, it is supposed, obtained the surname of Hircanus from
some gallant action which he performed.

As the army of Antiochus was too numerous to continue assembled in any
one place, he was obliged to divide it, to put it into winter quarters.
These troops behaved with so much insolence, that they alienated the
minds of all men. The cities in which they were, privately surrendered
to the Persians; and all resolved to attack, in one day, the garrisons
they contained, that the troops being separated might not assist each
other. Antiochus at Babylon obtained intelligence of this design, and,
with the few soldiers about him, endeavoured to succour his people. He
was attacked in the way by Phraates, king of Persia, whom he fought with
great bravery; but being at length deserted by his own forces, according
to the generality of historians, he was overpowered and killed by the
Persians or Parthians. Appian, however, says that he killed himself, and
Ælian, that he threw himself headlong from a precipice. This event took
place in the year of the world 3874, and before Jesus Christ 130. After
the death of Sidetes, Demetrius Nicanor, or Nicetor, reascended the
throne of Syria.

ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS, a denomination given to those who object to the
baptism of infants. The word is derived from ἀντὶ, _against_, ϖᾶις,
ϖαιδὸς, _a child_, βαπτίζω, _I baptize_. See BAPTISM.

ANTIPAS, Antipas-Herod, or Herod-Antipas, was the son of Herod the
Great, and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Herod the Great, in his first will,
declared him his successor in the kingdom; but he afterward named his
son Archelaus king of Judea, and gave to Antipas only the title of
tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa. Archelaus going to Rome, to persuade the
emperor to confirm his father’s will, Antipas also went thither. The
emperor bestowed on Archelaus one moity of what had been assigned him by
Herod, with the quality of ethnarch, and promised to grant him the title
of king when he had shown himself deserving of it by his virtues. To
Antipas, Augustus gave Galilee and Peræa; and to Philip, Herod’s other
son, the Batanæa, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, with some other places.

Antipas, returning to Judea, took great pains in adorning and fortifying
the principal places of his dominions. He married the daughter of
Aretas, king of Arabia, whom he divorced about A. D. 33, that he might
marry his sister-in-law, Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, who
was still living. John the Baptist, exclaiming against this incest, was
seized by order of Antipas, and imprisoned in the castle of Machærus.
Josephus says, that Antipas caused John to be taken, because he drew too
great a concourse after him; and Antipas was afraid he should use his
influence over the people to induce them to revolt. But Josephus has
reported the pretence for the true cause. The evangelists, who were
better informed than Josephus, as being eye witnesses of what passed,
and particularly acquainted with John and his disciples, assure us, that
the true reason of imprisoning John was the aversion of Herod and
Herodias against him, on account of his liberty in censuring their
scandalous marriage, Matt. xiv, 3, 4; Mark vi, 14, 17, 18; Luke iii, 19,
20. When the king was celebrating his birth day, with the principal
persons of his court, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and
pleased him so well that he swore to give her whatever she should ask.
She consulted her mother, who advised her to ask the head of John the
Baptist. Returning, therefore, to the hall, she addressed herself to the
king, and said, “Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger.” The
king was afflicted at this request; but in consideration of his oath,
and of the persons at table with him, he sent one of his guards, who
beheaded John in prison. The head was brought in, and given to the young
woman, who delivered it to her mother, Matt. xiv, 5, 6, &c. Aretas, king
of Arabia, to revenge the affront which Herod had offered to his
daughter, declared war against him, and vanquished him in a very
obstinate contest. Josephus tells us, that the Jews attributed the
defeat of Herod to the death of John the Baptist. In the year of the
Christian æra 39, Herodias being jealous of the prosperity of her
brother Agrippa, who from a private person had become king of Judea,
persuaded her husband, Herod-Antipas, to visit Rome, and desire the same
dignity of the emperor Caius. She resolved to accompany him; and hoped
that her presents and appearance would contribute to procure the
emperor’s favour. However, Agrippa obtaining intelligence of this
design, wrote to the emperor and accused Antipas. The messenger of
Agrippa arrived at Baiæ, where the emperor was, at the very time when
Herod received his first audience. Caius, on the delivery of Agrippa’s
letters, read them with great earnestness. In these letters, Agrippa
accused Antipas of having been a party in Sejanus’s conspiracy against
Tiberius, and said that he still carried on a correspondence with
Artabanus, king of Partha, against the Romans. As a proof of this, he
affirmed that Antipas had in his arsenals arms for seventy thousand men.
Caius being angry, demanded hastily of Antipas, if it were true that he
had such a quantity of arms? The king not daring to deny it, was
instantly banished to Lyons in Gaul. The emperor offered to forgive
Herodias, in consideration of her brother Agrippa; but she chose rather
to follow her husband, and to share his fortune in banishment. This is
that Antipas, who, being at Jerusalem at the time of our Saviour’s
passion, ridiculed Jesus whom Pilate had sent to him, dressed him in
worn-out royalty, and sent him back to Pilate as a mock king, whose
ambition gave him no umbrage, Luke xxiii, 7, 11. The year of the death
of Antipas is unknown; but it is certain that he, as well as Herodias,
died in exile. Josephus says, that he died in Spain, whither Caius, on
his coming into Gaul the first year of his banishment, might order him
to be sent.

2. ANTIPAS, the faithful martyr or witness mentioned in the book of
Revelation, ii, 13. He is said to have been one of our Saviour’s first
disciples, and to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamus, of which he was
bishop. His Acts relate that he was burnt in a brazen bull. Though
ancient ecclesiastical history furnishes no account of this Antipas, yet
it is certain that, according to all the rules of language, what is said
concerning him by St. John must be understood literally, and not
mystically, as some interpreters have done.

ANTIPATRIS, Acts xxiii, 31, a town in Palestine, anciently called
Caphar-Saba, according to Josephus; but named Antipatris by Herod the
Great, in honour of his father Antipater. It was situated in a pleasant
valley, near the mountains, in the way from Jerusalem to Cæsarea.
Josephus places it at about the distance of seventeen miles from Joppa.
To this place St. Paul was brought in his way to the governor of Judea
at Cæsarea, Acts xxiii, 31.

ANTITYPE, that which answers to a type or figure. A type is a model,
mould, or pattern; that which is formed according to it is an antitype.
See TYPE.

ANTONIA, one of the towers of Jerusalem, called by Herod after M.
Antony. The Romans generally kept a garrison in this tower; and from
thence it was that the tribune ran with his soldiers to rescue St. Paul
out of the hands of the Jews, who had seized him in the temple, and
designed to have murdered him, Acts xxi, 31, 32.

APE, קוֹף, κῆφος and κῆπος, _cephus_, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21.
This animal seems to be the same with the _ceph_ of the Ethiopians, of
which Pliny speaks, l. viii, c. 19: “At the games given by Pompey the
Great,” says he, “were shown _cephs_ brought from Ethiopia, which had
their fore feet like a human hand, their hind legs and feet also
resembled those of a man.” The Scripture says that the fleet of Solomon
brought apes, or rather monkeys, &c, from Ophir. The learned are not
agreed respecting the situation of that country; but Major Wilford says
that the ancient name of the River Landi sindh in India was _Cophes_.
May it not have been so called from the קפים inhabiting its banks?

We now distinguish this tribe of creatures into 1. _Monkeys_, those with
long tails; 2. _Apes_, those with short tails; 3. _Baboons_, those
without tails. The ancient Egyptians are said to have worshipped apes;
it is certain that they are still adored in many places in India.
Maffeus describes a magnificent temple dedicated to the ape, with a
portico for receiving the victims sacrificed, supported by seven hundred
columns.

          “With glittering gold and sparkling gems they shine,
          But apes and monkeys are the gods within.”

Figures of apes are also made and reverenced as idols, of which we have
several in Moore’s “Hindoo Pantheon;” also in the avatars, given in
Maurice’s “History of India,” &c. In some parts of the country the apes
are held sacred, though not resident in temples; and incautious English
gentlemen, by attempting to shoot these apes, (rather, perhaps,
monkeys,) have been exposed, not only to all manner of insults and
vexations from the inhabitants of the villages, &c, adjacent, but have
even been in danger of their lives.

APHARSACHITES, a people sent by the kings of Assyria to inhabit the
country of Samaria, in the room of those Israelites who had been removed
beyond the Euphrates, Ezra v, 6. They, with the other Samaritans,
opposed the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra iv, 9.

APIS, a symbolical deity worshipped by the Egyptians. It was an ox,
having certain exterior marks, in which animal the soul of the great
Osiris was supposed to subsist. The ox was probably made the symbol of
Osiris because he presided over agriculture.

APOCALYPSE, Ἀποκάλυψις, signifies _revelation_. It is, however,
particularly applied to the Revelations which St. John had in the isle
of Patmos, whither he had been banished. The testimonies in favour of
the book of the Revelation being a genuine work of St. John the
Evangelist are very full and satisfactory. Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea in
Capadocia, in the fifth century, assures us that Papias acknowledged the
Revelation to be inspired. But the earliest author now extant who
mentions this book is Justin Martyr, who lived about sixty years after
it was written, and he ascribes it to St. John. So does Iræneus, whose
evidence is alone sufficient upon this point; for he was the disciple of
Polycarp, who was the disciple of John himself; and he expressly tells
us that he had the explanation of a certain passage in this book from
those who had conversed with St. John the author. These two fathers are
followed by Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian,
Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Athanasius, and many other
ecclesiastical writers, all of whom concur in considering the Apostle
John as the author of the Revelation. Some few persons, however, doubted
the genuineness of this book in the third and fourth centuries; but
since that time it has been very generally acknowledged to be canonical;
and, indeed, as Mr. Lowman observes, “hardly any one book has received
more early, more authentic, and more satisfactory attestations.” The
omission of this book in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures,
was probably not owing to any suspicion concerning its authenticity or
genuineness, but because its obscurity and mysteriousness were thought
to render it less fit to be read publicly and generally. It is called
the Revelation of John the Divine; and this appellation was first given
to St. John by Eusebius, not to distinguish him from any other person of
the same name, but as an honourable title, intimating that to him was
more fully revealed the system of divine counsels than to any other
prophet of the Christian dispensation.

St. John was banished to Patmos in the latter part of the reign of
Domitian, and he returned to Ephesus immediately after the death of that
emperor, which happened in the year 96; and as the Apostle states, that
these visions appeared to him while he was in that island, we may
consider this book as written in the year 95 or 96.

In the first chapter, St. John asserts the divine authority of the
predictions which he is about to deliver; addresses himself to the
churches of the Proconsular Asia; and describes the first vision, in
which he is commanded to write the things then revealed to him. The
second and third chapters contain seven epistles to the seven churches
in Asia; namely, of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis,
Philadelphia, and Laodicea, which relate chiefly to their then
respective circumstances and situation. At the fourth chapter the
prophetic visions begin, and reach to the end of the book. They contain
a prediction of all the most remarkable revolutions and events in the
Christian church from the time of the Apostle to the final consummation
of all things. An attempt to explain these prophecies does not fall
within the design of this work; and therefore those who are disposed to
study this sublime and mysterious book are referred to Mede, Daubuz, Sir
Isaac Newton, Lowman, Bishop Newton, Bishop Hurd, and many other
excellent commentators. These learned men agree in their general
principles concerning the interpretation of this book, although they
differ in some particular points; and it is not to be expected that
there should be a perfect coincidence of opinion in the explanation of
those predictions which relate to still future times; for, as the
incomparable Sir Isaac Newton observes, “God gave these and the
prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosity, by
enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled
they might be interpreted by the event, and his own prescience, not that
of the interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world.” “To
explain this book perfectly,” says Bishop Newton, “is not the work of
one man, or of one age; but probably it never will be clearly
understood, till it is all fulfilled.” It is graciously designed, that
the gradual accomplishment of these predictions should afford, in every
succeeding period of time, additional testimony to the divine origin of
our holy religion.

APOCRYPHA, books not admitted into the sacred canon, being either
spurious, or at least not acknowledged to be divine. The word Apocrypha
is of Greek origin, and is either derived from the words ἀπὸ τῆς
κρύπτῆς, because the books in question were removed _from the crypt_,
chest, ark, or other receptacle in which the sacred books were deposited
whose authority was never doubted, or more probably from the verb
ἀποκρύπτω, _to hide_ or _conceal_, because they were concealed from the
generality of readers, their authority not being recognised by the
church, and because they are books which are destitute of proper
testimonials, their original being obscure, their authors unknown, and
their character either heretical or suspected. The advocates of the
church of Rome, indeed, affirm that some of these books are divinely
inspired; but it is easy to account for this: the apocryphal writings
serve to countenance some of the corrupt practices of that church. The
Protestant churches not only account those books to be apocryphal and
merely human compositions which are esteemed such by the church of Rome,
as the Prayer of Manasseh, the third and fourth books of Esdras, the
addition at the end of Job, and the hundred and fifty-first Psalm; but
also the books of Tobit, Judith, the additions to the book of Esther,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch the Prophet, with the Epistle of
Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna, the
Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of
Maccabees. The books here enumerated are unanimously rejected by
Protestants for the following reasons:--

1. They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to
procure their admission into the sacred canon. None of them are extant
in Hebrew; all of them are in the Greek language, except the fourth book
of Esdras, which is only extant in Latin. They were written for the most
part by Alexandrian Jews, subsequently to the cessation of the prophetic
spirit, though before the promulgation of the Gospel. Not one of the
writers in direct terms advances a claim to inspiration; nor were they
ever received into the sacred canon by the Jewish church, and therefore
they were not sanctioned by our Saviour. No part of the apocrypha is
quoted, or even alluded to, by him or by any of his Apostles; and both
Philo and Josephus, who flourished in the first century of the Christian
æra, are totally silent concerning them.

2. The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture
during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not
mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito bishop of
Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen in
the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom, Rufinus, and others
of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books
recognised by the council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose
canons were received by the catholic church; so that as Bishop Burnet
well observes, we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God
in this matter. To this decisive evidence against the canonical
authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read
in the Christian church until the fourth century; when, as Jerom informs
us, they were read “for example of life, and instruction of planners;
but were not applied to establish any doctrine.” And contemporary
writers state, that although they were not approved as canonical or
inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As a proof
that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine
relates, that when the book of Wisdom and other writings of the same
class were publicly read in the church, they were given to the readers
or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read them in a lower place than
those which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were
read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous
manner. To conclude: notwithstanding the veneration in which these books
were held by the western church, it is evident that the same authority
was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament until the
last council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all
(except the Prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras)
in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets.

APOLLINARIANS, or Apollinarists, or, as they are called by Epiphanius,
Dimaritæ, a sect who derive their principal name from Apollinaris,
bishop of Laodicea, in the fourth century. Apollinaris strenuously
defended the divinity of Christ against the Arians; but by indulging too
freely in philosophical distinctions and subtleties, he denied in some
measure his humanity. He maintained that the body which Christ assumed
was endowed with a sensitive, and not a rational, soul; and that the
divine nature performed the functions of reason, and supplied the place
of the intellectual principle in man. Hence it seemed to follow, that
the divine nature in Christ was blended with the human and suffered with
it the pains of crucifixion and death. Apollinaris and his followers
have been charged with other errors by certain ancient waiters; but it
is not easy to determine how far their charge is worthy of credit. The
doctrine of Apollinaris was first condemned by a council at Alexandria
in 362, and afterward in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in
375, and by another council in 378, which deposed Apollinaris from his
bishopric. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the
emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned; and
sunk by degrees under their united force.

APOLLOS was a Jew of Alexandria, who came to Ephesus in the year of our
Lord 54, during the absence of St. Paul, who had gone to Jerusalem, Acts
xviii, 24. He was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures; but he
knew only the baptism of John, and was not fully informed of the higher
branches of Gospel doctrine. However, he acknowledged that Jesus Christ
was the Messiah, and declared himself openly as his disciple. At
Ephesus, therefore, he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and
demonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Aquila and
Priscilla, having heard him there, took him with them, and instructed
him more fully in the ways of God. Some time after, he was inclined to
go into Achaia, and the brethren wrote to the disciples there, desiring
them to receive him. He was very useful at Corinth, where he watered
what St. Paul had planted, 1 Cor. iii, 6. It has been supposed, that the
great admiration of his disciples for him tended to produce a schism.
Some said, “I am of Paul;” some, “I am of Apollos;” and others, “I am of
Cephas.” But this division, which St. Paul mentions and reproves in his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, did not prevent Paul and Apollos,
personally, from being closely united in the bonds of Christian charity
and affection. Apollos, hearing that the Apostle was at Ephesus, went to
meet him, and was there when St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the
Corinthians; in which he observes, that he had earnestly entreated
Apollos to return to Corinth: but though he had not prevailed with him,
Apollos gave him room to hope that he would visit that city at a
favourable opportunity. Some have supposed, that the Apostle names
Apollos and Cephas, not as the real persons in whose name parties had
been formed in Corinth, but that, in order to avoid provoking a temper
which he wished to subside, he transfers “by a figure” to Apollos and
himself what was really meant of other parties, whom from prudence he
declines to mention. However this might be, the reluctance of Apollos to
return to Corinth seems to countenance the general opinion. St. Jerom
says that Apollos was so dissatisfied with the division which had
happened on his account at Corinth, that he retired into Crete with
Zeno, a doctor of the law; but that the evil having been corrected by
the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Apollos returned to that
city, of which he afterward became bishop. The Greeks say that he was
bishop of Duras; some, that he was bishop of Iconium, in Phrygia; and
others of Cæsarea.

APOLLYON. See ABADDON.

APOLOGIES, in ecclesiastical history, were defences (so the Greek word
means) of Christianity, presented to Heathen emperors, by the Christian
fathers, who were therefore called Apologists. The first was presented
to the emperor Adrian, by Quadratus, A. D. 126, a fragment of which is
preserved by Eusebius; but another, presented soon after to the same, by
Aristides, a converted Athenian philosopher, is totally lost. Justin
Martyr wrote two apologies; the latter (to the Roman senate) is
imperfect at the beginning; but the former, addressed to Antoninus Pius,
is preserved entire, and was published in English, in 1709, by the Rev.
W. Reeves, together with one by Tertullian, the Octavius (a dialogue) of
Minucius Felix, and the Commentary of Vincentius Lirinensis, with notes
and preliminary dissertations to each, in 2 vols. 8vo. The Apologies are
curious and valuable remains of antiquity, as showing what were the
objections of the Heathens, and the manner in which they were rebutted
by the early Christians.

APOSTASY, a deserting or abandoning of the true religion. The word is
borrowed from the Latin _apostatare_, or _apostare_, _to despise_ or
_violate_ any thing. Hence _apostatare leges_ anciently signified _to
transgress the laws_. The Latin _apostatare_, again, comes from ἀπὸ,
_from_, and ἳϛημι, _I stand_. Among the Romanists, apostasy also
signifies the forsaking of a religious order, whereof a man had made
profession, without a lawful dispensation. The ancients distinguished
three kinds of apostasy: the first, _a supererogatione_, is committed by
a priest, or religious, who abandons his profession, and returns to his
lay state; the second, _a mandatis Dei_, by a person of any condition,
who abandons the commands of God, though he retains his faith; the
third, _a fide_, by him who not only abandons his works, but also the
faith. There is this difference between an apostate and a heretic; that
the latter only abandons a part of the faith, whereas the former
renounces the whole. The primitive Christian church distinguished
several kinds of apostasy. The first was that of those who relapsed from
Christianity into Judaism; the second, that of those who blended Judaism
and Christianity together; and the third was that of those who, after
having been Christians, voluntarily relapsed into Paganism.

APOSTLE, ἀπόϛολος, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ,
commissioned by him to preach his Gospel, and propagate it to all parts
of the earth. The word originally signifies a person _delegated_ or
_sent_; from ἀποϛέλλω, _mitto_; in which sense it occurs in Herodotus,
and other profane authors. Hence, in the New Testament, the term is
applied to divers sorts of delegates; and to the twelve disciples by way
of eminence. They were limited to the number twelve, in allusion to the
twelve tribes of Israel. See Matt. xix, 28; Luke xxii, 30; Rev. xxi,
12–14; and compare Exod. xxiv, 4; Deut. i, 23; and Josh. iv, 2, 3.
Accordingly care was taken, on the death of Judas, to choose another, to
make up the number, Acts i, 21, 22, 26. Of the first selection and
commission of the twelve Apostles, we have an account, Luke vi, 13, &c;
Matt. x, 1, &c. Having chosen and constituted twelve persons, under the
name of Apostles, our blessed Lord determined that for some time they
should be continually with him, not only to attend upon his public
ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation, that he
might furnish them the better for the great work in which they were to
be employed; and that, at length, after suitable preparation, he might,
with greater advantage, send them abroad to preach his Gospel, and thus
make way for his own visits to some more distant parts, where he had not
yet been; and to enable them more effectually to do this, he endowed
them with the power of working miracles, of curing diseases, and casting
out demons. About the commencement of the third year of his ministry,
according to the common account of its duration, he sent them out two by
two, that they might be assistants to each other in their work; and
commanded them to restrict their teaching and services to the people of
Israel, and to avoid going to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans; to
declare the approach of the kingdom of heaven, and the establishment of
the Gospel dispensation; to exercise the miraculous powers with which
they had been endowed gratuitously; and to depend for their subsistence
on the providence of God, and on the donations of those to whom they
ministered. Their names were, Simon Peter; Andrew, his brother; James
the greater, the son of Zebedee; and John his brother, who was the
beloved disciple; Philip of Bethsaida; Bartholomew; Thomas, called
Didymus, as having a twin brother; Matthew or Levi, who had been a
publican; James, the son of Alpheus, called James the less; Lebbeus,
surnamed Thaddeus, and who was also called Judas or Jude, the brother of
James; Simon, the Canaanite, so called, as some have thought, because he
was a native of Cana, or, as Dr. Hammond thinks, from the Hebrew קנא,
signifying the same with Zelotes, or the Zelot, a name given to him on
account of his having before professed a distinguishing zeal for the
law; and Judas Iscariot, or a man of Carioth, Josh. xv, 25, who
afterward betrayed him, and then laid violent hands on himself. Of
these, Simon, Andrew, James the greater, and John, were fishermen;
Matthew, and James the son of Alpheus, were publicans; and the other six
were probably fishermen, though their occupation is not distinctly
specified.

After the resurrection of our Saviour, and not long before his
ascension, the place of Judas the traitor was supplied by Matthias,
supposed by some to have been Nathanael of Galilee, to whom our Lord had
given the distinguishing character of an “Israelite indeed, in whom
there was no guile;” and the twelve Apostles, whose number was now
completed, received a new commission, of a more extensive nature than
the first, to preach the Gospel to all nations, and to be witnesses of
Christ, not only in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and in Samaria, but unto
the uttermost parts of the earth; and they were qualified for the
execution of their office by a plenteous effusion of miraculous powers
and spiritual gifts, and particularly the gift of tongues. In
consequence of this commission, they preached first to the Jews, then to
the Samaritans, and afterward to the idolatrous Gentiles. Their signal
success at Jerusalem, where they opened their commission, alarmed the
Jewish sanhedrim, before which Peter and John were summoned, and from
which they received a strict charge never more to teach, publicly or
privately, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The noble reply and
subsequent conduct of the Apostles are well known. This court of the
Jews was so awed and incensed, as to plot the death of the twelve
Apostles, as the only effectual measure for preventing the farther
spread of Christianity. Gamaliel interposed, by his prudent and moderate
counsel; and his speech had so good an effect upon the sanhedrim, that,
instead of putting Peter and John to death, they scourged them, renewed
their charge and threats, and then dismissed them. The Apostles,
however, were not discouraged nor restrained; they counted it an honour
to suffer such indignities, in token of their affection to their Master,
and zeal in his cause; and they persisted in preaching daily in the
courts of the temple, and in other places, that Jesus of Nazareth was
the promised and long expected Messiah. Their doctrine spread, and the
number of converts in Jerusalem still increased. During the violent
persecution that raged at Jerusalem, soon after the martyrdom of St.
Stephen, several of the leading men among the Christians were dispersed;
some of them travelled through the regions of Judea and Samaria, and
others to Damascus, Phœnicia, the Island of Cyprus, and various parts
of Syria; but the twelve Apostles remained, with undaunted firmness, at
Jerusalem, avowing their attachment to the persecuted interest of
Christ, and consulting how they might best provide for the emergencies
of the church, in its infant and oppressed state.

When the Apostles, during their abode at Jerusalem, heard that many of
the Samaritans had embraced the Gospel, Peter and John were deputed to
confer upon them the gift of the Holy Spirit; for to the Apostles
belonged the prerogative of conferring upon others spiritual gifts and
miraculous powers. In their return to Jerusalem, from the city of
Samaria, they preached the Gospel in many Samaritan villages. The manner
of its being sent to Ethiopia, by the conversion of the eunuch who was
chief treasurer to Candace, queen of the country, is related in Acts
viii, 26, &c. After the Christian religion had been planted in
Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and sent into Ethiopia, one of the
uttermost parts of the earth, Acts i, 8; and after it had been preached
about eight years to the Jews only, God, in his wise and merciful
providence, disposed things for the preaching of it among the Gentiles.
Cæsarea was the scene in which the Apostle Peter was to open his
commission for this purpose; and Cornelius, one of the devout Gentiles,
and a man distinguished by his piety and charity, was the first
proselyte to Christianity. After Peter had laid the foundation of a
Christian church among the devout Gentiles, others imitated his example,
and a great number of persons of this description embraced the Christian
faith, more especially at Antioch, where the disciples, whom their
enemies had hitherto called Galileans, Nazarenes, and other names of
reproach, and who, among themselves, had been called “disciples,”
“believers,” “the church,” “the saints,” and “brethren,” were
denominated, probably not without a divine direction, Christians.

When Christianity had been preached for about eight years among the Jews
only, and for about three years more among the Jews and devout Gentiles,
the next stage of its progress was to the idolatrous Gentiles, in the
year of Christ 44, and the fourth year of the emperor Claudius. Barnabas
and Saul were selected for this purpose, and constituted in an
extraordinary manner Apostles of the Gentiles, or uncircumcision.
Barnabas was probably an elder of the first rank; he had seen Christ in
the flesh, had been an eye witness of his being alive again after his
crucifixion, and had received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
as being one of the hundred and twenty. Saul also, since his conversion
had preached as a superior prophet, about seven years to the Jews only,
and about two years more to the Jews and devout Gentiles. They had both
been born in Gentile countries; and therefore may be supposed to have
had more respect and affection for the Gentiles than most of the Jews,
who were natives of Judea. Saul had been converted, and had hitherto
preached chiefly on Gentile ground; and he had joined with Barnabas in
teaching devout Gentiles for a whole year, at Antioch in Syria; by all
which previous steps they were regularly conducted to the last
gradation, or the conversion of the idolatrous Gentiles. But it was
necessary, in order to the being an Apostle, to have seen our Lord Jesus
Christ alive after his crucifixion, for the Apostles were in a peculiar
manner the witnesses of his resurrection. Some have supposed that Saul
saw the person of Jesus, when he was converted, near the city of
Damascus; but others, who conceive from the history of this event, that
this could not have been the case, as he was instantly struck blind, are
of opinion that the season, when his Apostolic qualification and
commission were completed, was that mentioned by himself, Acts xxii, 17,
when he returned to Jerusalem the second time after his conversion, saw
the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and received the command to go quickly
out of Jerusalem, that he might be sent unto the Gentiles. See also Acts
xxvi, 16–20, where he gives an account of the object of his commission.
He also received a variety of gifts and powers, which, superadded to his
own genius and learning, as well as fortitude and patience, eminently
qualified him for the office of an Apostle, and for that particular
exercise of it which was assigned to him. St. Paul is frequently called
the _Apostle_, by way of eminence; and the _Apostle of the Gentiles_,
because his ministry was chiefly employed for the conversion of the
Gentiles, as that of St. Peter was for Jews, who is therefore styled the
_Apostle of the circumcision_.

The Apostles having continued at Jerusalem twelve years after the
ascension of Christ, as tradition reports, according to his command,
determined to disperse themselves in different parts of the world. But
what were the particular provinces assigned to each, does not certainly
appear from any authentic history. Socrates says, that Thomas took
Parthia for his lot; Matthew, Ethiopia, and Bartholomew, India. Eusebius
gives the following account: “Thomas, as we learn by tradition, had
Parthia for his lot; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia, who having lived there
a long time, died at Ephesus. Peter, as it seems, preached to the
dispersed Jews in Pontus and Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at
length, coming to Rome, he was crucified with his head downward, as he
had desired. What need I to speak of St. Paul, who fully preached the
Gospel of Christ, from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and at last died a martyr
at Rome, in the time of Nero?” From this passage we may conclude, that
at the beginning of the fourth century, there were not any certain and
well attested accounts of the places out of Judea, in which several of
the Apostles of Christ preached; for if there had, Eusebius must have
been acquainted with them.

The stories that are told concerning their arrival and exploits among
the Gauls, the English, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the
Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians, are too romantic in their
nature, and of too recent a date, to be received by an impartial
inquirer after truth. These fables were for the most part forged after
the time of Charlemagne, when most of the Christian churches contended
about the antiquity of their origin, with as much vehemence as the
Arcadians, Egyptians, and Greeks disputed formerly about their seniority
and precedence.

It appears, however, that all of the Apostles did not die by martyrdom.
Heraclion, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, reckons among the Apostles who
did not suffer martyrdom, Matthew, Thomas, Philip, and Levi, probably
meaning Lebbeus.

To the Apostles belonged the peculiar and exclusive prerogative of
writing doctrinal and preceptive books of authority in the Christian
church; and it sufficiently appears that no epistles or other doctrinal
writings of any person who was of a rank below that of an Apostle, were
received by Christians as a part of their rule of faith. With respect to
the writings of Mark and Luke, they are reckoned historical, not
doctrinal or dogmatical; and Augustine says, that Mark and Luke wrote at
a time when their writings might be approved not only by the church, but
by Apostles still living.

The appellation of Apostles was also given to the ordinary travelling
ministers of the church. Thus St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans,
xvi, 7, says, “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow
prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles.” In this inferior sense
the appellation is applied, by Clement of Alexandria, to Barnabas; who
was not an Apostle in the highest sense of the word, so as the twelve
and Paul were Apostles. Tertullian calls all the seventy disciples
Apostles; and Clement calls Barnabas Apostolical merely in another
place, and says that he was one of the seventy, and fellow labourer of
Paul. These, says Dr. Lardner, are the highest characters which he
really intends to give to Barnabas, and what he means when he styles him
Apostle; therefore he need not be supposed to ascribe to Barnabas that
large measure of inspiration and high authority, which was peculiar to
the Apostles, strictly and properly so called. In a similar subordinate
form, St. Clement of Rome is called Apostle. Timothy also is called by
Salvian, Apostle, meaning merely Apostolical, or a companion and
disciple of Apostles.

Apostle was likewise a title given to those sent by the churches, to
carry their alms to the poor of other churches. This usage they borrowed
from the synagogues, who called those whom they sent on this message, by
the same name; and the function or office itself ἀποϛολὴ, that is,
_mission_. Thus St. Paul, writing to the Philippians, tells them, that
Epaphroditus, their _Apostle_, had ministered to his wants, chap. ii,
25. It is applied in like manner to those persons who first planted the
Christian faith in any place.

Apostle is also used among the Jews, for a kind of officer anciently
sent into the several parts and provinces in their jurisdiction, by way
of visiter, or commissary; to see that the laws were duly observed, and
to receive the moneys collected for the reparation of the temple, and
the tribute payable to the Romans. These apostles were a degree below
the officers of the synagogues, called _patriarchs_, and received their
commissions from them. Some authors observe, that St. Paul had borne
this office; and that it is this he alludes to in the beginning of the
Epistle to the Galatians: as if he had said, Paul, no longer an apostle
of the synagogue, nor sent by men to maintain the law of Moses, but now
an Apostle and envoy of Jesus Christ, &c. St. Jerom, though he does not
believe that St. Paul had been an apostle of this kind, yet imagines
that he alludes to it in the passage just cited.

APOSTLES’ CREED. See CREED.

APPELLATIO, an appeal. The Sempronian law secured this privilege to the
Roman citizens, that they could not be capitally convicted, but by the
suffrage of the people; and in whatever provinces they happened to
reside, if the governor showed a disposition to condemn them to death,
to scourge, or deprive them of their property, they had liberty to
appeal from his jurisdiction to the judgment of the people. This law,
which was enacted under the republican form of government, continued in
force under the emperors; so that if any freeman of Rome thought himself
ill used and aggrieved by the presidents in any of the provinces, he
could, by appeal, remove his cause to Rome, to the determination of the
emperor. A number of persons, we are told, were delegated by Augustus,
all of consular rank, to receive the appeals of the people in the
provinces. These observations will explain the nature of St. Paul’s
appeal in the Acts of the Apostles.

APPII FORUM, a place about fifty miles from Rome, near the modern town
of Piperno on the road to Naples. It probably had its name from the
statue of Appius Claudius, a Roman consul, who paved the famous way from
Rome to Capua, and whose statue was set up here. To this place some
Christians from Rome came to meet St. Paul, Acts xxviii, 15.

APPLE TREE, תפוח, Prov. xxv, 11; Cant. ii, 3, 5; vii, 8; viii, 5; Joel
i, 12. As the best apples of Egypt, though ordinary, are brought thither
by sea from Rhodes, and by land from Damascus, we may believe that
Judea, an intermediate country between Egypt and Damascus, has none that
are of any value. Can it be imagined, then, that the apple trees of
which the Prophet Joel speaks, i, 12, and which he mentions among the
things that gave joy to the inhabitants of Judea, were those that we
call by that name? Our translators must surely have been mistaken here,
since the apples which the inhabitants of Judea eat at this day are of
foreign growth, and at the same time but very indifferent.

There are five places, beside this in Joel, in which the word occurs;
and from them we learn that it was thought the noblest of the trees of
the wood, and that its fruit was very sweet or pleasant, Cant. ii, 3; of
the colour of gold, Prov. xxv, 11; extremely fragrant, Cant. vii, 8; and
proper for those to smell that were ready to faint, Cant. ii, 5. We may
be sure that the _taphuach_ was very early known in the holy land, as it
is mentioned in the book of Joshua as having given name to a city of
Manasseh and one of Judah. Several interpreters and critics render פר עץ
הדר, Lev. xxiii, 40, _branches_, or fruit, _of the beautiful tree_; and
understand it of the citron; and it is known that the Jews still make
use of the fruit of this tree at their yearly feast of tabernacles.

Citron trees are very noble, being large, their leaves beautiful, ever
continuing on the trees, of an exquisite smell, and affording a most
delightful shade. It might well, therefore, be said, “As the citron tree
is among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.” This
is a delicate compliment, comparing the fine appearance of the prince,
amid his escort, to the superior beauty with which the citron tree
appears among the ordinary trees of the forest; and the compliment is
heightened by an allusion to the refreshing shade and the exhilarating
fruit.

The exhilarating effects of the fruit are mentioned Cant. ii, 5,
“Comfort me with citrons.” Egmont and Heyman tell us of an Arabian who
was in a great measure brought to himself, when overcome with wine, by
the help of citrons and coffee.

To the manner of serving up these citrons in his court, Solomon seems to
refer, when he says, “A word fitly spoken is like golden citrons in
silver baskets;” whether, as Maimonides supposes, in baskets wrought
with open work, or in salvers curiously chased, it nothing concerns us
to determine; the meaning is, that an excellent saying, suitably
expressed, is as the most acceptable gift in the fairest conveyance. So
the rabbins say, that the tribute of the first ripe fruits was carried
to the temple in silver baskets.

APRIES, a king of Egypt, called in the sacred writings Pharaoh Hophrah,
Jer. xliv, 30. Apries was the son of Psammis, and grandson of Necho, or
Nechao, who waged war against Josiah, king of the Jews. He reigned
twenty-five years, and was long considered as one of the happiest
princes in the world; but having equipped a fleet for the reduction of
the Cyrenians, he lost in this expedition almost the whole of his army.
The Egyptians resolved to make him responsible for this ill success,
rebelled, and pretended that he undertook the war only to get rid of his
subjects, and that he might govern the remainder more absolutely. Apries
deputed Amasis, one of his officers, to suppress the rebellion, and
induce the people to return to their allegiance. But, while Amasis was
haranguing them, one of the multitude placed a diadem about his helmet,
and proclaimed him king. The rest applauded him; and Amasis having
accepted their offer, continued with them, and confirmed them in their
rebellion. Amasis put himself at the head of the rebels, and marched
against Apries, whom he defeated and took prisoner. Amasis treated him
with kindness; but the people were not satisfied till they had taken him
from Amasis and strangled him. Such was the end of Apries, according to
Herodotus. Jeremiah threatened this prince with being delivered into the
hands of his enemies, as he had delivered Zedekiah, king of Judah, into
the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

Apries had made a league with Zedekiah, and promised him assistance,
Ezek. xvii, 15. Zedekiah, therefore, relying on his forces, revolted
from Nebuchadnezzar, in the year of the world 3414, and before Jesus
Christ 590. Early in the year following, Nebuchadnezzar marched against
Hezekiah; but as other nations of Syria had shaken off their obedience,
he first reduced them to their duty, and toward the end of the year
besieged Jerusalem, 2 Kings xxv, 5; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 17; Jer. xxxix, 1;
lii, 4. Zedekiah defended himself in Jerusalem, long and obstinately,
that he might give time to Pharaoh Hophrah, or Apries, to come to his
assistance. Apries advanced with a powerful army; and the king of
Babylon raised the siege, and marched to meet him. But Apries not daring
to hazard a battle against the Chaldeans, retreated into Egypt, and
abandoned Zedekiah. Ezekiel reproaches Egypt severely with this
baseness, and says that it had been a staff of reed to the house of
Israel, and an occasion of falling; for when they took hold of it by the
hand, it broke and rent all their shoulder. He therefore prophesies that
Egypt should be reduced to a solitude, and that God would send against
it the sword, which would destroy in it man and beast, Ezek. xxix. This
was afterward accomplished, first, in the time of Apries; and secondly,
in the conquest of Egypt by the Persians.

AQUILA. This person was a native of Pontus in Asia Minor, and was
converted by St. Paul, together with his wife Priscilla, to the
Christian religion. As Aquila was by trade a tentmaker, Acts xviii, 2,
3, as St. Paul was, the Apostle lodged and wrought with him at Corinth.
Aquila came thither, not long before, from Italy, being obliged to leave
Rome upon the edict which the emperor Claudius had published, banishing
the Jews from that city. St. Paul afterward quitted Aquila’s house, and
abode with Justus, near the Jewish synagogue at Corinth; probably, as
Calmet thinks, because Aquila was a converted Jew, and Justus was a
convert from Paganism, that in this case the Gentiles might come and
hear him with more liberty. When the Apostle left Corinth, Aquila and
Priscilla accompanied him as far as Ephesus, where he left them with
that church while he pursued his journey to Jerusalem. They rendered him
great service in that city, so far as to expose their own lives to
preserve his. They had returned to Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle
to the Romans, xvi, 4, wherein he salutes them with great kindness.
Lastly, they were come back to Ephesus again, when St. Paul wrote his
Second Epistle to Timothy, iv, 19, wherein he desires him to salute them
in his name. What became of them after this time is not known.

AR, the capital city of the Moabites, situated in the hills on the south
of the river Arnon. This city was likewise called Rabbah or Rabbath
Moab, to distinguish it from the Ammonite Rabbah. It was afterward
called by the Greeks Areopolis; and is at present termed El-Rabba. See
MOAB.

ARABIA. A vast country of Asia, extending one thousand five hundred
miles from north to south, and one thousand two hundred from east to
west; containing a surface equal to four times that of France. The near
approach of the Euphrates to the Mediterranean constitutes it a
peninsula, the largest in the world. It is called Jezirat-el-Arab by the
Arabs; and by the Persians and Turks, Arebistan. This is one of the most
interesting countries on the face of the earth. It has, in agreement
with prophecy, never been subdued; and its inhabitants, at once
pastoral, commercial, and warlike, are the same wild, wandering people
as the immediate descendants of their great ancestor Ishmael are
represented to have been.

Arabia, or at least the eastern and northern parts of it, were first
peopled by some of the numerous families of Cush, who appear to have
extended themselves, or to have given their name as the land of Cush, or
Asiatic Ethiopia, to all the country from the Indus on the east, to the
borders of Egypt on the west, and from Armenia on the north to Arabia
Deserta on the south. By these Cushites, whose first plantations were on
both sides of the Euphrates and Gulf of Persia, and who were the first
that traversed the desert of Arabia, the earliest commercial
communications were established between the east and the west. But of
their Arabian territory, and of the occupation dependent on it, they
were deprived by the sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Midian; by whom they
were obliterated in this country as a distinct race, either by
superiority of numbers after mingling with them, or by obliging them to
recede altogether to their more eastern possessions, or over the Gulf of
Arabia into Africa. From this time, that is, about five hundred and
fifty years after the flood, we read only of Ishmaelites and Midianites
as the shepherds and carriers of the deserts; who also appear to have
been intermingled, and to have shared both the territory and the
traffic, as the traders who bought Joseph are called by both names, and
the same are probably referred to by Jeremiah, xxv, as “the mingled
people that dwell in the desert.” But Ishmael maintained the
superiority, and succeeded in giving his name to the whole people.

Arabia, it is well known, is divided by geographers into three separate
regions, called Arabia Petræa, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix.

The first, or Arabia Petræa, is the north-western division, and is
bounded on the north by Palestine and the Dead Sea, on the east by
Arabia Deserta, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west by the
Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea and the Isthmus of Suez. The greater
part of this division was more exclusively the possession of the
Midianites, or land of Midian; where Moses, having fled from Egypt,
married the daughter of Jethro, and spent forty years keeping the flocks
of his father-in-law: no humiliating occupation in those days, and
particularly in Midian, which was a land of shepherds; the whole people
having no other way of life than that of rearing and tending their
flocks, or in carrying the goods they received from the east and south
into Phenicia and Egypt. The word flock, used here, must not convey the
idea naturally entertained in our own country of sheep only, but,
together with these or goats, horned cattle and camels, the most
indispensable of animals to the Midianite. It was a mixed flock of this
kind which was the sole care of Moses, during a third part of his long
life; in which he must have had abundance of leisure, by night and by
day, to reflect on the unhappy condition of his own people, still
enduring all the rigours of slavery in Egypt. It was a similar flock
also which the daughters of Jethro were watering when first encountered
by Moses; a trifling event in itself, but important in the history of
the future leader of the Jews; and showing, at the same time, the simple
life of the people among whom he was newly come, as well as the scanty
supply of water in their country, and the strifes frequently occasioned
in obtaining a share of it. Through a considerable part of this region,
the Israelites wandered after they had escaped from Egypt; and in it
were situated the mountains Horeb and Sinai. Beside the tribes of
Midian, which gradually became blended with those of Ishmael, this was
the country of the Edomites, the Amalekites, and the Nabathæi, the only
tribe of pure Ishmaelites within its precincts. But all those families
have long since been confounded under the general name of Arabs. The
greater part of this district consists of naked rocks and sandy and
flinty plains; but it contained also some fertile spots, particularly in
the peninsula of Mount Sinai, and through the long range of Mount Seir.

[Illustration:

  Map of the
  JOURNEYINGS & ENCAMPMENTS
  _of the_ ISRAELITES _from_
  EGYPT TO CANAAN
  Through the Desert of
  _Arabia Petræa_
]

The second region, or Arabia Deserta, is bounded on the north and
north-east by the Euphrates, on the east by a ridge of mountains which
separates it from Chaldea, on the south by Arabia Felix, and on the west
by Syria, Judea, and Arabia Petræa. This was more particularly the
country first of the Cushites, and afterward of the Ishmaelites; as it
is still of their descendants, the modern Bedouins, who maintain the
same predatory and wandering habits. It consists almost entirely of one
vast and lonesome wilderness, a boundless level of sand, whose dry and
burning surface denies existence to all but the Arab and his camel. Yet,
widely scattered over this dreary waste, some spots of comparative
fertility are to be found, where, spread around a feeble spring of
brackish water, a stunted verdure, or a few palm trees, fix the
principal settlement of a tribe, and afford stages of refreshment in
these otherwise impassable deserts. Here, with a few dates, the milk of
his faithful camel, and perhaps a little corn, brought by painful
journeys from distant regions, or plundered from a passing caravan, the
Arab supports a hard existence, until the failure of his resources
impels him to seek another _oasis_, or the scanty herbage furnished on a
patch of soil by transient rains; or else, which is frequently the case,
to resort, by more distant migration, to the banks of the Euphrates; or,
by hostile inroads on the neighbouring countries, to supply those wants
which the recesses of the desert have denied. The numbers leading this
wandering and precarious mode of life are incredible. From these deserts
Zerah drew his army of a million of men; and the same deserts, fifteen
hundred years after, poured forth the countless swarms, which, under
Mohammed and his successors, devastated half of the then known world.

The third region, or Arabia Felix, so denominated from the happier
condition of its soil and climate, occupies the southern part of the
Arabian peninsula. It is bounded on the north by the two other divisions
of the country; on the south and south-east by the Indian Ocean; on the
east by part of the same ocean and the Persian Gulf; and on the west by
the Red Sea. This division is subdivided into the kingdoms or provinces
of Yemen, at the southern extremity of the peninsula; Hejaz, on the
north of the former, and toward the Red Sea; Nejed, in the central
region; and Hadramant and Oman, on the shores of the Indian Ocean. The
four latter subdivisions partake of much of the character of the other
greater divisions of the country, though of a more varied surface, and
with a larger portion capable of cultivation. But Yemen seems to belong
to another country and climate. It is very mountainous, is well watered
with rains and springs, and is blessed with an abundant produce in corn
and fruits, and especially in coffee, of which vast quantities are
exported. In this division were the ancient cities of Nysa, Musa or
Moosa, and Aden. This is also supposed to have been the country of the
queen of Sheba. In Hejaz are the celebrated cities of Mecca and Medina.

Arabia Felix is inhabited by a people who claim Jotkan for their father,
and so trace their descent direct from Shem, instead of Abraham and Ham.
They are indeed a totally different people from those inhabiting the
other quarters, and pride themselves on being the only pure and unmixed
Arabs. Instead of being shepherds and robbers, they are fixed in towns
and cities; and live by agriculture and commerce, chiefly maritime. Here
were the people who were found by the Greeks of Egypt enjoying an entire
monopoly of the trade with the east, and possessing a high degree of
wealth and consequent refinement. It was here, in the ports of Sabæa,
that the spices, muslins, and precious stones of India, were for many
ages obtained by the Greek traders of Egypt, before they had acquired
skill or courage sufficient to pass the straits of the Red Sea; which
were long considered by the nations of Europe to be the produce of
Arabia itself. These articles, before the invention of shipping, or the
establishment of a maritime intercourse, were conveyed across the
deserts by the Cushite, Ishmaelite, and Midianite carriers. It was the
produce partly of India, and partly of Arabia, which the travelling
merchants, to whom Joseph was sold, were carrying into Egypt. The balm
and myrrh were probably Arabian, as they are still the produce of the
same country; but the spicery was undoubtedly brought farther from the
east. These circumstances are adverted to, to show how extensive was the
communication, in which the Arabians formed the principal link: and that
in the earliest ages of which we have any account, in those of Joseph,
of Moses, of Isaiah, and of Ezekiel, “the mingled people” inhabiting the
vast Arabian deserts, the Cushites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites, were
the chief agents in that commercial intercourse which has, from the most
remote period of antiquity, subsisted between the extreme east and west.
And although the current of trade is now turned, caravans of merchants,
the descendants of these people, may still be found traversing the same
deserts, conveying the same articles, and in the same manner as
described by Moses!

The singular and important fact that Arabia has never been conquered,
has already been cursorily adverted to. But Mr. Gibbon, unwilling to
pass by an opportunity of cavilling at revelation, says, “The perpetual
independence of the Arabs has been the theme of praise among strangers
and natives; and the arts of controversy transform this singular event
into a prophecy and a miracle in favour of the posterity of Ishmael.
Some exceptions, that can neither be dissembled nor eluded, render this
mode of reasoning as indiscreet as it is superfluous. The kingdom of
Yemen has been successively subdued by the Abyssinians, the Persians,
the Sultans of Egypt, and the Turks; the holy cities of Mecca and Medina
have repeatedly bowed under a Scythian tyrant; and the Roman province of
Arabia embraced the peculiar wilderness in which Ishmael and his sons
must have pitched their tents in the face of their brethren.” But this
learned writer has, with a peculiar infelicity, annulled his own
argument; and we have only to follow on the above passage, to obtain a
complete refutation of the unworthy position with which it begins: “Yet
these exceptions,” says Mr. Gibbon, “are temporary or local; the body of
the nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies: the
arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompey, and Trajan, could never achieve
the conquest of Arabia; the present sovereign of the Turks may exercise
a shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the
friendship of a people whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to
attack. The obvious causes of their freedom are inscribed on the
character and country of the Arabs. Many ages before Mohammed, their
intrepid valour had been severely felt by their neighbours, in offensive
and defensive war. The patient and active virtues of a soldier are
insensibly nursed in the habits and discipline of a pastoral life. The
care of the sheep and camels is abandoned to the women of the tribe; but
the martial youth, under the banner of the emir, is ever on horseback
and in the field, to practise the exercise of the bow, the javelin, and
the scimitar. The long memory of their independence is the firmest
pledge of its perpetuity; and succeeding generations are animated to
prove their descent, and to maintain their inheritance. Their domestic
feuds are suspended on the approach of a common enemy; and in their last
hostilities against the Turks, the caravan of Mecca was attacked and
pillaged by four score thousand of the confederates. When they advance
to battle, the hope of victory is in the front, in the rear the
assurance of a retreat. Their horses and camels, who in eight or ten
days can perform a march of four or five hundred miles, disappear before
the conqueror; the secret waters of the desert elude his search; and his
victorious troops are consumed with thirst, hunger, and fatigue, in the
pursuit of an invisible foe, who scorns his efforts, and safely reposes
in the heart of the burning solitude. The arms and deserts of the
Bedouins are not only the safeguards of their own freedom, but the
barriers also of the happy Arabia, whose inhabitants, remote from war,
are enervated by the luxury of the soil and climate. The legions of
Augustus melted away in disease and lassitude; and it is only by a naval
power that the reduction of Yemen has been successfully attempted. When
Mohammed erected his holy standard, that kingdom was a province of the
Persian empire; yet seven princes of the Homerites still reigned in the
mountains; and the vicegerent of Chosroes was tempted to forget his
distant country and his unfortunate master.”

Yemen was the only Arabian province which had the appearance of
submitting to a foreign yoke; but even here, as Mr. Gibbon himself
acknowledges, seven of the native princes remained unsubdued: and even
admitting its subjugation to have been complete, the perpetual
independence of the Ishmaelites remains unimpeached. For this is not
their country. Petra, the capital of the Stony Arabia, and the principal
settlement of the Nabathæi, it is true, was long in the hands of the
Persians and Romans; but this never made them masters of the country.
Hovering troops of Arabs confined the intruders within their walls, and
cut off their supplies; and the possession of this fortress gave as
little reason to the Romans to exult as the conquerors of Arabia Petræa,
as that of Gibraltar does to us to boast of the conquest of Spain.

The Arabian tribes were confounded by the Greeks and Romans under the
indiscriminate appellation of Saracens; a name whose etymology has been
variously, but never satisfactorily, explained. This was their general
name when Mohammed appeared in the beginning of the seventh century.
Their religion at this time was Sabianism, or the worship of the sun,
moon, &c; variously transformed by the different tribes, and
intermingled with some Jewish and Christian maxims and traditions. The
tribes themselves were generally at variance, from some hereditary and
implacable animosities; and their only warfare consisted in desultory
skirmishes arising out of these feuds, and in their predatory
excursions, where superiority of numbers rendered courage of less value
than activity and vigilance. Yet of such materials Mohammed constructed
a mighty empire; converted the relapsed Ishmaelites into good Musselmen;
united the jarring tribes under one banner; supplied what was wanting in
personal courage by the ardour of religious zeal; and out of a banditti,
little known and little feared beyond their own deserts, raised an armed
multitude, which proved the scourge of the world.

Mohammed was born in the year 569, of the noble tribe of the Koreish,
and descended, according to eastern historians, in a direct line from
Ishmael. His person is represented as beautiful, his manners engaging,
and his eloquence powerful; but he was illiterate, like the rest of his
countrymen, and indebted to a Jewish or Christian scribe for penning his
Koran. Whatever the views of Mohammed might have been in the earlier
part of his life, it was not till the fortieth year of his age that he
avowed his mission as the Apostle of God: when so little credit did he
gain for his pretensions, that in the first three years he could only
number fourteen converts; and even at the end of ten years his labours
and his friends were alike confined within the walls of Mecca, when the
designs of his enemies compelled him to fly to Medina, where he was
favourably received by a party of the most considerable inhabitants, who
had recently imbibed his doctrines at Mecca. This flight, or _Hegira_,
was made the Mohammedan æra, from which time is computed, and
corresponds with the 16th of July, 622, of the Christian æra. Mohammed
now found himself sufficiently powerful to throw aside all reserve;
declared that he was commanded to compel unbelievers by the sword to
receive the faith of one God, and his prophet Mohammed; and confirming
his credulous followers by the threats of eternal pain on the one hand,
and the allurements of a sensual paradise on the other, he had, before
his death, which happened in the year 632, gained over the whole of
Arabia to his imposture. His death threw a temporary gloom over his
cause, and the disunion of his followers threatened its extinction. Any
other empire placed in the same circumstances would have crumbled to
pieces; but the Arabs felt their power; they revered their founder as
the chosen prophet of God; and their ardent temperament, animated by a
religious enthusiasm, gave an earnest of future success, and encouraged
the zeal or the ambition of their leaders. The succession, after some
bloodshed, was settled, and unnumbered hordes of barbarians were ready
to carry into execution the sanguinary dictates of their prophet; and,
with “the Koran, tribute, or death,” as their motto, to invade the
countries of the infidels. During the whole of the succeeding century,
their rapid career was unchecked; the disciplined armies of the Greeks
and Romans were unable to stand against them; the Christian churches of
Asia and Africa were annihilated; and from India to the Atlantic,
through Persia, Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, with the
whole of northern Africa, Spain, and part of France, the impostor was
acknowledged. Constantinople was besieged; Rome itself was plundered;
and nothing less than the subjection of the whole Christian world was
meditated on the one hand and tremblingly expected on the other.

All this was wonderful; but the avenging justice of an incensed Deity,
and the sure word of prophecy, relieve our astonishment. It was to
punish an apostate race, that the Saracen locusts were let loose upon
the earth; and the countries which they were permitted to ravage were
those in which the pure light of revelation had been most abused. The
eastern church was sunk in gross idolatry; vice and wickedness prevailed
in their worst forms; and those who still called themselves Christians
trusted more to images, relics, altars, austerities, and pilgrimages,
than to a crucified Saviour.

About a hundred and eighty years from the foundation of Bagdad, during
which period the power of the Saracens had gradually declined, a
dreadful reaction took place in the conquered countries. The Persians on
the east, and the Greeks on the west, were simultaneously roused from
their long thraldom, and, assisted by the Turks, who, issuing from the
plains of Tartary, now for the first time made their appearance in the
east, extinguished the power of the caliphate, and virtually put an end
to the Arabian monarchy in the year 936. A succession of nominal caliphs
continued to the year 1258: but the provinces were lost; their power was
confined to the walls of their capital; and they were in real subjection
to the Turks and the Persians until the above year, when Mostacem, the
last of the Abbassides, was dethroned and murdered by Holagou, or
Hulaku, the Tartar, the grandson of Zingis. This event, although it
terminated the foreign dominion of the Arabians, left their native
independence untouched. They were no longer, indeed, the masters of the
finest parts of the three great divisions of the ancient world: their
work was finished; and returning to the state in which Mohammed found
them three centuries before, with the exception of the change in their
religion, they remained, and still remain, the unconquered rovers of the
desert.

It is not the least singular circumstance in the history of this
extraordinary people, that those who, in the enthusiasm of their first
successes, were the sworn foes of literature, should become for several
ages its exclusive patrons. Almansor, the founder of Bagdad, has the
merit of first exciting this spirit, which was encouraged in a still
greater degree by his grandson Almamon. This caliph employed his agents
in Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and at Constantinople, in collecting the most
celebrated works on Grecian science, and had them translated into the
Arabic language. Philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and medicine, were
thus introduced and taught; public schools were established; and
learning, which had altogether fled from Europe, found an asylum on the
banks of the Tigris. Nor was this spirit confined to the capital: native
works began to appear; and by the hands of copyists were multiplied out
of number, for the information of the studious, or the pride of the
wealthy. The rage for literature extended to Egypt and to Spain. In the
former country, the Fatimites collected a library of a hundred thousand
manuscripts, beautifully transcribed, and very elegantly bound; and in
the latter, the Ommiades formed another of six hundred thousand volumes;
forty-four of which were employed in the catalogue. Their capital,
Cordova, with the towns of Malaga, Almeria, and Murcia, produced three
hundred writers; and seventy public libraries were established in the
cities of Andalusia. What a change since the days of Omar, when the
splendid library of the Ptolemies was wantonly destroyed by the same
people! A retribution, though a slight one, was thus made for their
former devastations; and many Grecian works, lost in the original, have
been recovered in their Arabic dress. Neither was this learning confined
to mere parade, though much of it must undoubtedly have been so. Their
proficiency in astronomy and geometry is attested by their astronomical
tables, and by the accuracy with which, in the plain of Chaldea, a
degree of the great circle of the earth was measured. But it was in
medicine that, in this dark age, the Arabians shone most: the works of
Hippocrates and Galen had been translated and commented on; their
physicians were sought after by the princes of Asia and Europe; and the
names of Rhazis, Albucasis, and Avicenna are still revered by the
members of the healing art. So little, indeed, did the physicians of
Europe in that age know of the history of their own science, that they
were astonished, on the revival of learning, to find in the ancient
Greek authors those systems for which they thought themselves indebted
to the Arabians!

The last remnant of Arabian science was found in Spain; from whence it
was expelled in the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the
intemperate bigots of that country, who have never had any thing of
their own with which to supply its place. The Arabians are the only
people who have preserved their descent, their independence, their
language, and their manners and customs, from the earliest ages to the
present times; and it is among them that we are to look for examples of
patriarchal life and manners. A very lively sketch of this mode of life
is given by Sir R. K. Porter, in the person and tribe of an Arab sheik,
whom he encountered in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. “I had met
this warrior,” says Sir R. K. P., “at the house of the British resident
at Bagdad; and came, according to his repeated wish, to see him in a
place more consonant with his habits, the tented field; and, as he
expressed it, ‘at the head of his children.’ As soon as we arrived in
sight of his camp, we were met by crowds of its inhabitants, who, with a
wild and hurrying delight, led us toward the tent of their chief. The
venerable old man came forth to the door, attended by his subjects of
all sizes and descriptions, and greeted us with a countenance beaming
kindness; while his words, which our interpreter explained, were
demonstrative of patriarchal welcome. One of my Hindoo troopers spoke
Arabic; hence the substance of our succeeding discourse was not lost on
each other. Having entered, I sat down by my host; and the whole of the
persons present, to far beyond the boundaries of the tent, (the sides of
which were open,) seated themselves also, without any regard to those
more civilized ceremonies of subjection, the crouching of slaves, or the
standing of vassalage. These persons, in rows beyond rows, appeared just
as he had described, the offspring of his house, the descendants of his
fathers, from age to age; and like brethren, whether holding the highest
or the lowest rank, they seemed to gather round their common parent. But
perhaps their sense of perfect equality in the mind of their chief could
not be more forcibly shown, than in the share they took in the objects
which appeared to interest his feelings; and as I looked from the elders
or leaders of the people, seated immediately around him, to the circles
beyond circles of brilliant faces, bending eagerly toward him and his
guest, (all, from the most respectably clad to those with hardly a
garment covering their active limbs, earnest to evince some attention to
the stranger he bade welcome,) I thought I had never before seen so
complete an assemblage of fine and animated countenances, both old and
young: nor could I suppose a better specimen of the still existing state
of the true Arab; nor a more lively picture of the scene which must have
presented itself, ages ago, in the fields of Haran, when Terah sat in
his tent door, surrounded by his sons, and his sons’ sons, and the
people born in his house. The venerable Arabian sheik was also seated on
the ground with a piece of carpet spread under him; and, like his
ancient Chaldean ancestor, turned to the one side and the other,
graciously answering or questioning the groups around him, with an
interest in them all which clearly showed the abiding simplicity of his
government, and their obedience. On the smallest computation, such must
have been the manners of these people for more than three thousand
years; thus, in all things, verifying the prediction given of Ishmael at
his birth, that he, in his posterity, should ‘be a wild man,’ and always
continue to be so, though ‘he shall dwell for ever in the presence of
his brethren.’ And that an acute and active people, surrounded for ages
by polished and luxurious nations, should from their earliest to their
latest times, be still found _a wild people, dwelling in the presence of
all their brethren_, (as we may call these nations,) unsubdued and
unchangeable, is, indeed, a standing miracle: one of those mysterious
facts which establish the truth of prophecy.” But although the manners
of the Arabians have remained unaltered through so many ages, and will
probably so continue, their religion, as we have seen, has sustained an
important change; and must again, in the fulness of time, give place to
a faith more worthy of the people.

St. Paul first preached the Gospel in Arabia, Gal. i, 17. Christian
churches were subsequently founded, and many of their tribes embraced
Christianity prior to the fifth century; most of which appear to have
been tinctured with the Nestorian heresy. At this time, however, it does
not appear that the Arabians had any version of the Scriptures in their
own language, to which some writers attribute the ease with which they
were drawn into the Mohammedan delusion; while the “Greeks, Syrians,
Armenians, Abyssinians, Copts, and others,” who enjoyed that privilege,
were able to resist it.

ARAM, the fifth son of Shem, Gen. x, 22. He was the father of the
Syrians, who from him were called Aramæans, or Aramites.

ARARAT, a mountain of Asia, in Armenia, on which the ark of Noah rested
after the cessation of the deluge. Concerning the etymology of the name,
Dr. Bryant observes, that it is a compound of _Ar-Arat_, and signifies
“the mountain of descent,” being equivalent to הר־ירר, of the Hebrews.
Of the precise situation of this mountain, different accounts have been
given. Some have supposed that it was one of the mountains which divide
Armenia on the south from Mesopotamia, and that part of Assyria
inhabited by the Curds, from whom those mountains took the name of
Curdue, or Cardu; by the Greeks denominated _Gordyæi_. It is called by
the Arabs _Al-Judi_, and also _Thamanin_. In confirmation of this
opinion, it is alleged that the remains of the ark were to be seen on
these mountains; and it is said, that Berosus and Abydenus both declare,
that such a report existed in their time. Epiphanius pretends, if we may
credit his assertion, that the relics of the ark were to be seen in his
day; and we are farther told, that the emperor Heraclius went from the
town of Thamanin, up the mountain Al-Judi, and saw the place of the ark.
Others maintain, that mount Ararat was situated toward the middle of
Armenia, near the river Araxes, or Aras, about twelve miles from it,
according to Tournefort, above two hundred and eighty miles distant from
Al-Judi, to the north-east. Ararat seems to be a part of that vast chain
of mountains called Caucasus and Taurus; and upon these mountains, and
in the adjacent country, were preserved more authentic accounts of the
ark than in almost any other part of the world. The region about Ararat,
called Araratia, was esteemed among the ancients as nearly a central
part of the earth; and it is certainly as well calculated as any other
for the accommodation of its first inhabitants, and for the migration of
colonies, upon the increase of mankind. The soil of the country was very
fruitful, and especially of that part where the patriarch made his first
descent. The country also was very high, though it had fine plains and
valleys between the mountains. Such a country, therefore, must, after
the flood, have been the soonest exsiccated, and, consequently, the
soonest habitable.

The mountain which has still the name of Ararat, has retained it through
all ages. Tournefort has particularly described it, and from his account
it seems to consist chiefly of freestone, or calcareous sandstone. It is
a detached mountain in form of a sugar loaf, in the midst of a very
extensive plain, consisting of two summits; the lesser, more sharp and
pointed; the higher, which is that of the ark, lies north-west of it,
and raises its head far above the neighbouring mountains, and is covered
with perpetual snow. When the air is clear, it does not appear to be
above two leagues from Erivan, and may be seen at the distance of four
or five days’ journey. Its being visible at such a distance, however, is
ascribed not so much to its height, as to its lonely situation, in a
large plain, and upon the most elevated part of the country. The ascent
is difficult and fatiguing. Tournefort attempted it; and, after a whole
day’s toil, he was obliged, by the snow and intense cold, to return
without accomplishing his design, though in the middle of summer. On the
side of the mountain that looks toward Erivan, is a prodigious
precipice, very deep, with perpendicular sides, and of a rough, black
appearance, as if tinged with smoke.

The summit of Ararat has never been reached, though several attempts
have been made; and if the ark rested on the summit, it is certain that
those who have spoken of its fragments being seen there in different
ages, must have been imposed upon. It is, however, not necessary to
suppose that the ark rested upon either of its tops; and that spot would
certainly be chosen which would afford the greatest facility of descent.
Sir Robert Ker Porter is among the modern travellers who have given us
an account of this celebrated mountain:--“As the vale opened beneath us
in our descent, my whole attention became absorbed in the view before
me. A vast plain, peopled with countless villages; the towers and spires
of the churches of Eitch-mai-adzen, arising from amidst them; the
glittering waters of the Araxes, flowing through the fresh green of the
vale; and the subordinate range of mountains, skirting the base of the
awful monument of the antediluvian world. It seemed to stand a
stupendous link in the history of man, uniting the two races of men
before and after the flood. But it was not until we had arrived upon the
flat plain, that I beheld Ararat in all its amplitude of grandeur. From
the spot on which I stood, it appeared as if the hugest mountains of the
world had been piled upon each other, to form this one sublime immensity
of earth, and rock, and snow. The icy peaks of its double heads rose
majestically into the clear and cloudless heavens; the sun blazed bright
upon them; and the reflection sent forth a dazzling radiance, equal to
other suns. This point of the view united the utmost grandeur of plain
and height. But the feelings I experienced while looking on the
mountain, are hardly to be described. My eye, not able to rest for any
length of time upon the blinding glory of its summits, wandered down the
apparently interminable sides, till I could no longer trace their vast
lines in the mists of the horizon; when an inexpressible impulse,
immediately carrying my eye upward again, refixed my gaze upon the awful
glare of Ararat; and this bewildered sensibility of sight being answered
by a similar feeling in the mind, for some moments I was lost in a
strange suspension of the powers of thought.”

The separate peaks are called Great and Little Ararat, and the space
between them is about seven miles. “These inaccessible summits,”
continues Sir R. K. Porter, “have never been trodden by the foot of man
since the days of Noah, if even then; for my idea is, that the ark
rested in the space between these heads, and not on the top of either.
Various attempts have been made in different ages to ascend these
tremendous mountain-pyramids, but in vain: their form, snows, and
glaciers, are insurmountable obstacles: the distance being so great from
the commencement of the icy region to the highest points, cold alone
would be the destruction of any person who should have the hardihood to
persevere. On viewing mount Ararat from the northern side of the plain,
its two heads are separated by a wide cleft, or rather glen, in the body
of the mountain. The rocky side of the greater head runs almost
perpendicularly down to the north-east, while the lesser head rises from
the sloping bottom of the cleft, in a perfectly conical shape. Both
heads are covered with snow. The form of the greater is similar to the
less, only broader and rounder at the top; and shows to the north-west a
broken and abrupt front, opening, about half way down, into a stupendous
chasm, deep, rocky, and peculiarly black. At that part of the mountain,
the hollow of the chasm receives an interruption from the projection of
minor mountains, which start from the sides of Ararat like branches from
the root of a tree, and run along, in undulating progression, till lost
in the distant vapours of the plain.” Dr. Shuckford argues that the true
Ararat lies among the mountains of the north of India; but Mr. Faber has
answered his reasoning, and proved by a comparison of geographical
notices incidentally mentioned in the Old Testament, that the Ararat of
Armenia is the true Ararat.

ARCHANGEL, according to some, means an angel occupying the eighth rank
in the celestial order or hierarchy; but others reckon it a title only
applicable to our Saviour; Jude 9; Dan. xii, 1; 1 Thess. iv, 16. On this
point Bishop Horsley has the following observations:--“It has been for a
long time a fashion in the church to speak very frequently and
familiarly of archangels as beings of an order with which we are
perfectly well acquainted. Some say there are seven of them. Upon what
solid ground that assertion stands, I know not; but this I know, the
word ‘archangel’ is not to be found in any one passage of the Old
Testament: in the New Testament it occurs twice, and only twice. One of
the two passages is in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; where the
Apostle, among the circumstances of the pomp of our Lord’s descent from
heaven to the final judgment, mentions ‘the voice of the archangel;’ the
other passage is in the Epistle of St. Jude, where the title of
archangel is coupled with the name of ‘Michael the archangel.’ This
passage is so remarkably obscure that I shall not attempt to draw any
conclusion from it but this, which manifestly follows, be the particular
sense of the passage what it may: since this is one of the two texts in
which alone the word ‘archangel’ is found in the whole Bible; since in
this one text only the title of archangel is coupled with any name; and
since the name with which it is here coupled is Michael; it follows
undeniably that the archangel Michael is the only archangel of whom we
know any thing from holy writ. It cannot be proved from holy writ, and,
if not from holy writ, it cannot be proved at all, that any archangel
exists but the one archangel Michael, and this one archangel Michael is
unquestionably the Michael of the book of Daniel.

“I must observe by the way, with respect to the import of the title of
archangel, that the word, by etymology, clearly implies a superiority of
rank and authority in the person to whom it is applied. It implies a
command over angels; and this is all that the word of necessity implies.
But it follows not, by any sound rule of argument, that, because no
other superiority than that of rank and authority is implied in the
title, no other belongs to the person distinguished by the title, and
that he is in all other respects a mere angel. Since we admit various
orders of intelligent beings, it is evident that a being highly above
the angelic order may command angels.

“To ascertain, if we can, to what order of beings the archangel Michael
may belong, let us see how he is described by the Prophet Daniel, who
never mentions him by that title; and what action is attributed to him
in the book of Daniel and in another book, in which he bears a principal
part.

“Now Daniel calls him ‘one of the chief princes,‘ or ‘one of the capital
princes,’ or ‘one of the princes that are at the head of all:’ for this
I maintain to be the full and not more than the full import of the
Hebrew words. Now we are clearly got above the earth, into the order of
celestials, who are the princes that are _first_, or _at the head of
all_? Are they any other than the three persons in the Godhead? Michael,
therefore, is one of them; but which of them? This is not left in doubt.
Gabriel, speaking of him to Daniel, calls him ‘Michael _your_ prince,’
and ‘the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people;‘
that is, not for the nation of the Jews in particular, but for the
children, the spiritual children, of that holy seed the elect people of
God; a description which applies particularly to the Son of God, and to
no one else; and in perfect consistence with this description of Michael
in the book of Daniel, is the action assigned to him in the Apocalypse,
in which we find him fighting with the old serpent, the deceiver of the
world, and victorious in the combat. That combat who was to maintain? in
that combat who was to be victorious, but the seed of the woman? From
all this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself, in
his particular character of the champion of his faithful people, against
the violence of the apostate faction and the wiles of the devil.” To
this opinion there is nothing irreconcilable in the “voice of the
archangel” mentioned in 1 Thess. iv, 16: since the “shout,” the “voice,”
the “trump of God,” may all be the majestic summons of the Judge
himself. At the same time we must feel that the reasoning of Bishop
Horsley, though ingenious, is for from being conclusive against the
existence of one or more archangels.

ARCHBISHOP, a bishop of the first class, who superintends the conduct of
other bishops. Archbishops were not known in the east till about the
year 320; and though there were some soon after this, who had the title,
yet it was only a personal honour, by which the bishops of considerable
cities were distinguished. It was not till of late that archbishops
became metropolitans, and had suffragans under them. Athanasius appears
to have been the first who used the title archbishop, which he gave
occasionally to his predecessor. Gregory Nazianzen, in like manner, gave
it to Athanasius; not that either of them was entitled to any
jurisdiction, or even any precedency, in virtue of this title. Among the
Latins, Isidore Hispalensis is the first who speaks of archbishops.

ARCHELAUS, son of Herod the Great, and Maltace, his fifth wife. Herod
having put to death his sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, and
expunged out of his will Herod Antipas, whom he had declared king, he
substituted Archelaus, and gave Antipas the title of tetrarch only.
After the death of Herod, Archelaus ordered that king’s will to be read,
wherein he, Archelaus, was declared king, on condition that Augustus
consented. Hereupon the assembly cried, “Long live king Archelaus!” and
the soldiers promised the same fidelity to him as they had shown to his
father. Archelaus buried his father magnificently, came to Jerusalem,
and there mourned seven days, according to custom. He then gave a
splendid entertainment to the people, went to the temple, harangued the
multitude, promised them good treatment, and declared he would not
assume the title of king till the emperor had confirmed it, A. M. 4001;
B. C. 3. The people, notwithstanding, tumultuously demanded the
execution of those who advised Herod to slay certain zealots, who had
pulled down a golden eagle from one of the temple gates. They also
required Archelaus to divest Joazar of the high priesthood; and they
vehemently reproached the memory of the late king. Archelaus sent troops
to suppress the mutineers, and killed near three thousand of them about
the temple. After this he embarked at Cæsarea for Rome, to procure from
Augustus the confirmation of Herod’s will. Antipas, his brother, went to
Rome likewise, to dispute his title, pretending that Herod’s first will
should be preferred to his last, which he alleged to have been made by
him when his understanding was not sound.

The two brothers, Archelaus and Antipas, procured able orators to
display their pretensions before the emperor; and when they had done
speaking, Archelaus threw himself at Augustus’s feet. Augustus gently
raised him, said he would do nothing contrary to Herod’s intention or
his interest, but refused to decide the affair at that time. Some time
afterward, the Jews sent a solemn embassy to Rome, to desire Augustus
would permit them to live according to their own laws, and on the
footing of a Roman province, without being subject to kings of Herod’s
family, but only to the governors of Syria. Augustus heard them, and
likewise heard Archelaus in reply; then broke up the assembly without
declaring himself. After some days, he sent for Archelaus, gave him the
title, not of king, but of ethnarch, with one moiety of the territories
which his father Herod had enjoyed; promising him the crown likewise, if
his good conduct deserved it. Archelaus returned to Judea, and, under
pretence that he had countenanced the seditious against him, he deprived
Joazar of the high priesthood, and gave that dignity to his brother
Eleazar. He governed Judea with so much violence, that, after seven
years, the chiefs of the Samaritans and Jews accused him before
Augustus. The emperor immediately sent for his agent at Rome, and
without condescending to write to Archelaus he commanded the agent to
depart instantly for Judea, and order Archelaus to Rome, to give an
account of his conduct. On his arrival at Rome, the emperor called for
his accusers, and permitted him to defend himself; which he did so
insufficiently, that Augustus banished him to Vienne, in Gaul, where he
continued in exile to the end of his life. See ANTIPAS.

ARCHI-SYNAGOGUS, _the ruler of a synagogue_. See SYNAGOGUE.

ARCHITRICLINUS, ἀρχιτρίκλινος, generally translated steward, signifies
rather the _master_ or _superintendent of the feast_; “one,” says
Gaudentius, “who is the husband’s friend, and commissioned to conduct
the order and economy of the feast.” He gave directions to the servants,
superintended every thing, commanded the tables to be covered, or to be
cleared of the dishes, as he thought proper: whence his name, as
regulator of the triclinium, or festive board. He also tasted the wine,
and distributed it to the guests. The author of Ecclesiasticus thus
describes this office, xxxii, 1, 2: “If thou be made the master of a
feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest: take
diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast done all thy
office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with them, and receive
a crown for the well ordering of the feast.” This office is mentioned,
John ii, 8, 9, upon which Theophylact remarks: “That no one might
suspect that their taste was vitiated by having drunk to excess, so as
not to know water from wine, our Saviour orders it to be first carried
to the governor of the feast, who _certainly_ was sober; for those who
on such occasions are intrusted with this office, observe the strictest
sobriety, that they may be able properly to regulate the whole.”

AREOPAGUS, the high court at Athens, famed for the justice of its
decisions; and so called, because it sat on a hill of the same name, or
in the suburbs of the city, dedicated to Mars, the god of war, as the
city was to Minerva, his sister. St. Paul, Acts xvii, 19, &c, having
preached at Athens, was carried before the Areopagites, as “a setter
forth of strange gods.” On this occasion he delivered that fine sermon
which is in substance recorded in Acts xvii. Dionysius, one of the
judges, was converted; and the Apostle was dismissed without any farther
trouble.

ARGOB, a canton lying beyond Jordan, in the half tribe of Manasseh, and
in the country of Bashan, one of the most fruitful on the other side of
Jordan. In the region of Argob there were sixty cities, called
Bashan-havoth-Jair, which had very high walls and strong gates, without
reckoning many villages and hamlets, which were not inclosed, Deut. iii,
4–14; 1 Kings iv, 13. But Argob was more peculiarly the name of the
capital city of the region of Argob, which Eusebius says was fifteen
miles west of Gerara.

ARIANS, this ancient sect, was unquestionably so called from Arius, a
presbyter of Alexandria, in the early part of the fourth century. It
is said that he aspired to episcopal honours; and after the death of
Achilles, in A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined that Alexander
should be preferred before him. Whether this circumstance had any
influence on his opinions, it is impossible to say; but one day, when
his rival (Alexander) had been addressing the clergy in favour of the
orthodox doctrine, and maintaining, in strong and pointed language,
“that the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with
the Father,” Arius considered this as a species of Sabellianism, and
ventured to say, that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the
Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten: the
latter, therefore, could not be absolutely eternal. Alexander at first
admonished Arius, and endeavoured to convince him of his error; but
without effect, except that he became the more bold in contradiction.
Some of the clergy thought their bishop too forbearing, and it is
possible he felt his inferiority of talent; for Arius was a man of
accomplished learning, and commanding eloquence; venerable in person,
and fascinating in address. At length Alexander was roused, and
attempted to silence Arius by his authority; but this not succeeding,
as the latter was bold and pertinacious, Alexander, about the year
320, called a council of his clergy, by whom the reputed heretic was
deposed and excommunicated. Arius now retired into Palestine, where
his talents and address soon made a number of converts; and among the
rest, the celebrated Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and other bishops
and clergy of those parts, who assembled in council, and received the
excommunicated presbyter into their communion. Eusebius also, having
great interest with Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and wife of
Licinius, recommended Arius to her protection and patronage; through
which, and by his own eloquent letters to the clergy in various parts,
his system spread with great rapidity, and to a vast extent. The
emperor Constantine, who had no great skill in these matters, was
grieved to see the Christian church (but just escaped from the red
dragon of persecution) thus torn by intestine animosity and
dissensions; he therefore determined to summon a general council of
the clergy, which met at Nice, A. D. 325, and contained more than 300
bishops. Constantine attended in person, and strongly recommended
peace and unanimity. Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arians.
Both parties were willing to subscribe to the language of the
Scriptures, but each insisted on interpreting for themselves. “Did the
Trinitarians,” says Mr. Milner, “assert that Christ was God? The
Arians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are
styled gods in Scripture. Did they affirm that he was truly God? The
others allowed that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the
Son was naturally of God? It was granted: Even we, said they, are of
God, ‘of whom are all things.’” At length the Athanasians collected a
number of texts, which they conceived amounted to full proof of the
Son being of one and _the same_ substance with the Father; the Arians
admitted he was of _like_ substance, the difference in the Greek
phrases being only in a single letter,--ὁμοούσιος, _homoousios_ and
ὁμοιούσιος, _homoiousios_. At length the former was decreed to be the
orthodox faith, and the Nicene creed was framed as it remains at this
day so far as concerns the person of the Son of God, who is said to be
“begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made,” &c.

Arius was now excommunicated. The sentence of the council pronounced
against him and his associates was followed by another of the emperor,
whereby the excommunicated persons were condemned to banishment, that
they might be debarred the society of their countrymen whom the church
had judged unworthy to remain in her communion. Soon after which,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, being found to continue
their countenance and protection to the Arian cause, to communicate with
those whom they had anathematized, and to concur in those sentiments
which they had condemned by their subscriptions; they were both
subjected to the same penalty of exile by the emperor, and were actually
deposed, (as we learn from Athanasius,) and had successors ordained to
their sees, though history is silent as to the council by which this was
done. But such was the good nature and credulity of Constantine, that
these men, by their usual artifices, easily imposed upon him, and
brought him to such a full persuasion of their agreement with the Nicene
faith, that in about three years’ time they were not only recalled from
banishment, but restored to their sees, and to a considerable degree of
interest at court. Their thorough attachment to the cause of Arius, and
their hatred of Athanasius, who had so vigorously withstood them in the
council, and was now advanced to the see of Alexandria, made them
watchful of every opportunity to defeat the decisions of the council.

In the meantime one who wished well to their designs, and whom
Constantia had upon her death bed recommended to the emperor, did so far
prevail upon the easy credulity of Constantine, by complaining that
Arius had been misrepresented, and differed nothing in his sentiments
from the Nicene fathers, that the indulgent emperor recalled him from
his banishment, and required him to exhibit in writing, a confession of
his faith. He did this in such terms as, though they admitted of a
latent reservation, yet bore the appearance of being entirely catholic;
and therefore not only gave satisfaction to the emperor, but even
offended some of his own followers, who from that time forth separated
from him. The discerning Athanasius was not so easily imposed upon as
Constantine; but, well assured of the heretic’s prevarication, was
resolute in refusing to admit him to communion, whom the Nicene council
had so openly condemned. Upon this the emperor sent for Arius to
Constantinople, and insisted upon his being received into communion, by
Alexander, bishop of that city. However, on the day before this was to
have taken place, Arius died suddenly from a complaint in his bowels.
Some attributed this to poison; others to the judgment of God. The
emperor did not long survive; and Constantius, his successor, became
warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party.
Successive emperors took different sides, and thus was the peace of the
church agitated for many years, and practical religion sacrificed
alternately to the dogmas or the interests of one party or the other;
and each was in turn excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished.
Constantius supported Arianism triumphantly, Julian laughed at both
parties, but persecuted neither, Jovian supported the Nicene doctrine.
Valentinian, and his brother Valens, took contrary sides; the former
supporting Athanasianism in the west, and the latter Arianism in the
east; so that what was orthodoxy at Rome was heresy at Constantinople,
and _vice versa_. The Arians themselves were not unanimous, but divided
into various shades of sentiment, under their respective leaders; as
Eusebians, Eudoxians, Acasians, Aëtians, &c; but the more general
distinction was into Arians and Semi-Arians; the former sinking the
character of the Son of God into that of a mere creature, while the
latter admitted every thing but the _homoousian_ doctrine, or his
absolute equality with the Father. After this period we hear little of
Arianism, till it was revived in England in the beginning of the last
century by the eccentric Mr. Whiston, by Mr. Emlyn, and Dr. Samuel
Clarke. The latter was what may be called a _high_ or Semi-Arian, who
came within a shade of orthodoxy; the two _former_ were low Arians,
reducing the rank of our Saviour to the scale of angelic beings--a
creature “made out of nothing.” Since this time, however, both Arians
and Socinians are sunk into the common appellation of _Unitarians_, or
rather _Humanitarians_, who believe our Saviour (as Dr. Priestley
expresses it) to be “a _man_ like themselves.” The last advocates of the
pure Arian doctrine, of any celebrity, were Mr. Henry Taylor, (under the
signature of Ben Mordecai,) and Dr. Richard Price, in his “Sermons on
the Christian Doctrine.” It may be proper to observe, that the Arians,
though they denied the absolute _eternity_ of the Son, strongly
contended for his preëxistence, as the _Logos_, or the Word of God, “by
whom the worlds were made;” and admitted, more or less explicitly, the
sacrifice which he offered for sin upon the cross.

ARIEL, the capital city of Moab, frequently mentioned in Scripture, Ezra
viii, 16. See MOAB.

ARIMATHEA, or RAMAH, now called Ramlè, or Ramla, a pleasant town,
beautifully situated on the borders of a fertile and extensive plain,
abounding in gardens, vineyards, olive and date trees. It stands about
thirty miles north-west of Jerusalem, on the high road to Jaffa. At this
Rama, which was likewise called Ramathaim Zophim, as lying in the
district of Zuph, or Zoph, Samuel was born, 1 Sam. i. This was likewise
the native place of Joseph, called Joseph of Arimathea, who begged and
obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate, Matt. xxvi, 57. There was
another Ramah, about six miles north of Jerusalem, in a pass which
separated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which Baasha, king of
Israel, took and began to fortify; but he was obliged to relinquish it,
in consequence of the alliance formed between Asa, king of Judah, and
Benhadad, king of Syria, 1 Kings xv. This is the Ramah, supposed to be
alluded to in the lamentation of Rachel for her children.

ARISTARCHUS, spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, iv,
10, and often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. He was a
Macedonian, and a native of Thessalonica. He accompanied St. Paul to
Ephesus, and there continued with him during the two years of his abode
in that place, sharing with him in all the dangers and labours of the
ministry, Acts xix, 29; xx, 4; xxvii, 2. He was near losing his life in
a tumult raised by the Ephesian silversmiths. He left Ephesus with the
Apostle, and went with him into Greece. From thence he attended him into
Asia; from Asia into Judea, and from Judea to Rome.

ARK, _arca_, denotes a kind of floating vessel built by Noah, for the
preservation of himself and family, with several species of animals
during the deluge. The Hebrew word by which the ark is expressed, is תבה
or תיבה, the constructive form of תבה, which is evidently the Greek
θίβη; and so the LXX render the word in Exod. ii, 3, where only it again
occurs. They also render it κιβωτὸν; Josephus, λαρνάκα; and the Vulgate,
_arcam_; signifying an ark, coffer, or chest. Although the ark of Noah
answered, in some respects, the purpose of a ship, it is not so certain
that it was of the same form and shape. It has been inconclusively
argued by Michaelis and some others, that if its form had not been like
that of a ship, it could not have resisted the force of the waves;
because it was not intended to be conducted, like a ship, from one place
to another, but merely “to float on the surface of the waters,” Gen.
vii, 17. It appears to have had neither helm, nor mast, nor oars; but
was merely a bulky capacious vessel, light enough to be raised aloft
with all its contents, by the gradual rise of the deluge. Its shape,
therefore, was of little importance; more especially as it seems to have
been the purpose of Providence, in this whole transaction, to signify to
those who were saved, as well as to their latest posterity, that their
preservation was not in any degree effected by human contrivance. The
ark in which Moses was exposed bears the same name; and some have
thought that both were of the same materials. With respect to the
etymology of the Hebrew word, the most rational seems to be that of
Clodius, who derives it from the Arabic word תאה, “he collected,” from
which is formed תבה, or תיבה, denoting a place in which things are
collected. Foster deduces it from two Egyptian words, _thoi_, “a ship,”
and _bai_, “a palm tree branch”; and such ships are still to be seen not
only in Egypt, but in India and other countries; particularly in some
isles of the Pacific Ocean.

To the insufficiency of the ark to contain all the creatures said to
have been brought into it, objections have, at different times, been
made. Bishop Wilkins and others have learnedly discussed this subject,
and afforded the most satisfactory answers. Dr. Hales proves the ark to
have been of the burden of forty-two thousand four hundred and thirteen
tons; and asks, “Can we doubt of its being sufficient to contain eight
persons, and about two hundred or two hundred and fifty pair of
four-footed animals, (a number to which, according to M. Buffon, all the
various distinct species may be reduced,) together with all the
subsistence necessary for a twelvemonth, with the fowls of the air, and
such reptiles and insects as cannot live under water?” All these various
animals were controlled by the power of God, whose special agency is
supposed in the whole transaction, and “the lion was made to lie down
with the kid.”

Whether Noah was commanded to bring with him, into the ark, a pair of
_all_ living creatures, zoologically and numerically considered, has
been doubted. During the long period between the creation and the flood,
animals must have spread themselves over a great part of the
antediluvian earth, and certain animals would, as now, probably become
indigenous to certain climates. The pairs saved must therefore, if all
the kinds were included, have travelled from immense distances. But of
such marches no intimation is given in the history; and this seems to
render it probable that the animals which Noah was “_to bring with him_”
into the ark, were the animals clean and unclean of the country in which
he dwelt, and which, from the capacity of the ark, must have been in
great variety and number. The terms used, it is true, are universal; and
it is satisfactory to know, that if taken in the largest sense there was
ample accommodation in the ark. Nevertheless, universal terms in
Scripture are not always to be taken mathematically, and in the vision
of Peter, the phrase ϖάντα τὰ τετράποδα τῆς γῆς,--_all the four-footed
beasts of the earth_, must be understood of _varii generis quadrupedes_,
as Schleusner paraphrases it. Thus we may easily account for the exuviæ
of animals, whose species no longer exist, which have been discovered in
various places. The number of such extinct species probably has been
greatly over-rated by Cuvier; but of the fact, to a considerable extent,
there can be no doubt. It is also to be observed that the presumptive
evidence of the truth of the fact of the preparation of such a vessel,
and of the supernatural circumstances which attended it, is exceedingly
strong. It is, in truth, the only solution of a difficulty which has no
other explanation; for as a universal deluge is confirmed by the general
history of the world, and by a variety of existing facts and monuments,
such a structure as the ark, for the preservation and sustenance of
various animals, seems to have been absolutely necessary; for as we can
trace up the first imperfect rudiments of the art of ship building among
the Greeks, there could be no ships before the flood; and, consequently,
no animals could have been saved. Nay, it is highly improbable that even
men and domestic animals could be saved, not to mention wild beasts,
serpents, &c, though we should admit that the antediluvians had
shipping, unless we should suppose, also, that they had a divine
intimation respecting the flood, such as Moses relates; but this would
be to give up the cause of infidelity. Mr. Bryant has collected a
variety of ancient historical relations, which show that some records
concerning the ark had been preserved among most nations of the world,
and in the general system of Gentile mythology. Abydenus, with whom all
the eastern writers concur, informs us that the place of descent from
the ark was Armenia; and that its remains had been preserved for a long
time. Plutarch mentions the Noachic dove, and its being sent out of the
ark. Lucian speaks of Deucalion’s going forth from the ark, and raising
an altar to God. The priests of Ammonia had a custom, at particular
seasons, of carrying in procession a boat, in which was an oracular
shrine, held in great veneration: and this custom of carrying the deity
in an ark or boat was in use also among the Egyptians. Bishop Pococke
has preserved three specimens of ancient sculpture, in which this
ceremony is displayed. They were very ancient, and found by him in Upper
Egypt. The ship of Isis referred to the ark, and its name, “Baris,” was
that of the mountain corresponding to Ararat in Armenia. Bryant finds
reference to the ark in the temples of the serpent worship, called
_Dracontia_; and also in that of Sesostris, fashioned after the model of
the ark, in commemoration of which it was built, and consecrated to
Osiris at Theba; and he conjectures that the city, said to be one of the
most ancient in Egypt, as well as the province, was denominated from it,
Theba being the appellation of the ark. In other countries, as well as
in Egypt, an ark, or ship, was introduced in their mysteries, and often
carried about in the seasons of their festivals. He finds, also, in the
story of the Argonauts several particulars, that are thought to refer to
the ark of Noah. As many cities, not in Egypt only and Bœotia, but in
Cilicia, Ionia, Attica, Phthiotis, Cataonia, Syria, and Italy, were
called Theba; so likewise the city Apamea was denominated _Cibotus_,
from κιϐωτος, in memory of the ark, and of the history connected with
it. The ark, according to the traditions of the Gentile world, was
prophetic; and was regarded as a kind of temple or residence of the
deity. It comprehended all mankind, within the circle of eight persons,
who were thought to be so highly favoured of Heaven that they at last
were reputed to be deities. Hence in the ancient mythology of Egypt,
there were precisely eight gods; and the ark was esteemed an emblem of
the system of the heavens. The principal terms by which the ancients
distinguished the ark were Theba, Baris, Arguz, Aren, Arene, Arni,
Laris, Boutas, Bœotus, and Cibotus; and out of these they formed
different personages. See DELUGE.

ARK OF THE COVENANT, a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in
length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in
height; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron’s
rod, and the tables of the covenant, Num. xvii, 10; Heb. ix, 4. This
coffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the
_mercy seat_, Exod. xxv, 17–22, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two
ends whereof were two figures, called _cherubim_, looking toward each
other, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of
the mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rabbins,
was made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by
solder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible display of the
divine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle and
in the temple, Lev. xvi, 2; and from hence the divine oracles were given
forth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of
his people. Hence it is that God is said in Scripture to dwell between
the cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of
the visible appearance of his glory among them, 2 Kings xix, 15; 2
Chron, xiii, 6; Psalm lxxx, 1, &c; and for this reason the high priest
appeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of
expiation, at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the
divine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of
Israel. On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two
on each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by
means whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness,
&c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exod. xxv, 13, 14; xxvii, 5. After
the passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for some time at Gilgal,
from whence it was removed to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites
carried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines,
it fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession of
the ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named
Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the
ground and was broken. The Philistines also were so afflicted with
emerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and
it was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it
to the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and
lastly, Solomon brought it into the temple which he had built at
Jerusalem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of
Judah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their
idols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this
profanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to
preserve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded
them to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced,
2 Chron. xxxv, 3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the
temple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been
carried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would, in
all probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the
captivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands;
whence it is probable that it was destroyed with the temple.

The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all
those of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Levitical
law; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but
every where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever
they prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark
stood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan. vi, 10. Whence
the author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the
mercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of
the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein; and,
therefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but
the ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old
men to have wept when they remembered the first temple in which it
stood; and for the saying of Haggai, ii, 3, that the second temple was
as nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the
covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was
supplied as to the outward form, for in the second temple there was also
an ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place;
but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and the pot of manna;
nor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any
oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a
representation of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a
repository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that
collection of them made by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of
which the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in
which they keep their Scriptures.

For the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed
cherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional
state to this most sacred symbol of God’s grace and mercy. These
cherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal distance from
the centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their
wings being expanded, the two wings which were extended behind touched
the wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it.
When these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in
and placed under their wings, 2 Chron. v, 7–10.

The ark was called the _ark of the covenant_, because it was a symbol of
the covenant between God and his people. It was also named the _ark of
the testimony_, because the two tables which were deposited in it were
witnesses against every transgression.

ARM. As it is by this member of the body that we chiefly exert our
strength, it is therefore used in Scripture for an emblem of power. Thus
God is said to have delivered his people from Egyptian bondage “with a
stretched-out arm,” Deut. v, 15; and he thus threatens Eli the high
priest, “I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house,” 1
Sam. ii, 31; that is, I will deprive thee and thy family of power and
authority.

ARMAGEDDON, a place spoken of, Rev. xvi, 16, which literally signifies
“the mountain of Mageddon,” or “Megiddo,” a city situated in the great
plain at the foot of Mount Carmel, where the good prince Josiah received
his mortal wound, in the battle against Necho, king of Egypt. At
Armageddon, the three unclean spirits coming out of the dragon’s mouth
shall gather together the kings of the earth, to the battle of the great
day of God Almighty, Rev. xvi, 13, 14; where the word Armageddon,
according to Mr. Pool, does not signify any particular place, but is
used in allusion to Megiddo, mentioned Judges v, 19, where Barak
overcame Sisera with his great army, and where Josiah was slain, 2 Kings
xxiii, 30. If so, the term must have been a proverbial one for a place
of destruction and mourning.

ARMENIA, a considerable country of Asia, having Colchis and Iberia on
the north, Media on the east, Mesopotamia on the south, Pontus and
Cappadocia on the west, and the Euphrates and Syria on the south-west.
Armenia is often confounded with Aramæa, the land of Aram or Syria; but
they are totally different. Armenia, which is separated from Aram by
Mount Taurus, was so denominated from Ar-Men, the mountainous country of
Meni or Minni, the people of which country are mentioned under this name
by Jeremiah, when summoning the nations against Babylon.

The people of this country have in all ages maintained a great
similarity of character, partly commercial and partly pastoral. They
have, in fact, in the northern parts of the Asiatic continent, been what
the Cushites and Ishmaelites were in the south, tenders of cattle,
living on the produce of their flocks and herds, and carriers of
merchandize between the neighbouring nations; a part living at home with
their flocks, and a part travelling as merchants and dealers into
distant countries. In the flourishing times of Tyre, the Armenians,
according to Ezekiel, xxvii, 14, brought horses and mules to the markets
of that city; and, according to Herodotus, they had a considerable trade
in wine, which they sent down the Euphrates to Babylon, &c. At the
present day, the Armenians are the principal traders of the east; and
are to be found in the capacity of merchants or commercial agents all
over Asia, a patient, frugal, industrious, and honest people, whose
known character for these virtues has withstood the tyranny and
extortions of the wretched governments under which they chiefly live.

The religion of the Armenians is a corrupt Christianity of the sect of
Eutyches; that is, they own but one nature in Jesus Christ. Their rites
partake of those of the Greek and Latin churches, but they reject the
idolatries of both. It is indeed a remarkable instance of the firmness
of this people, that while the surrounding nations submitted to the
religion as well as the arms of the Turks, they have preserved the
purity of their ancient faith, such as it is, to the present day. It
cannot be supposed but that the Turks used every effort to impose on the
conquered Armenians the doctrines of the Koran. More tolerant, indeed,
than the Saracens, liberty of conscience was still not to be purchased
of them but by great sacrifices, which for three centuries the Armenians
have patiently endured, and exhibit to the world an honourable and
solitary instance of a successful national opposition of Christianity to
Mohammedanism.

ARMENIAN CHURCH, a branch, originally, of the Greek church, residing in
Armenia. They probably received Christianity in the fourth century. Mr.
Yeates gives the most recent account of them:--

“Their whole ecclesiastical establishment is under the government of
four patriarchs; the first has his residence in Echmiadzin, or
Egmiathin, near Irivan; the second, at Sis, in the lesser Armenia; the
third, in Georgia; and the fourth, in Achtamar, or Altamar, on the Lake
of Van; but the power of the two last is bounded within their own
diocesses, while the others have more extensive authority, and the
patriarch of Egmiathan has, or had, under him eighteen bishops, beside
those who are priors of monasteries. The Armenians every where perform
divine service in their own tongue, in which their liturgy and offices
are written, in the dialect of the fourth or fifth centuries. They have
the whole Bible translated from the Septuagint, as they say, so early as
the time of Chrysostom. The Armenian confession is similar to that of
the Jacobite Christians, both being Monophysites, acknowledging but one
nature in the person of Christ; but this, according to Mr. Simon, is
little more than a dispute about terms; few of them being able to enter
into the subtilties of polemics.

“In the year 1664, an Armenian bishop, named Uscan, visited Europe for
the purpose of getting printed the Armenian Bible, and communicated the
above particulars to Mr. Simon. In 1667, a certain patriarch of the
lesser Armenia visited Rome, and made a profession of faith which was
considered orthodox, and procured him a cordial reception, with the hope
of reconciling the Armenian Christians to the Roman church; but, before
he got out of Italy, it was found he had prevaricated, and still
persisted in the errors of his church. About this time, Clement IX,
wrote to the king of Persia, in favour of some Catholic converts in
Armenia, and received a favourable answer; but the Armenian church could
never be persuaded to acknowledge the authority of Rome.

“They have among them a number of monasteries and convents, in which is
maintained a severe discipline; marriage is discountenanced, though not
absolutely prohibited; a married priest cannot obtain promotion, and the
higher clergy are not allowed to marry. They worship in the eastern
manner, by prostration: they are very superstitious, and their
ceremonies much resemble those of the Greek church. Once in their lives
they generally perform a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and in 1819, the
number of Armenian pilgrims was thirteen hundred, nearly as many as the
Greeks. Dr. Buchanan, however, says, ‘Of all the Christians in central
Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mohammedan and Papal
corruptions.’”

ARMIES. In the reign of David, the Hebrews acquired such skill in the
military art, together with such strength, as gave them a decided
superiority over their competitors on the field of battle. David
increased the standing army, which Saul had introduced. Solomon
introduced cavalry into the military force of the nation, also chariots.
Both cavalry and chariots were retained in the subsequent age; an age,
in which military arms were improved in their construction, the science
of fortification made advances, and large armies were mustered. From
this period, till the time when the Hebrews became subject to the
Assyrians and Chaldeans, but little improvement was made in the arts of
war. The Maccabees, after the return of the Hebrews from the captivity,
gave a new existence to the military art among them. But their
descendants were under the necessity of submitting to the superior power
of the Romans.

Whenever there was an immediate prospect of war, a levy was made by the
genealogists, Deut. xx, 5–9. In the time of the kings, there was a head
or ruler of the persons, that made the levy, denominated השוטר, who kept
an account of the number of the soldiers, but who is, nevertheless, to
be distinguished from the generalissimo, הסופר, 2 Chron. xxvi, 11.
Compare 2 Sam. viii, 17; xx, 25; 1 Chron. xviii, 16. After the levy was
fully made out, the genealogists gave public notice, that the following
persons might be excused, from military service, Deut. xx, 5–8: 1. Those
who had built a house, and had not yet inhabited it. 2. Those who had
planted a כרס, that is, _an olive_ or _vine garden_, and had not as yet
tasted the fruit of it; an exemption, consequently, which extended
through the first five years after such planting. 3. Those who had
bargained for a spouse, but had not celebrated the nuptials; also those
who had not as yet lived with their wife, for a year. 4. The
faint-hearted, who would be likely to discourage others, and who, if
they had gone into battle, where, in those early times, every thing
depended on personal prowess, would only have fallen victims.

At the head of each rank or file of fifty, was the captain of fifty. The
other divisions consisted of a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand
men, each one of which was headed by its appropriate commander. These
divisions ranked in respect to each other according to their families,
and were subject to the authority of the heads of those families, 2
Chron. xxv, 5; xxvi, 12, 13. The centurions, and _chiliarchs_ or
captains of thousands, were admitted into the councils of war, 1 Chron.
xiii, 1–3; 1 Sam. xviii, 13. The leader of the whole army was
denominated אל־שרהצכא, _the captain of the host_. The genealogists, (in
the English version, _officers_,) according to a law in Deut. xx, 9, had
the right of appointing the persons who were to act as officers in the
army; and they, undoubtedly, made it a point, in their selections, to
choose those who are called heads of families. The practice of thus
selecting military officers ceased under the kings. Some of them were
then chosen by the king, and in other instances the office became
permanent and hereditary in the heads of families. Both kings and
generals had armour bearers, נשא כלים. They were chosen from the bravest
of the soldiery, and not only bore the arms of their masters, but were
employed to give his commands to the subordinate captains, and were
present at his side in the hour of peril, 1 Sam. xiv, 6; xvii, 7. The
infantry, the cavalry, and the chariots of war were so arranged, as to
make separate divisions of an army, Exod. xiv, 6, 7. The infantry were
divided likewise into light-armed troops, גדודים, and into spearmen,
Genesis xlix, 19; 1 Samuel xxx, 8, 15, 23; 2 Sam. iii, 22; iv, 2; xxii,
30; Psalm xviii, 30; 2 Kings v, 2; Hosea vii, 1. The light-armed
infantry were furnished with a sling and javelin, with a bow, arrows,
and quiver, and also, at least in latter times, with a buckler. They
fought the enemy at a distance. The spearmen, on the contrary, who were
armed with spears, swords, and shields, fought hand to hand, 1 Chron.
xii, 24, 34; 2 Chron. xiv, 8; xvii, 17. The light-armed troops were
commonly taken from the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin, 2 Chron. xiv, 8;
xvii, 17. Compare Gen. xlix, 27; Psalm lxxviii, 9.

The art of laying out an encampment appears to have been well understood
in Egypt, long before the departure of the Hebrews from that country. It
was there that Moses became acquainted with that mode of encamping,
which, in the second chapter of Numbers, is prescribed to the Hebrews.
In the encampment of the Israelites, it appears that the holy tabernacle
occupied the centre. In reference to this circumstance, it may be
remarked, that it is the common practice in the east, for the prince or
leader of a tribe to have his tent pitched in the centre of the others;
and it ought not to be forgotten, that God, whose tent or palace was the
holy tabernacle, was the prince, the leader of the Hebrews. The tents
nearest to the tabernacle were those of the Levites, whose business it
was to watch it, in the manner of a Pretorian guard. The family of
Gershom pitched to the west, that of Kehath to the south, that of Merari
to the north. The priests occupied a position to the east, opposite to
the entrance of the tabernacle, Num. i, 53; iii, 21–38. At some distance
to the east, were the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon; on the
south were those of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad; to the west were Ephraim,
Manasseh, and Benjamin; to the north, Dan, Asher, and Napthali. The
people were thus divided into four bodies, three tribes to a division;
each of which divisions had its separate standard, דגל. Each of the
large family associations likewise, of which the different tribes were
composed, had a separate standard, termed, in contradistinction from the
other, אות; and every Hebrew was obliged to number himself with his
particular division, and follow his appropriate standard. Of military
standards, there were,--1. The standard, denominated דגל; one of which
pertained to each of the four general divisions. The four standards of
this name were large, and ornamented with colours in white, purple,
crimson, and dark blue. The Jewish Rabbins assert, (founding their
statement on Genesis xlix, 3, 9, 17, 22, which in this case is very
doubtful authority,) that the first of these standards, namely, that, of
Judah, bore a lion; the second, or that of Reuben, bore a man; that of
Ephraim, which was the third, displayed the figure of a bull; while that
of Dan, which was the fourth, exhibited the representation of cherubim.
They were wrought into the standards with embroidered work. 2. The
standard, called אות. The ensign of this name belonged to the separate
classes of families. 3. The standard, called נס. This standard was not,
like the others, borne from place to place. It appears from Num. xxi, 8,
9, that it was a long pole, fixed into the earth. A flag was fastened to
its top, which was agitated by the wind, and seen at a great distance,
Jer. iv, 6, 21; li, 2, 12, 27; Ezek. xxvii, 7. In order to render it
visible, as far as possible, it was erected on lofty mountains, and was
in this way used as a signal, to assemble soldiers. It no sooner made
its appearance on such an elevated position, than the war-cry was
uttered, and the trumpets were blown, Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii, 3;
xxx, 17; xlix, 22; lxii, 10–13.

Before battle the various kinds of arms were put into the best order;
the shields were anointed, and the soldiers refreshed themselves by
taking food, lest they should become weary and faint under the pressure
of their labours, Jer. xlvi, 3, 4; Isaiah xxi, 5. The soldiers, more
especially the generals and kings, except when they wished to remain
unknown, 1 Kings xxii, 30–34, were clothed in splendid habiliments,
which are denominated, בהדרי-קדש, _the sacred dress_, Psalm cx, 3. It
was the duty of the priests, before the commencement of the battle, to
exhort the Hebrews to exhibit that courage which was required by the
exigency of the occasion. The words which they used were as
follows:--“Hear, O Israel; ye approach this day unto battle against your
enemies; let not your hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble;
neither be ye terrified, because of them. For the Lord your God is he
that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save
you,” Deut. xx, 2, &c. The last ceremony, previous to an engagement, was
the sounding of the sacred trumpets by the priests, Num. x, 9, 10; 2
Chron. xiii, 12–14; 1 Macc. iii, 54.

ARMINIANISM, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine
which was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the university of
Leyden. If therefore we would learn precisely what Arminianism is, we
must have recourse to those writings in which that divine himself has
stated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will by no
means give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has been
usually denominated Arminianism. On examination, it will be found, that
in many important particulars, those who have called themselves
Arminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as widely from
the nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself did from
Calvin, and other doctors of Geneva. There are, indeed, certain points,
with regard to which he has been strictly and uniformly followed by
almost all his pretended adherents; but there are others of equal or of
greater importance, dogmatically insisted on by them, to which he
unquestionably never gave his sanction, and even appears to have been
decidedly hostile. Such a distinction, obvious as it must be to every
attentive reader, has yet been generally so far overlooked, that the
memory of Arminius is frequently loaded with imputations the most
unreasonable and unjust. He is accused, by the ignorant and the
prejudiced, of introducing corruptions into the Christian church, which
he probably never thought of, and which certainly have no place in his
works. And all the odium which his followers have from time to time
incurred by their varied and increasing heterodoxy, has been absurdly
reflected upon him, as if he could be responsible for every error that
may be sent abroad under the sanction of his name. Whatever be the
number or the species of these errors, and in whatever way they may be
associated with his principles, it is fair to the character of Arminius,
and useful to the interests of religious truth, to revert to his own
writings as the only source from which we ought to derive information
concerning the Arminian scheme; and by doing so, it may be discovered,
that genuine unadulterated Arminianism is not that great and dangerous
heresy which among a certain class of Christians it is too often
represented to be.

Arminianism, in its proper sense, is to be considered as a separation
from Calvinism, with regard to the doctrines of unconditional election,
particular redemption, and other points necessarily resulting from
these. The Calvinists held that God had elected a certain portion of the
human race to eternal life, passing by the rest, or rather dooming them
to everlasting destruction; that God’s election proceeded upon no
prescience of the moral principles and character of those whom he had
thus predestinated, but originated solely in the motions of his free and
sovereign mercy; that Christ died for the elect only, and therefore that
the merits of his death can avail for the salvation of none but them;
and that they are constrained by the irresistible power of divine grace
to accept of him as their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Arminius
and his legitimate followers stands opposed. They do not deny an
election; but they deny that it is absolute and unconditional. They
argue, that an election of this kind is inconsistent with the character
of God, that it destroys the liberty of the human will, that it
contradicts the language of Scripture, and that it tends to encourage a
careless and licentious practice in those by whom it is believed. They
maintain that God has elected those only who, according, not to his
decree, but to his foreknowledge, and in the exercise of their natural
powers of self-determination, acting under the influence of his grace,
would possess that faith and holiness to which salvation is annexed in
the Gospel scheme. And those who are _not_ elected are allowed to
perish, not because they were not elected, but merely and solely in
consequence of their infidelity and disobedience; on account, indeed, of
which infidelity and disobedience being foreseen by God, their election
did not take place. They hold, that Christ died for _all_ men in the
literal and unrestricted sense of that phrase; that his atonement is
able, both from its own merit, and from the intention of him who
appointed it, to expiate the guilt of every individual; that every
individual is invited to partake of the benefits which it has procured;
that the grace of God is offered to make the will comply with this
invitation, but that this grace may be resisted and rendered ineffectual
by the sinner’s perversity. Whether true believers necessarily
persevered, or whether they might fall from their faith, and forfeit
their state of grace, was a question which Arminius left in a great
measure unresolved, but which was soon determined by his followers in
this additional proposition, that saints may fall from the state of
grace, in which they are placed by the operation of the Holy Spirit.
This, indeed, seems to follow as a corollary, from what Arminius
maintained respecting the natural freedom and corruption of the will,
and the resistibility of divine grace.

It may now be proper to mention some tenets with regard to which
Arminianism has been much misrepresented. If a man hold that good works
are necessary to justification; if he maintain that faith includes good
works in its own nature; if he reject the doctrine of original sin; if
he deny that divine grace is requisite for the whole work of
sanctification; if he speak of human virtue as meritorious in the sight
of God; it is very generally concluded, that he is an Arminian. But the
truth is, that a man of such sentiments is properly a disciple of the
Pelagian and Socinian schools. To such sentiments pure Arminianism is as
diametrically opposite as Calvinism itself. The genuine Arminians admit
the corruption of human nature in its full extent. They admit, that we
are justified by faith only. They admit, that our justification
originates solely in the grace of God. They admit, that the procuring
and meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of
Christ. _Propter quam_, says Arminius, _Deus credentibus peccatum
condonat, eosque pro justis reputat non aliter atque si legem perfectè
implevissent_. [For the sake of which God pardons believers, and
accounts them as righteous precisely as if they had perfectly obeyed the
law.] They admit in this way, that justification implies not merely
forgiveness of sin, but acceptance to everlasting happiness. _Junctam
habet adoptionem in filios, et collationem juris in hereditatem vitæ
eternæ._ [It has connected with it adoption to sonship, and the grant of
a right to the inheritance of eternal life.] They admit, in fine, that
the work of sanctification, from its very commencement to its perfection
in glory, is carried on by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is
the gift of God by Jesus Christ. So sound, indeed, are the Arminians
with respect to the doctrine of justification, a doctrine so important
and essential in the opinion of Luther, that he scrupled not to call it,
_articulus ecclesiæ stantis vel cadentis_; [the article with which the
church stands or falls;] that those who look into the writings of
Arminius may be disposed to suspect him of having even exceeded Calvin
in orthodoxy. It is certain, at least, that he declares his willingness
to subscribe to every thing that Calvin has written on that leading
subject of Christianity, in the third book of his Institutes; and with
this declaration the tenor of his writings invariably corresponds.

The system of Arminius, then, appears to have been the same with that
which was generally maintained in the reformed churches at that time;
except in so far as the doctrine of the divine decrees was concerned.
But the most eminent of those who became Arminians, or ranked among his
professed followers, by embracing and avowing his peculiar tenets with
respect to election and redemption, soon began to depart widely from the
other tenets of his theological creed. They adopted views of the
corruption of man, of justification, of the righteousness of Christ, of
the nature of faith, of the province of good works, of the necessity and
operations of grace, that are quite contrary to those which he had
entertained and published. Many of them, in process of time, differed
more or less from one another, on some or all of these points. And so
diversified are the forms which Arminianism, as it is called, has
assumed in the course of its progress, that to describe precisely what
it has been since the synod of Dort, or what it is at the present day,
would be a most difficult, if not an impossible, task. Even the
confession of faith, which was drawn out for the Arminians by
Episcopius, and is to be found in the second volume of his works, cannot
be referred to as a standard. It was composed merely to counteract the
reproach of their being a society without any common principles. It is
expressed chiefly in the words and phrases of Scripture, to which, of
course, every one would annex his own meaning. Beside, no person, not
even a pastor, was obliged, by any form, to adhere strictly to it; but
every one was left entirely at liberty to interpret its language in the
manner that was most agreeable to his own private sentiments.
Accordingly, so various and inconsistent are their opinions, that could
Arminius peruse the unnumbered volumes which have been written as
expositions and illustrations of Arminian doctrine, he would be at a
loss to discover his own simple system, amidst that heterogeneous mass
of error with which it has been rudely mixed; and would be astonished to
find, that the controversy which he had conscientiously introduced, had
wandered far from the point to which he had confined it, and that with
his name dogmas were associated, the unscriptural and dangerous nature
of which he had pointed out and condemned.

The same temper of mind which led him to renounce the peculiarities of
Calvinism, induced him also to adopt more enlarged and liberal views of
church communion than those which had hitherto prevailed. While he
maintained that the mercy of God is not confined to a chosen few, he
conceived it to be quite inconsistent with the genius of Christianity,
that men of that religion should keep at a distance from each other, and
constitute separate churches, merely because they differed in their
opinions as to some of its doctrinal articles. He thought that
Christians of all denominations should form one great community, united
and upheld by the bonds of charity and brotherly love; with the
exception, however, of Roman Catholics, who, on account of their
idolatrous worship and persecuting spirit, must be unfit members of such
a society. That this was not only agreeable to the wishes of Arminius,
but one chief object of his labours, is evident from a passage in his
last will, which he made a little before his death:--_Ea proposui et
docui quæ ad propagationem amplificationemque veritatis religionis
Christianæ, veri Dei cultus, communis pietatis, et sanctæ inter homines
convers[at]ionis, denique ad convenientem Christiano nomini
tranquillitatem et pacem juxta verbum Dei possent conferre, excludens ex
iis papatum, cum quo nulla unitas fidei, nullum pietatis aut Christianæ
pacis vinculum servari potest_. [I have advanced and taught those things
which might contribute to the propagation and spread of the truth of
Christianity, the worship of the true God, general piety, and a holy
fellowship among men;--in fine, to a tranquillity and peace according to
God’s word and becoming the Christian name, excluding the Papacy, with
which no unity of faith, no bond of piety, or of Christian peace can be
maintained.]

Mosheim has stated this circumstance in a note to his history of the
Arminian church; but his statement, or rather the conclusion which he
deduces from it, is evidently unfair and incorrect. He alleges, that
Arminius had actually laid the plan of that theological system which was
afterward embraced by his followers; that he had inculcated the main and
leading principles of it on the minds of his disciples; and that
Episcopius and others, who rejected Calvinism in more points than in
that which related to the divine decrees, only propagated, with greater
courage and perspicuity, the doctrines which Arminianism, as taught by
its founder, already contained. These allegations, it is clear, have no
sort of connection with the passage from which they are drawn as
inferences; and they are wholly inconsistent with the assertions, and
reasonings, and declarations of Arminius, when he is discussing the
merits of the question that was agitated between him and the Geneva
school. Arminius, in addition to the scheme of doctrine which he taught,
was anxious to establish this maxim, and to reduce it to practice, that,
with the exception above mentioned, no difference of opinions should
prevent Christians from remaining in one church or religious body. He
did not mean to insinuate, that a difference of opinion was of no
consequence at all; that they who thought one way were just as right as
they who thought a contrary way; or that men have no occasion to be
solicitous about the religious tenets which they hold. He did not mean
to give up his own system as equally true, or equally false, with that
of Calvin; and as little could he be supposed to sanction those
sentiments of his followers which were in direct opposition to the
sentiments which he himself had maintained. But he endeavoured, in the
first place, to assert liberty of conscience, and of worship; and then,
upon that fundamental principle, to persuade all Christians, however
divided in opinion, to lay aside the distinctions of sect and party, and
in one united body to consult that tranquillity and peace which is so
agreeable to the Christian name. This we conceive to have been the
object of Arminius; an object so indicative of an enlightened mind, so
congenial to that charity which hopeth all things, and thinketh no evil,
and so conducive to the interests of religion and the peace of the
world, as to reflect the highest honour on him by whom it was first
pursued, and to constitute the true glory of Arminianism.

The controversy to which Arminianism had given rise, was carried on
after the death of its founder, with the greatest eagerness, and
produced the most bitter and deplorable dissensions. The Arminians
requested nothing more than a bare toleration. This moderate demand, at
all times reasonable and just, was particularly so in Holland, which had
thrown off the yoke of civil and spiritual despotism, and where the
received confession of faith had not determined the questions under
debate. It was strongly urged by Grotius, Hoogerbeets, Olden Barnevelt,
and other persons of respectability and influence. And Maurice, prince
of Orange, and his mother the princess dowager, giving countenance to
the claim, there was some prospect of the Calvinists being persuaded to
enter into pacific measures, and to treat their dissenting brethren with
forbearance. Accordingly, in the year 1611, a conference between the
contending parties was held at the Hague, on which occasion, it is
commonly asserted, the toleration required was offered to the Arminians,
provided they would renounce the errors of Socinianism,--though the
papers which passed between the parties at that conference, as
authenticated by each of them, contain no proviso of that description.
Another conference was held at Delft, in 1613. And in 1614, the States
of Holland promulgated an edict, exhorting the disputants to the
exercise of mutual charity. But these and other expedients employed for
the same purpose, had not the desired effect. The Calvinists expressed
great indignation at the magistrates, for endeavouring, by their
authority, to promote a union with such adversaries. The conduct of the
States was ably and eloquently defended by Grotius, in two treatises,
entitled, “_De Jure Summarum Potestatum circa sacra_,” and “_Ordinum
Hollandiæ, ac West-Frisiæ Pietas a multorum calumniis vindicata_.”

The hopes of success which the Arminians entertained from the indulgent
manner in which they were treated by the civil authorities, were soon
blasted by a misunderstanding which had secretly subsisted for some time
between the stadtholder and the principal magistrates, and at last broke
forth into an open rupture. Maurice, being suspected of aiming at
sovereign power, was firmly opposed by the leading persons in the
government, who had been the friends and patrons of the Arminians, and
to whom, therefore, these adhered at this difficult crisis. On the other
hand, the Gomarists, or Calvinists, attached themselves to Maurice, and
inflamed the resentment which he had already, for various reasons,
conceived against the Arminians. The prince was resolved, at once to
ruin the ministers who had ventured to oppose his schemes of usurpation,
and to crush the Arminians, by whom those statesmen had been warmly
supported. For this purpose he got the leading men cast into prison.
Barnevelt, whose long and faithful services deserved a better fate, died
on the scaffold: and Grotius and Hoogerbeets, under pretexts more
plausible than solid, were unjustly condemned to perpetual imprisonment,
from which, however, the former afterward escaped, and fled into France.
The alleged crime of the Arminians being of an ecclesiastical nature, it
was thought proper to bring their cause before a national assembly of
divines by which their religious opinions might be regularly and finally
condemned.

Under the auspices of Maurice, therefore, and by the authority of the
states general, a synod was convoked at Dort, in the year 1618. Before
this meeting, which consisted of deputies from the United Provinces,
from England, Scotland, Switzerland, and other places, the Arminians
appeared, with Episcopius at their head, to answer to the accusations
brought against them, of departing from the established religion. For a
full account of the proceedings of this synod, the reader may consult
the second and third volumes of Brandt’s History of the Reformation, and
the Remains of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, who was present at the meeting,
and gives a simple narrative of what he saw and heard. The conduct of
the synod has been applauded by some, and condemned by others. On the
one hand, it has been placed above every other synod since the Apostolic
age, for its temper, moderation, and sanctity; on the other, it has been
charged with injustice and cruelty, and burlesqued in such lines as
these:--

_Dordrechti synodus nodus; chorus integer, æger; Conventus, ventus;
sessio, stramen, Amen._

[The point of this doggrel, which consists chiefly in the gingle of the
Latin words, is lost in a translation. The following is a literal
version:--

          The synod of Dort, a knot; the whole assembly, sick;
          The convention, wind; the session, straw, Amen.]

Neal remarks, that it behaved as well as most assemblies of a similar
kind have done, “who have pretended to establish articles for other
men’s faith, with penal sanctions.” This says very little for the synod
of Dort; though, perhaps, it is even more than can be said with truth.
Martinius of Bremen seems to have spoken much more correctly, when he
told his friends, “I believe now what Gregory Nazianzen says, that he
had never seen any council attended with good effects, but that it
always increased the evil rather than removed it. I declare as well as
that father, that I will never set my foot in any synod again. O Dort!
Dort! would to God that I had never seen thee!” The Arminians, it is
contended, asked more indulgence than they had reason to expect; however
it is certain that the treatment which they received from the synod, was
arbitrary, faithless, and oppressive. They were at length found guilty
of heresy, and of hostility to their country and its religion. And the
measures adopted against them, in consequence of this sentence, were of
the most severe and rigorous kind. They were excommunicated; they were
driven from all their offices, civil and ecclesiastical; their ministers
were prohibited from preaching; and their congregations were suppressed.
Refusing to submit to the two last of these hard decrees, they were
subjected to fines, imprisonments, and various other punishments. To
avoid this tyrannical treatment, many of them retired to Antwerp, others
to France, and a considerable number into Holstein, where they were
kindly received by Frederick the duke, and where, in the form of a
colony, they built for themselves a handsome town, naming it
Frederickstadt, in compliment to their friend and protector. The history
of this colony may be found in a work entitled _Epistolæ Præstantium et
Eruditorum Virorum Ecclesiasticæ et Theologicæ_, and published by
Limborch and Hartsoeker.

The tenets of the Arminians may be comprised in the following five
articles relating to predestination, universal redemption, the
corruption of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz. 1. That God, from
all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw
would persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus; and to
inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their
unbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succours; so that election
was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result of foreseen
infidelity and persevering wickedness. 2. That Jesus Christ, by his
sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in
general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but
those who believe in him can be partakers of the divine benefits. 3.
That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural
faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will;
since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either
of thinking or doing any good thing; and that, therefore, it is
necessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed
by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through
Jesus Christ. 4. That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost
begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and
consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that,
nevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to
act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered
ineffectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners. 5. That God
gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means
of preserving themselves in this state; and though the first Arminians
made some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their
followers uniformly maintain, that the regenerate may lose true
justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their sins.
The Arminians are also called _Remonstrants_, from an humble petition
entitled their _Remonstrance_, which, in the year 1610, they addressed
to the States of Holland. Their principal writers are, _Arminius_,
_Episcopius_, _Uitenbogart_, _Grotius_, _Curcellæus_, _Limborch_, _Le
Clerc_, _Wetstein_, _Goodwin_, _Whitby_, _Wesley_, _Fletcher_,
_Tomline_, _&c._ The works of Arminius, with a copious account of his
life and times, have been recently translated into English, by Mr. James
Nichols; and have not only served to dissipate many misconceptions
respecting the sentiments of this celebrated divine, which had prevailed
in England, where the Pelagianism of some eminent divines, generally
called ARMINIAN, had been unjustly charged upon him; but have added a
most valuable collection of treatises to our theological literature.

ARMS. The Hebrews do not appear to have had any peculiar military habit.
As the flowing dress which they ordinarily wore would have impeded their
movements, they girt it closely around them when preparing for battle,
and loosened it on their return, 2 Sam. xx, 8; 1 Kings xx, 11. They used
the same arms as the neighbouring nations, both defensive and offensive;
and these were made either of iron or of brass, principally of the
latter metal. Of the defensive arms of the Hebrews, the following were
the most remarkable; namely,

1. The helmet, כובע, for covering and defending the head. This was a
part of the military provision made by Uzziah for his vast army, 2
Chron. xxvi, 14; and long before the time of that king, the helmets of
Saul and of the Philistine champion were of the same metal, 1 Sam. xvii,
38. This military cap was also worn by the Persians, Ethiopians, and
Libyans, Ezek. xxxviii, 5, and by the troops which Antiochus sent
against Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac. vi, 35.

2. The breastplate or corslet, שדיון, was another piece of defensive
armour. Goliath, and the soldiers of Antiochus, 1 Sam. xvii, 5; 1 Mac.
vi, 35, were accoutred with this defence; which, in our authorized
translation, is variously rendered _habergeon_, _coat of mail_, and
_brigandine_, 1 Sam. xvii, 38; 2 Chron. xxvi, 14; Isa. lix, 17; Jer.
xlvi, 4. Between the joints of this _harness_, as it is termed in 1
Kings xxii, 4, the profligate Ahab was mortally wounded by an arrow,
shot at a venture. From these various renderings of the original word,
it should seem that this piece of armour covered both the back and
breast, but principally the latter. The corslets were made of various
materials: sometimes they were made of flax or cotton, woven very thick,
or of a kind of woollen felt: others again were made of iron or brazen
scales, or laminæ, laid one over another, like the scales of a fish;
others were properly what we call coats of mail; and others were
composed of two pieces of iron or brass, which protected the back and
breast. All these kinds of corslets are mentioned in the Scriptures.
Goliath’s coat of mail, 1 Sam. xvii, 5, was literally a corslet of
scales, that is, composed of numerous laminæ of brass, crossing each
other. It was called by Virgil, and other Latin writers, _squama
lorica_. Similar corslets were worn by the Persians and other nations.
The breastplate worn by the unhappy Saul, when he perished in battle, is
supposed to have been of flax, or cotton, woven very close and thick, 2
Sam. i, 9, marginal rendering.

3. The shield defended the whole body during the battle. It was of
various forms, and made of wood covered with tough hides, or of brass,
and sometimes was overlaid with gold, 1 Kings x, 16, 17; xiv, 26, 27.
Two sorts are mentioned in the Scriptures; namely, the צנה, _great
shield_ or _buckler_, and the מלן, or _smaller shield_. It was much used
by the Jews, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Egyptians. David,
who was a great warrior, often mentions a shield and buckler in his
divine poems, to signify that defence and protection of Heaven which he
expected and experienced, and in which he reposed all his trust, Psalm
v, 12; and when he says, “God will with favour compass the righteous as
with a shield,” he seems to allude to the use of the great shield
_tsinnah_, (which is the word he uses,) with which they covered and
defended their whole bodies. King Solomon caused two different sorts of
shields to be made; namely, the _tsinnah_, (which answers to _clypeus_
among the Latins,) such a large shield as the infantry wore, and the
_maginnim_, or _scuta_, which were used by the horsemen, and were of a
much less size, 2 Chron. ix, 15, 16. The former of these are translated
_targets_, and are double in weight to the other. The Philistines came
into the field with this weapon: so we find their formidable champion
was appointed, 1 Sam. xvii, 7. One bearing a shield went before him,
whose proper duty it was to carry this and some other weapons, with
which to furnish his master upon occasion.

The loss of the shield in fight was excessively resented by the Jewish
warriors, as well as lamented by them; for it was a signal aggravation
of the public mourning, that “the shield of the mighty was vilely cast
away,” 2 Sam. i, 21. David, a man of arms, who composed this beautiful
elegy on the death of Saul, felt how disgraceful a thing it was for
soldiers to quit their shields in the field.

These honourable sentiments were not confined to the Jews. We find them
prevailing among most other ancient nations, who considered it infamous
to cast away or lose their shield. With the Greeks it was a capital
crime, and punished with death. The Lacedemonian women, it is well
known, in order to excite the courage of their sons, used to deliver to
them their fathers’ shields, with this short address: “This shield thy
father always preserved: do thou preserve it also, or perish.” Alluding
perhaps to these sentiments, St. Paul, when exhorting the Hebrew
Christians to steadfastness in the faith of the Gospel, urges them not
to cast away their confidence, which “hath great recompense of reward,”
Heb. x, 35.

4. Another defensive provision in war was the military girdle, which was
for a double purpose: first, in order to hold the sword, which hung, as
it to this day, at the soldier’s girdle or belt, 1 Sam. xvii, 39:
secondly, it was necessary to gird the clothes and the armour together.
_To gird_ and _to arm_ are synonymous words in Scripture; for those who
are said to be able to put on armour are, according to the Hebrew and
the Septuagint, girt with a girdle; and hence comes the expression of
“girding to the battle,” 1 Kings xx, 11; Isa. viii, 9; 2 Sam. xxii, 40;
1 Sam. xviii, 4. There is express mention of this military girdle, where
it is recorded that Jonathan, to assure David of his entire love and
friendship by some visible pledges, stripped himself not only of his
usual garments, but of his military habiliments, his sword, bow, and
girdle, and gave them to David.

5. Boots or greaves were part of the ancient defensive harness, because
it was the custom to cast certain εμποδια, _impediments_, (so called,
because they entangled the feet,) in the way before the enemy. The
military boot or shoe was therefore necessary to guard the legs and feet
from the iron stakes placed in the way to gall and wound them; and thus
we are enabled to account for Goliath’s greaves of brass which were upon
his legs.

The offensive weapons were of two sorts; namely, such as were employed
when they came to a close engagement, and those with which they annoyed
the enemy at a distance. Of the former description were the sword and
the battle-axe.

1. The sword is the most ancient weapon of offence mentioned in the
Bible. With it Jacob’s sons treacherously assassinated the Shechemites,
Gen. xxxiv, 2. It was worn on the thigh, Psalm xlv, 4; Exod. xxxii, 27;
and, it should seem on the left thigh; for it is particularly mentioned
that Ehud put a dagger or short sword under his garments on his right
thigh, Judges iii, 16. There appear to have been two kinds of swords in
use, a larger one with one edge, which is called in Hebrew the _mouth_
of the sword, Joshua vi, 21; and a shorter one with two edges, like that
of Ehud. The modern Arabs, it is well known, wear a sabre on one side,
and a _cangiar_ or dagger in their girdles.

2. Of the battle-axe we have no description in the sacred volume: it
seems to have been a most powerful weapon in the hands of cavalry, from
the allusion made to it by Jeremiah: “Thou art my battle-axe and weapons
of war; for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee
will I destroy kingdoms: and with thee will I break in pieces the horse
and his rider, and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his
rider,” Jer. li, 20, 21.

3. The spear and javelin (as the words רמח and חנית are variously
rendered in Num. xxv, 7; 1 Sam. xiii, 19, and Jer. xlvi, 4) were of
different kinds, according to their length or make. Some of them might
be thrown or darted, 1 Sam. xviii, 11; others were a kind of long
swords, Num. xxv, 8; and it appears from 2 Sam. ii, 23, that some of
them were pointed at both ends. When armies were encamped, the spear of
the general or commander-in-chief was stuck into the ground at his head.

4. Slings are enumerated among the military stores collected by Uzziah,
2 Chron. xxvi, 14. In the use of the sling David eminently excelled, and
he slew Goliath with a stone from one. The Benjaminites were celebrated
in battle because they had attained to great skill and accuracy in
handling this weapon; “they could sling stones to a hair’s breadth, and
not miss,” Judges xx, 16; and where it is said that they were
left-handed, it should rather be rendered _ambidexters_; for we are told
they could use “both the right hand and the left,” 1 Chron. xii, 2; that
is, they did not constantly use the right hand as others did, when they
shot arrows or slung stones; but they were so expert in their military
exercises, that they could perform them with their left hand as well as
with their right.

5. Bows and arrows are of great antiquity; indeed, no weapon is
mentioned so early. Thus Isaac said to Esau, “Take thy weapons, thy
quiver and thy bow,” Gen. xxvii, 3; though, it is true, these are not
spoken of as used in war, but in hunting; and so they are supposed and
implied before this, where it is said of Ishmael, that he became an
archer, he used bows and arrows in shooting of wild beasts, Gen. xxi,
20. This afterward became so useful a weapon, that care was taken to
train up the Hebrew youth to it betimes. When David had, in a solemn
manner, lamented the death of King Saul, he gave orders for teaching the
young men the use of the bow, 1 Sam. i, 18, that they might be as expert
as the Philistines, by whose bows and arrows Saul and his army were
slain. These were part of the military ammunition; for in those times
bows were used instead of guns, and arrows supplied the place of powder
and ball. From the book of Job, xx, 24, it may be collected, that the
military bow was made of steel, and consequently was very stiff and hard
to bend, on which account they used their foot in bending their bows;
and therefore when the prophets speak of _treading the bow_ and of _bows
trodden_, they are to be understood of _bows bent_, as our translators
rightly render it, Jer. 1, 14; Isa. v, 28; xxi, 15; but the Hebrew word
which is used in these places, signifies _to tread upon_. This weapon
was thought so necessary in war, that it is there called, “the bow of
war,” or the “battle-bow,” Zech. ix, 10; x, 14.

ARNON, a river or brook, mentioned Num. xxi, 24, and elsewhere. Its
spring head is in the mountains of Gilead, or of the Moabites, and it
discharges itself into the Dead Sea.

ARROW. See ARMS. Divination with arrows was a method of presaging future
events, practised by the ancients. Ezekiel, xxi, 21, informs us, that
Nebuchadnezzar, putting himself at the head of his armies, to march
against Zedekiah, king of the Jews, and against the king of the
Ammonites, stood at the parting of two ways, to mingle his arrows
together in a quiver, in order to divine from thence which way he should
march. Jerom, Theodoret, and the modern commentators after them, believe
that this prince took several arrows, and upon each of them wrote the
name of the king, town, or province, which he was to attack: for
example, upon one, Jerusalem; upon another, Rabbah, the capital of the
Ammonites; and upon another, Egypt, &c. After having put these into a
quiver, he shook them together, and then drew them out; and the arrow
which was drawn was thought to declare the will of the gods to attack
first that city, province, or kingdom, with whose name it was inscribed.

ARTAXERXES, or AHASUERUS, a king of Persia, the husband of Esther, who,
in the opinion of the learned Usher and Calmet, was the Darius of
profane authors. See AHASUERUS.

2. ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS is supposed by Dr. Prideaux to be the Ahasuerus
of Esther. He was the son of Xerxes, and grandson of Darius Hystaspes,
and reigned in Persia from the year of the world 3531 to 3579. He
permitted Ezra, with all those inclined to follow him, to return into
Judea, in the year of the world 3537, Ezra vii, viii. Afterward,
Nehemiah also obtained leave to return, and to build the walls and gates
of Jerusalem, in the year of the world 3550, Nehem. i, 11. From this
year, chronologers reckon the beginning of Daniel’s seventy weeks,
Daniel xi, 29. These are weeks of years, and make four hundred and
ninety years. Dr. Prideaux, who discourses very copiously, and with
great learning, on this prophecy, maintains that the decree mentioned in
it for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, cannot be understood
of that granted to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; but of
that granted to Ezra, by the same Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his
reign. From that time to the death of Christ, are exactly four hundred
and ninety years, to a month: for in the month Nisan the decree was
granted to Ezra; and in the middle of the same month Nisan, Christ
suffered, just four hundred and ninety years afterward.

The easterns think that the surname of Longimanus was given to
Artaxerxes by reason of the extent of his dominions; as it is commonly
said that princes have long hands: but the Greeks maintain that this
prince had really longer hands or arms than usual; and that, when he
stood upright, he could touch his knees. He is said to have been the
handsomest man of his time. The eastern people call him Bahaman, and
give him the surname of Ardschir-diraz-dest, or the long-handed. He was
the son of Asfendiar, sixth king of the second dynasty of the Persians.
After having extinguished the family of Rostam, which was formidable to
him on account of the great men who composed it, he carried his arms
into the western provinces, Mesopotamia and Syria, which formed part of
his empire. He took Babylon from Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar; and
he put in his place Kiresch, who by us is called Cyrus. Some Persian
historians assert that the mother of Artaxerxes was a Jewess, of the
tribe of Benjamin, and family of Saul; and that the most beloved of his
wives was of the tribe of Judah, and race of Solomon, by Rehoboam, king
of Judah. If this be true, we need not wonder that he should recommend
to Cyrus to favour the Jewish nation. This Cyrus performed, by sending
back the people into their own country, and permitting them to rebuild
their temple. But the truth of this story is doubtful; and were it true,
the interference of the special providence of God must still be
acknowledged. Artaxerxes reigned forty-seven years, and died in the year
of the world 3579, and before Jesus Christ 425.

ARTEMAS, St. Paul’s disciple, who was sent by that Apostle into Crete,
in the room of Titus, chap. iii, 12, while he continued with St. Paul at
Nicopolis, where he passed the winter. We know nothing particular of the
life or death of Artemas; but the employment to which he was appointed
by the Apostle is a proof of his great merit.

ASA, the son and successor of Abijam, king of Judah, began to reign in
the year of the world 3049, and before Christ 955. He reigned forty-one
years at Jerusalem, and did right in the sight of the Lord. He purged
Jerusalem from the infamous practices attending the worship of idols;
and he deprived his mother of her office and dignity of queen, because
she erected an idol to Astarte, which he burnt in the valley of Hinnom,
1 Kings xv, 8, &c.

The Scripture reproaches Asa with not destroying the high places, which,
perhaps, he thought it politic to tolerate, to avoid the greater evil of
idolatry. He carried into the house of the Lord the gold and silver
vessels which his father Abijam had vowed to consecrate. He fortified
several cities, and repaired others, encouraging his people to this
labour while the kingdom was at peace; and the Lord favoured them with
his protection. After this he levied three hundred thousand men in
Judah, armed with shields and pikes; and two hundred and eighty thousand
men in Benjamin, armed with shields and bows, all men of courage and
valour. About this time, Zerah, king of Ethiopia, or rather of Cush,
which is part of Arabia, marched against Asa with a million of foot, and
three hundred chariots of war, and advanced as far as Mareshah. This
probably happened in the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign, and in the year
of the world 3064, 2 Chron. xv, 10. Asa advanced to meet Zerah, and
encamped in the plain of Zephathah, or rather Zephatah, near Mareshah,
and having prayed to the Lord, God struck the forces of Zerah with such
a panic that they began to flee. Asa and his army pursued them to Geran,
and slew of them a great number. After this, Asa’s army returned to
Jerusalem, laden with booty. The prophet Azariah met them, and said,
“Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin, The Lord is with you while
ye be with him, and if ye seek him he will be found of you; but if ye
forsake him, he will forsake you.--Be ye strong, therefore, and let not
your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded,” 2 Chron. xv, 2, 7.
After this exhortation, Asa, being animated with new courage, destroyed
the idols of Judah, Benjamin, and Mount Ephraim; repaired the altar of
burnt-offerings; and assembled Judah and Benjamin, with many from the
tribes of Simeon, Ephraim, and Manasseh, and on the third day, in the
fifteenth year of his reign, celebrated a solemn festival. Of the cattle
taken from Zerah, they sacrificed seven hundred oxen, and seven thousand
sheep; they renewed the covenant with the Lord; and, with cymbals and
trumpets sounding, they swore to the covenant, and declared that whoever
should forsake the true worship of God, should be put to death. The Lord
gave them peace; and, according to the Chronicles, the kingdom of Judah
had rest till the thirty-fifth year of Asa. Concerning this year,
however, there are difficulties; and some think that we should read the
twenty-fifth, instead of the thirty-fifth; since Baasha, who made war on
Asa, lived no longer than the twenty-sixth year of Asa, 1 Kings xvi, 8.

In this year Baasha, king of Israel, began to fortify Ramah, on the
frontiers of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, that he might prevent
the Israelites from resorting to the kingdom of Judah, and the temple of
the Lord at Jerusalem. When Asa was informed of this, he sent to
Benhadad, king of Damascus, all the gold and silver of his palace, and
of the temple, to induce him to break his alliance with Baasha, and to
assist him against the king of Israel. Benhadad accepted Asa’s presents,
and invaded Baasha’s country, where he took several cities belonging to
the tribe of Naphtali. This obliged Baasha to retire from Ramah, that he
might defend his dominions nearer home. Asa immediately ordered his
people to Ramah, carried off all the materials prepared by Baasha, and
employed them in building Geba and Mizpah. This application to Benhadad
for assistance was inexcusable. It implied, that Asa distrusted God’s
power and goodness, which he had so lately experienced. Therefore the
Prophet Hanani was sent to reprove him for his conduct. Asa, however,
was so exasperated at his rebukes that he put the Prophet in chains, and
at the same time ordered the execution of several persons in Judah.
Toward the latter part of his life, he was incommoded with swellings in
his feet, which, gradually rising upwards, killed him. The Scripture
reproaches him with having had recourse to physicians, rather than to
the Lord. He was buried in the sepulchre which he had provided for
himself in the city of David; and after his death they placed on the bed
great quantities of perfumes and spices, with which his body was burned.
His bones and ashes were then collected, and put into his grave.

ASAHEL, the son of Zeruiah, and brother of Joab. He was killed by Abner,
in the battle of Gibeon, 2 Sam. ii, 18, 19, while he obstinately
persisted in the pursuit of that general. To revenge his death, his
brother Joab, some years after, treacherously killed Abner, who had come
to wait on David at Hebron, in order to procure him to be acknowledged
king by all Israel, 2 Sam. iii, 26, 27. See ABNER.

ASAPH, a celebrated musician in the time of David, was the son of
Barachias of the tribe of Levi. Asaph, and also his descendants,
presided over the musical band in the service of the temple. Several of
the psalms, as the fiftieth, the seventy-third to the eighty-third, have
the name of Asaph prefixed; but it is not certain whether the words or
the music were composed by him. With regard to some of them, which were
written during the Babylonish captivity, they cannot in any respect be
ascribed to him. Perhaps they were written or set to music by his
descendants, who bore his name, or by some of that class of musicians of
which the family of Asaph was the head, 1 Chron. vi, 39; 2 Chron. xxix,
30; xxxv, 15; Neh. xii, 46. The psalms which bear the name of Asaph are
doctrinal or preceptive: their style, though less sweet than that of
David, is more vehement, and little inferior to the grandeur of Isaiah.

ASCENSION OF CHRIST, his visible elevation to heaven. Our Saviour,
having repeatedly conversed with his Apostles after his resurrection,
and afforded them many infallible proofs of its reality, led them from
Jerusalem to Bethany, and was raised up to heaven in their sight; there
to continue till he shall descend at the last day to judge the quick and
the dead. The evidences of this fact were numerous. The disciples saw
him ascend, Acts i, 9, 10. Two angels testified that he did ascend, Acts
i, 11. Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state, Acts vii,
55, 56; ix; Rev. i. The ascension was demonstrated by the descent of the
Holy Ghost, John xvi, 7, 14; Acts ii, 33; and the terrible overthrow and
dispersion of the Jewish nation is still a standing proof of it, John
viii, 21; Matt. xxvi, 64. The time of Christ’s ascension was forty days
after his resurrection. He continued so many days upon earth that he
might give repeated proofs of his resurrection, Acts i, 3; instruct his
Apostles in every thing of importance respecting their office and
ministry, Acts i, 3; and might open to them the Scriptures concerning
himself, and renew their commission to preach the Gospel, Acts i, 5, 6;
Mark xvi, 15. As to the manner of his ascension, it was from mount
Olivet to heaven, not in appearance only, but in reality, and that
visibly and locally. It was a real motion of his human nature; sudden,
swift, glorious, and in a triumphant manner. He was parted from his
disciples while he was solemnly blessing them; and multitudes of angels
attended him with shouts of praise, Psalm lxviii, 17; xlvii, 5, 6.

The effects or ends of his ascension were, 1. To fulfil the types and
prophecies concerning it; 2. To “appear” as a priest “in the presence of
God for us;” 3. To take upon him more openly the exercise of his kingly
office; 4. To receive gifts for men, both ordinary and extraordinary,
Psalm lxviii, 18; 5. To open the way to heaven for his people, Heb. x,
19, 20; 6. To assure the saints of their ascension to heaven after their
resurrection from the dead, John xiv, 1, 2.

ASHDOD, AZOTH, according to the Vulgate, or Azotus, according to the
Greek, a city which was assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, but
was possessed a long time by the Philistines, and rendered famous for
the temple of their god Dagon, Joshua xv, 47. It lies upon the
Mediterranean Sea, about nine or ten miles north of Gaza; and in the
times when Christianity flourished in these parts was made an episcopal
see, and continued a fair village till the days of St. Jerom. Here the
ark of Jehovah triumphed over the Philistine idol Dagon, 1 Sam. v, 2.

ASHER, tribe of. The province allotted to this tribe was a maritime one,
stretching along the coast from Sidon on the north to Mount Carmel on
the south; including the cities Abdon, Achshaph, Accho, Achzib, Sarepta,
Sidon, and Tyre. But of the northern half of this territory, that is,
from Tyre northward, this tribe never became possessed, not having
expelled the Phœnician inhabitants, who are supposed not to have been
pure Canaanites, but a mixture of this people with a Cuthite colony from
Egypt. Asher was the most northerly of the tribes; and had that of
Naphtali on the west, and Zebulun on the south.

ASHES. Several religious ceremonies, and some symbolical ones, anciently
depended upon the use of ashes. To repent in sackcloth and ashes, or, as
an external sign of self-affliction for sin, or of suffering under some
misfortune, to sit in ashes, are expressions common in Scripture. “I am
but dust and ashes,” exclaims Abraham before the Lord, Gen. xviii, 27;
indicating a deep sense of his own meanness in comparison with God. God
threatens to shower down dust and ashes on the lands instead of rain,
Deut. xxviii, 24; thereby to make them barren instead of blessing them,
to dry them up instead of watering them. Tamar, after the injury she had
received from Amnon, covered her head with ashes, 2 Sam. xiii, 19. The
Psalmist, in great sorrow, says poetically, he had “eaten ashes as it
were bread,” Psalm cii, 9; that is, he sat on ashes, he threw ashes on
his head; and his food, his bread, was sprinkled with the ashes
wherewith he was himself covered. So Jeremiah introduces Jerusalem
saying, “The Lord hath covered me with ashes,” Lamentations iii, 16.
Sitting on ashes, or lying down among ashes, was a token of extreme
grief. We find it adopted by Job, ii, 8; by many Jews when in great
fear, Esther iv, 3; and by the king of Nineveh, Jonah iii, 6. He arose
from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth,
and sat in ashes. This token of affliction is illustrated by Homer’s
description of old Laertes grieving for the absence of his son,
“Sleeping in the apartment where the slaves slept, in the ashes, near
the fire.” Compare Jer. vi, 26, “Daughter of my people, wallow thyself
in ashes.” There was a sort of ley and lustral water, made with the
ashes of the heifer sacrificed on the great day of expiation; these
ashes were distributed to the people, and used in purifications, by
sprinkling, to such as had touched a dead body, or had been present at
funerals, Num. xix, 17.

ASHKENAZ, one of the sons of Gomer, and grandson of Japheth, who gave
his name to the country first peopled by him in the north and
north-western part of Asia Minor, answering to Bithynia; where were
traces long after of his name, particularly in that of Ascanius, applied
to a bay and city, as well as to some islands lying along the coast. It
was also from this country, most probably, that the king Ascanius,
mentioned by Homer, came to the aid of Priamus at the siege of Troy.
From the same source, likewise, the Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea,
derived its name. It may farther be remarked on the identity of these
countries, that the Prophet Jeremiah, predicting the capture of Babylon,
and calling by name the countries which were to rise against it,
exclaims, “Call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, (or
Armenia,) Minni, and Ashkenaz:” which was literally fulfilled; as
Xenophen informs us that Cyrus, after taking Sardis, became master of
Phrygia on the Hellespont, and took along with him many soldiers of that
country.

ASHTAROTH, or ASTARTE, a goddess of the Zidonians. The word Ashtaroth
properly signifies flocks of sheep, or goats; and sometimes the grove,
or woods, because she was goddess of woods, and groves were her temples.
In groves consecrated to her, such lasciviousness was committed as
rendered her worship infamous. She was also called the queen of heaven;
and sometimes her worship is said to be that of “the host of heaven.”
She was certainly represented in the same manner as Isis, with cows’
horns on her head, to denote the increase and decrease of the moon.
Cicero calls her the fourth Venus of the Syrians. She is almost always
joined with Baal, and is called a god, the Scriptures having no
particular word to express a goddess. It is believed that the moon was
adored in this idol. Her temples generally accompanied those of the sun;
and while bloody sacrifices or human victims were offered to Baal,
bread, liquors, and perfumes were presented to Astarte. For her, tables
were prepared upon the flat terrace roofs of houses, near gates, in
porches, and at crossways, on the first day of every month; and this was
called by the Greeks, Hecate’s supper.

Solomon, seduced by his foreign wives, introduced the worship of
Ashtaroth into Israel; but Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre, and
wife to Ahab, principally established her worship. She caused altars to
be erected to this idol in every part of Israel; and at one time four
hundred priests attended the worship of Ashtaroth, 1 Kings xviii, 7.

ASHUR, the son of Shem, who gave his name to Assyria. It is believed
that Ashur originally dwelt in the land of Shinar and about Babylonia,
but that he was compelled by the usurper Nimrod to depart from thence,
and settle higher toward the springs of the Tigris, in the province of
Assyria, so called from him, where some think he built the famous city
of Nineveh, and those of Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen, Gen. x, 11, 12.

ASIA, one of the four grand divisions of the earth. It is also used in a
more restricted sense for Asia Minor, or Anatolia. In the New Testament
it always signifies the Roman Proconsular Asia, in which the seven
Apocalyptic churches were situated.

ASKELON, a city in the land of the Philistines, situated between Azoth
and Gaza, upon the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, about 520 furlongs
from Jerusalem. The tribe of Judah, after the death of Joshua, took the
city of Askelon, Judges i, 18, being one of the five governments
belonging to the Philistines. The place at present is in ruins.

ASMONÆANS, a name given to the Maccabees, the descendants of Mattathias.
After the death of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews were governed by their
high priest, in subjection, however, to the Persian kings, to whom they
paid tribute; but with full enjoyment of their liberties, civil and
religious. Nearly three centuries of prosperity ensued, until they were
cruelly oppressed by Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were
compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the able conduct
of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the Jews
maintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five successive
kings of Syria; and after destroying upwards of two hundred thousand of
their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the independence of
their own country, and the aggrandisement of their family. This
illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and pontifical dignity
in their own persons, administered the affairs of the Jews during a
period of a hundred and twenty-six years; until, disputes arising
between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the latter was
defeated by the Romans, who captured Jerusalem, and reduced Judea to a
military province, B. C. 59.

ASNAPPER, the king of Assyria, who sent the Cutheans into the country
belonging to the ten tribes, Ezra iv, 10. Many take this prince to be
Shalmaneser; but others, with more probability, think him to be
Esar-haddon.

ASP, פתן. Deut. xxxii, 33; Job xx, 14, 16; Psalm lviii, 4; xci, 13;
Isaiah xi, 8. A very venomous serpent, whose poison is so subtle as to
kill within a few hours with a universal gangrene. This may well refer
to the _bæten_ of the Arabians, which M. Forskal describes as spotted
with black and white, about one foot in length, and nearly half an inch
in thickness, oviparous, and whose bite is death. It is the _aspic_ of
the ancients, and is so called now by the literati of Cyprus, though the
common people call it _kufi_, (κȣ́φη,) _deaf_. With the PETHEN we may
connect the _python_ of the Greeks, which was, according to fable, a
huge serpent that had an oracle at mount Parnassus, famous for
predicting future events. Apollo is said to have slain this serpent, and
hence he was called “Pythius.” Those possessed with a spirit of
divination were also styled Πυθωνες. The word occurs in Acts, xvi, 16,
as the characteristic of a young woman who had _a pythonic spirit_. It
is well known that the _serpent_ was particularly employed by the
Heathens in their enchantments and divinations. See SERPENT].

Pethen, פתן, is variously translated in our version; but interpreters
generally consider it as referring to the asp. Zophar alludes to it more
than once in his description of a wicked man: “Yet his meat in his
bowels is turned, it is the gall of asps within him. He shall suck the
poison of asps: the viper’s tongue shall slay him.” The venom of asps is
the most subtle of all; it is incurable; and, if the wounded part be not
instantly amputated, it speedily terminates the existence of the
sufferer. To these circumstances, Moses evidently alludes in his
character of the Heathen: “Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the
cruel venom of asps.” To tread upon the asp is attended with extreme
danger; therefore, to express in the strongest manner the safety which
the godly man enjoys under the protection of his heavenly Father, it is
promised, that he shall tread with impunity upon these venomous
creatures. No person of his own accord approaches the hole of these
deadly reptiles; for he who gives them the smallest disturbance is in
extreme danger of paying the forfeit of his rashness with his life.
Hence, the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the conversion of the Gentiles to
the faith of Christ, and the glorious reign of peace and truth in those
regions which, prior to that period, were full of horrid cruelty,
marvellously heightens the force of the whole description by declaring,
“The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

ASS, המור, Arabic, _chamara_ and _hamar_. There are three words referred
by translators to the ass: 1. המור, which is the usual appellation, and
denotes the ordinary kind; such as is employed in labour, carriage, and
domestic services. 2. פררא, rendered _onager_, or “wild ass.” 3. אהון,
rendered _she ass_. To these we must add, ערדיא, rendered _wild asses_,
Dan. v, 21. The prevailing colour of this animal in the east is reddish;
and the Arabic word, _chamara_, signifies _to be red_.

In his natural state he is fleet, fierce, formidable, and intractable;
but when domesticated, the most gentle of all animals, and assumes a
patience and submission even more humble than his situation. Le Clerc
observes, that the Israelites not being allowed to keep horses, the ass
was not only made a beast of burden, but used on journeys; and that even
the most honourable of the nation were wont to be mounted on asses,
which in the eastern countries were much larger and more beautiful than
they are with us. Jair of Gilead had thirty sons who rode on as many
asses, and commanded in thirty cities, Judges x, 4. Abdon’s sons and
grandsons rode also upon asses, Judges xii, 4. And Christ makes his
solemn entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass, Matt. xxi, 4; John xii,
14. To draw with an ox and ass together was prohibited in the Mosaic
law, Deut. xxii, 10. This law is thought to have respect to some
idolatrous custom of the Gentiles, who were taught to believe that their
fields would be more fruitful if thus ploughed; for it is not likely
that men would have yoked together two creatures so different in their
tempers and motions, had they not been led to it by some superstition.
There might be, however, a physical reason for this injunction. Two
beasts of a different species cannot well associate together; and on
this account never pull pleasantly either in the cart or plough, and are
not therefore “true yoke fellows.” Le Clerc considers this law as merely
symbolical, importing that we are not to form improper alliances in
civil and religious life; and he thinks his opinion confirmed by these
words of St. Paul, 2 Cor. vi, 14: “Be ye not unequally yoked with
unbelievers;” which are simply to be understood as prohibiting all
intercourse between Christians and idolaters, in social, matrimonial,
and religious life. To teach the Jews the propriety of this, a variety
of precepts relative to improper and heterogeneous mixtures were
interspersed through their law; so that in civil and domestic life they
might have them ever before their eyes.

The _wild ass_, called PARA, is probably the _onager_ of the ancients.
It is taller and a much more dignified animal than the common or
domestic ass; its legs are more elegantly shaped; and it bears its head
higher. It is peculiarly distinguished by a dusky woolly mane, long
erect ears, and a forehead highly arched. The colour of the hair, in
general, is of a silvery white. These animals associate in herds, under
a leader, and are very shy. They inhabit the mountainous regions and
desert parts of Tartary, Persia, &c. Anciently they were likewise found
in Lycaonia, Phrygia, Mesopotamia, and Arabia Deserta. They are
remarkably wild; and Job, xxxix, 5–8, describes the liberty they enjoy,
the place of their retreat, their manners, and wild, impetuous, and
untamable spirit. “Vain man would be wise, though he be born a wild
ass’s colt,” Job xi, 12; עיר פרא, “ass colt,” not “ass’s colt;” יר being
in apposition with פרא, and not in government. The whole is a proverbial
expression, denoting extreme perversity and ferocity, and repeatedly
alluded to in the Old Testament. Thus, Gen. xvi, 12, it is prophesied of
Ishmael that he should be פרא אדם, a wild ass man; rough, untaught, and
libertine as a wild ass. So Hosea, xiii, 15; “He (Ephraim) hath _run
wild_ (literally _assified_ himself) amidst the braying monsters.” So
again, Hosea viii, 9, the very same character is given of Ephraim, who
is called “a solitary wild ass by himself,” or perhaps a solitary wild
ass of the _desert_; for the original will bear to be so rendered. This
proverbial expression has descended among the Arabians to the present
day, who still employ, as Schultens has remarked, the expressions, “the
ass of the desert,” or “the wild ass,” to describe an obstinate,
indocile, and contumacious person. The Prophet Isaiah, xxxii, 14,
describes great desolation by saying that “the wild asses shall rejoice
where a city stood.” There is another kind of ass called, אתון. Abraham
had ATONOTH, Gen. xii, 16; Balaam rode on an ATON, Num. xxii, 23. We
find from 1 Chron. xxvii, 30, that David had an officer expressly
appointed to superintend his ATONOTH; not his ordinary asses, but those
of a nobler race; which implies at least equal dignity in this officer
to his colleagues mentioned with him. This notion of the ATON gives also
a spirit to the history of Saul, who, when his father’s ATONOTH were
lost, was at no little pains to seek them; moreover, as beside being
valuable, they were _uncommon_, he might the more readily hear of them
if they had been noticed or taken up by any one; and this leads to the
true interpretation of the servant’s proposed application to Samuel,
verse 6, as though he said, “In his office of magistracy this honourable
man may have heard of these strayed rarities, and secured them;
peradventure he can direct us.”

Thus we find that these _atonoth_ are mentioned in Scripture, only in
the possession of judges, patriarchs, and other great men; insomuch that
where these are there is dignity, either expressed or implied. They were
also a present for a prince; for Jacob presented Esau with twenty, Gen.
xxxii, 15. What then shall we say of the wealth of Job, who possessed a
thousand? Another word which is rendered “_wild ass_” by our
translators, Job xxxix, 5, is ORUD; which seems to be the same, that in
the Chaldee of Daniel, v, 21, is called _oredia_. Mr. Parkhurst supposes
that this word denotes _the brayer_, and that PARA and ORUD are only two
names for the same animal. But these names _may_ perhaps refer to
different races, though of the same species; so that a description of
the properties of one may apply to both, though not without some
variation.

             Who sent out the _para_ free?
             Or who hath loosed the bands of the _orud_?
             Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,
             And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:
             The range of open mountains are his pasture,
             And he searcheth after every green thing.

Gmelin observes that the _onager_ is very fond of salt. Whether the
“deserts” of the above text were salt marshes, or salt deserts, is of
very little consequence; the circumstance shows the correctness of the
Hebrew poet. In Daniel we read that Nebuchadnezzar dwelt with the
OREDIA. We need not suppose that he was banished to the deserts, but was
at most kept safely in an enclosure of his own park, where curious
animals were kept for state and pleasure. If this be correct, then the
ORUD was somewhat, at least, of a rarity at Babylon; and it might be of
a kind different from the PARA, as it is denoted by another name. May it
not be the _Gicquetei_ of Professor Pallas, the wild mule of Mongalia
which surpasses the _onager_ in size, beauty, and perhaps in swiftness.

ASSIDEANS, by some named Chasideans, from _chasidim_, “merciful, pious.”
They were a kind of religious society among the Jews, whose chief and
distinguishing character was, to maintain the honour of the temple, and
observe punctually the traditions of the elders. They were therefore not
only content to pay the usual tribute for the maintenance of the house
of God, but charged themselves with farther expense upon that account;
for every day, except that of the great expiation, they sacrificed a
lamb, in addition to the daily oblation, which was called the sin
offering of the Assideans. They practised greater hardships and
mortifications than others; and their common oath was, “By the temple;”
for which our Saviour reproves the Pharisees, who had learned that oath
of them, Matt. xxiii, 16. From this sect the Pharisees sprung. The
Assideans are represented as a numerous sect, distinguished by its
valour, as well as by its zeal for the law, 1 Mac. ii, 42. A company of
them resorted to Mattathias, to fight for the law of God, and the
liberties of their country. This sect arose either during the captivity,
or soon after the restoration, of the Jews; and were probably in the
commencement, and long afterward, a truly pious part of the nation; but
they at length became superstitious.

ASSURANCE. The sense in which this term is used theologically is that of
a firm persuasion of our being in a state of salvation. The doctrine
itself has been matter of dispute among divines, and when considered as
implying not only that we are now accepted of God through Christ, but
that we shall be finally saved, or when it is so taken as to deny a
state of salvation to those who are not so assured as to be free from
all doubt, it is in many views questionable. Assurance of final
salvation must stand or fall with the doctrine of personal unconditional
election, and is chiefly held by divines of the Calvinistic school; and
that nothing is an evidence of a state of present salvation but so
entire a persuasion as amounts to assurance in the strongest sense,
might be denied upon the ground that degrees of grace, of real saving
grace, are undoubtedly mentioned in Scripture. Assurance, however, is
spoken of in the New Testament, and stands prominent as one of the
leading doctrines of religious experience. We have “full assurance of
understanding;” that is a perfect knowledge and entire persuasion of the
truth of the doctrine of Christ. The “assurance of faith,” in Hebrews
ix, 22, is an entire trust in the sacrifice and priestly office of
Christ. The “assurance of hope,” mentioned in Hebrews vi, 11, relates to
the heavenly inheritance, and must necessarily imply a full persuasion
that we are “the children of God,” and therefore “heirs of his glory;”
and from this passage it must certainly be concluded that such an
assurance is what every Christian ought to aim at, and that it is
attainable. This, however, does not exclude occasional doubt and
weakness of faith, from the earlier stages of his experience.

A comforting and abiding persuasion of present acceptance by God,
through Christ, we may therefore affirm, must in various degrees follow
true faith. In support of this view, the following remarks may be
offered:--

If it is the doctrine of the inspired records, that man is by nature
prone to evil, and that in practice he violates that law under which as
a creature he is placed, and is thereby exposed to punishment;--if also
it is there stated, that an act of grace and pardon is promised on the
conditions of repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ;--if that repentance implies consideration of our ways, a sense
of the displeasure of Almighty God, contrition of heart, and
consequently trouble and grief of mind, mixed, however, with a hope
inspired by the promise of forgiveness, and which leads to earnest
supplication for the actual pardon of sin so promised, it will follow
from these premises--either, 1. That forgiveness is not to be expected
till after the termination of our course of probation, that is, in
another life; and that, therefore, this trouble and apprehension of mind
can only be assuaged by the hope we may have of a favourable final
decision on our case;--or, 2. That sin is, in the present life, forgiven
as often as it is thus repented of, and as often as we exercise the
required and specific acts of trust in the merits of our Saviour; but
that this forgiveness of our sins is not in any way made known unto us:
so that we are left, as to our feelings, in precisely the same state as
if sin were not forgiven till after death, namely, in grief and trouble
of mind, relieved only by hope;--or, 3. The Scriptural view is, that
when sin is forgiven by the mercy of God through Christ, we are, by some
means, assured of it, and peace and satisfaction of mind take the place
of anxiety and fear.

The first of these conclusions is sufficiently disproved by the
authority of Scripture, which exhibits justification as a blessing
attainable in this life, and represents it as actually experienced by
true believers. “Therefore being justified by faith.” “There is _now_ no
condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” “Whosoever believeth is
justified from all things,” &c. The quotations might be multiplied, but
these are decisive. The notion that though an act of forgiveness may
take place, we are unable to ascertain a fact so important to us, is
also irreconcilable with many scriptures in which the writers of the New
Testament speak of an experience, not confined personally to themselves,
or to those Christians who were endowed with spiritual gifts, but common
to all Christians. “Being justified by faith we have _peace_ with God.”
“We joy in God, by whom we have received the _reconciliation_.” “Being
reconciled unto God by the death of his Son.” “We have not received the
spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which
we cry, Abba, Father.” To these may be added innumerable passages which
express the comfort, the confidence, and the joy of Christians; their
“friendship” with God; their “access” to him; their entire union and
delightful intercourse with him; and their absolute confidence in the
success of their prayers. All such passages are perfectly consistent
with deep humility, and self-diffidence; but they are irreconcilable
with a state of hostility between the parties, and with an unascertained
and only hoped-for restoration of friendship and favour.

An assurance, therefore, that the sins which are felt to “be a burden
intolerable” are forgiven, and that the ground of that apprehension of
future punishment which causes the penitent to “_bewail_ his manifold
sins,” is taken away by restoration to the favour of the offended God,
must be allowed, or nothing would be more incongruous and impossible
than the comfort, the peace, the rejoicing of spirit, which in the
Scriptures are attributed to believers.

Few Christians of evangelical views have, therefore, denied the
possibility of our becoming assured of the favour of God in a sufficient
degree to give substantial comfort to the mind. Their differences have
rather respected the means by which the contrite become assured of that
change in their relation to Almighty God, whom they have offended, which
in Scripture is expressed by the term justification. The question has
been, (where the notion of an assurance of eternal salvation has not
been under discussion,) by what means the assurance of the divine favour
is conveyed to the mind. Some have concluded that we obtain it by
_inference_, others by the _direct testimony_ of the Holy Spirit to the
mind. See HOLY SPIRIT.

ASSYRIA, a kingdom of Asia, of the extent, origin, and duration of which
very different accounts have been given by ancient writers. Ctesias and
Diodorus Siculus affirm, that the Assyrian monarchy, under Ninus and
Semiramis, comprehended the greater part of the known world: but, if
this had been the case, it is not likely that Homer and Herodotus would
have omitted a fact so remarkable. The sacred records intimate that none
of the ancient states or kingdoms were of considerable extent; for
neither Chederlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring princes, were
tributary or subject to Assyria; and “we find nothing,” says Playfair,
“of the greatness or power of this kingdom in the history of the judges
and succeeding kings of Israel, though the latter kingdom was oppressed
and enslaved by many different powers in that period.” It is therefore
highly probable that Assyria was originally of small extent. According
to Ptolemy, this country was bounded on the north by part of Armenia and
Mount Niphates; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana; and
on the east by part of Media and the mountains Choatra and Zagros. Of
the origin, revolutions, and termination of Assyria, properly so called,
and distinguished from the grand monarchy which afterward bore this
appellation, the following account is given by Mr. Playfair, as the most
probable:--“The founder of it was Ashur, the second son of Shem, who
departed from Shinar, upon the usurpation of Nimrod, at the head of a
large body of adventurers, and laid the foundations of Nineveh, where he
resided, and erected a new kingdom, called Assyria, after his name, Gen.
x, 11. These events happened not long after Nimrod had established the
Chaldean monarchy, and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it does not
appear that Nimrod reigned in Assyria. The kingdoms of Assyria and
Babylon were originally distinct and separate, Micah v, 6; and in this
state they remained until Ninus conquered Babylon, and made it tributary
to the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the successor of Ashur, Gen. x, 11,
seized on Chaldea after the death of Nimrod, and united the kingdoms of
Assyria and Babylon. This great prince is said to have subdued Asia,
Persia, Media, Egypt, &c. If he did so, the effects of his conquests
were of no long duration; for, in the days of Abraham, we do not find
that any of the neighbouring kingdoms were subject to Assyria. Ninus was
succeeded by Semiramis, a princess bold, enterprising, and fortunate; of
whose adventures and exploits many fabulous relations have been
recorded. Playfair is of opinion that there were two princesses of this
name, who flourished at different periods: one, the consort of Ninus;
and another, who lived five generations before Nitocris, queen of
Nebuchadnezzar. Of the successors of Ninus and Semiramis nothing certain
is recorded. The last of the ancient Assyrian kings was Sardanapalus,
who was besieged in his capital by Arbaces, governor of Media, in
concurrence with the Babylonians. These united forces defeated the
Assyrian army, demolished the capital, and became masters of the empire,
B. C. 821.

“After the death of Sardanapalus,” says Mr. Playfair, “the Assyrian
empire was divided into three kingdoms; namely, the Median, Assyrian,
and Babylonian. Arbaces retained the supreme authority, and nominated
governors in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured with the title of
kings, while they remained subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs
Belesis,” he says, “a Chaldean priest, who assisted Arbaces in the
conquest of Sardanapalus, received the government of Babylon as the
reward of his services; and Phul was intrusted with that of Assyria. The
Assyrian governor gradually enlarged the boundaries of his kingdom, and
was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser, Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who
asserted and maintained their independence. After the death of
Assar-haddon, the brother and successor of Sennacherib, the kingdom of
Assyria was split, and annexed to the kingdoms of Media and Babylon.
Several tributary princes afterward reigned in Nineveh; but we hear no
more of the kings of Assyria, but of those of Babylon. Cyaxares, king of
Media, assisted Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the siege of
Nineveh, which they took and destroyed, B. C. 606.”

The history of Assyria, deduced from Scripture, and acknowledged as the
only authentic one by Sir Isaac Newton and many others, ascribes the
foundation of the monarchy to Pul, or Phul, about the second year of
Menahem, king of Israel, twenty-four years before the æra of Nabonassar,
1579 years after the flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, according
to Newton, 790, years before Christ. Menahem, having taken forcible
possession of the throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum, 2 Kings xv,
10, was attacked by Pul, but prevented the hostilities meditated against
him by presenting the invader with a thousand talents of silver. Pul,
thus gratified, took the kingdom of Israel under his protection,
returned to his own country, after having received voluntary homage from
several nations in his march, as he had done from Israel, and became the
founder of a great empire. As it was in the days of Pul that the
Assyrians began to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 2 Kings xi, 9;
1 Chron. v, 26, this was the time, according to Sir Isaac Newton, when
the Assyrian empire arose. Thus he interprets the words, “since the time
of the kings of Assyria,” Nehem. ix, 32; that is, since the time of the
kingdom of Assyria, or since the rise of that empire. But though this
was the period in which the Assyrians afflicted Israel, it is not so
evident that the time of the kings of Assyria must necessarily be
understood of the rise of the Assyrian empire. However, Newton thus
reasons; and observes, that “Pul and his successors afflicted Israel,
and conquered the nations round about them; and upon the ruin of many
small and ancient kingdoms erected their empire; conquering the Medes,
as well as other nations.” It is farther argued, that God, by the
Prophet Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten or twenty years before
the reign of Pul, (see Amos vi, 13, 14,) threatened to raise up a nation
against Israel; and that, as Pul reigned presently after the prophecy of
Amos, and was the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he may be
justly reckoned the first conqueror and founder of this empire. See 1
Chron. v, 26. Pul was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by his elder
son Tiglath-pileser; and at the same time he left Babylon to his younger
son Nabonassar, B. C. 747. Of the conquests of this second king of
Assyria against the kings of Israel and Syria, when he took Damascus,
and subdued the Syrians, we have an account in 2 Kings xv, 29, 37; xvi,
5,9; 1 Chron. v, 26; by which the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, and
from which it appears that the empire of the Assyrians was now become
great and powerful. The next king of Assyria was Shalmaneser, or
Salmanassar, who succeeded Tiglath-pileser, B. C. 729, and invaded
Phœnicia, took the city of Samaria, and, B. C. 721, carried the ten
tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Chabor, by the river
Gazon, and in the cities of the Medes, 2 Kings xvii, 6. Shalmaneser was
succeeded by Sennacherib, B. C. 719; and in the year B. C. 714, he was
put to flight with great slaughter by the Ethiopians and Egyptians. In
the year B. C. 711 the Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Sennacherib
was slain; and he was succeeded by his son Esar-Haddon, Asserhaddon,
Asordan, Assaradin, or Sarchedon, by which names he is called by
different writers. He began his reign at Nineveh, in the year of
Nabonassar 42; and in the year 68 extended it over Babylon. He then
carried the remainder of the Samaritans into captivity, and peopled
Samaria with captives brought from several parts of his kingdom; and in
the year of Nabonassar 77 or 78 he seems to have put an end to the reign
of the Ethiopians over Egypt. “In the reign of Sennacherib and
Asser-Hadon,” says Sir I. Newton, “the Assyrian empire seems arrived at
its greatness; being united under one monarch, and containing Assyria,
Media, Apolloniatis, Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria,
Phœnicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia; and reaching eastward
into Elymais, and Parætæcene, a province of the Medes; and if Chalach
and Chabor be Colchis and Iberia, as some think, and as may seem
probable from the circumcision used by those nations till the days of
Herodotus, we are also to add these two provinces, with the two
Armenias, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as far as to the river Halys: for
Herodotus tells us that the people of Cappadocia, as far as to that
river, were called Syrians by the Greeks, both before and after the days
of Cyrus; and that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the
Greeks.” Asser-Hadon was succeeded in the year B. C. 668 by
Saosduchinus. At this time Manasseh was allowed to return home, and
fortify Jerusalem; and the Egyptians also, after the Assyrians had
harassed Egypt and Ethiopia three years, Isa. xx, 3, 4, were set at
liberty. Saosduchinus, after a reign of twenty years, was succeeded at
Babylon, and probably at Nineveh also, by Chyniladon, in the year B. C.
647. This Chyniladon is supposed by Newton to be the Nebuchadonosor
mentioned in the book of Judith, i, 1–15, who made war upon Arphaxad,
king of the Medes; and, though deserted by his auxiliaries of Cilicia,
Damascus, Syria, Phœnicia, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, routed the army of
the Medes, and slew Arphaxad. This Arphaxad is supposed to be either
Dejoces or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus. Soon after the
death of Phraortes, in the year B. C. 635, the Scythians invaded the
Medes and Persians; and in 625, Nabopolassar, the commander of the
forces of Chyniladon in Chaldea, revolted from him, and became king of
Babylon. Chyniladon was either then or soon after succeeded at Nineveh
by the last king of Assyria, called Sarac by Polyhistor. The authors of
the Universal History suppose Saosduchinus to have been the
Nebuchadonosor of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chynaladan to have been
the Sarac of Polyhistor. At length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of
Nabopolassar, married Amyit, the daughter of Astyages, king of the
Medes, and sister of Cyaxares; and by this marriage the two families
having contracted affinity, they conspired against the Assyrians.
Nabopolassar being old, and Astyages dead, their sons Nebuchadnezzar and
Cyaxares led the armies of the two nations against Nineveh, slew Sarac,
destroyed the city, and shared the kingdom of the Assyrians. This
victory the Jews refer to the Chaldeans; the Greeks, to the Medes;
Tobit, xiv, 15, Polyhistor, and Ctesias, to both. With this victory
commenced the great successes of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares, and it
laid the foundation of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians and
Medes, which were branches of the Assyrian empire; and hence the time of
the fall of the Assyrian empire is determined, the conquerors being then
in their youth. In the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah prophesied,
Nineveh and the kingdom of Assyria were standing; and their fall was
predicted by that Prophet, Zeph. i, 3; ii, 13. And in the end of his
reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, the successor of Psammitichus, went
up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, to fight against
Carchemish, or Circutium; and in his way thither slew Josiah, 2 Kings
xxiii, 29; 2 Chron. xxxv, 20; and therefore the last king of Assyria was
not yet slain. But in the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim, the
successor of Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nineveh, and
finished their war in Assyria, prosecuted their conquests westward; and,
leading their forces against the king of Egypt, as an invader of their
right of conquest, they beat him at Carchemish, and took from him
whatever he had recently taken from the Assyrians, 2 Kings xxiv, 7; Jer.
xlvi, 2; “and therefore we cannot err,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “above a
year or two, if we refer the destruction of Nineveh, and fall of the
Assyrian empire, to the third year, of Jehoiakim,” or the hundred and
fortieth, or, according to Blair, the hundred and forty-first year of
Nabonassar; that is, the year B. C. 607.

Of the government, laws, religion, learning, customs, &c, of the ancient
Assyrians, nothing absolutely certain is recorded. Their kingdom was at
first small, and subsisted for several ages under hereditary chiefs; and
their government was simple. Afterward, when they rose to the sublimity
of empire, their government seems to have been despotic, and the empire
hereditary. Their laws were probably few, and depended upon the mere
will of the prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division of the Assyrian
empire into provinces and governments; for we find that this institution
was fully established in the reigns of Semiramis and her successors. The
people were distributed into a certain number of tribes; and their
occupations or professions were hereditary. The Assyrians had several
distinct councils, and several tribunals for the regulation of public
affairs. Of councils there were three, which were created by the body of
the people, and who governed the state in conjunction with the
sovereign. The first consisted of officers who had retired from military
employments; the second, of the nobility; and the third, of the old men.
The sovereigns also had three tribunals, whose province it was to watch
over the conduct of the people. The Assyrians have been competitors with
the Egyptians for the honour of having invented alphabetic writing. It
appears, from the few remains now extant of the writing of these ancient
nations, that their letters had a great affinity with each other. They
much resembled one another in shape; and they ranged them in the same
manner, from right to left.

ASTROLOGY, the art of foretelling future events, from the aspects,
positions, and influences of the heavenly bodies. The word is compounded
of ἀϛὴρ star, and λόγος, discourse; whence, in the literal sense of the
term, astrology should signify no more than the doctrine or science of
the stars. Astrology judiciary, or judicial, is what we commonly call
simple astrology, or that which pretends to foretel mortal events, even
those which have a dependence on the free will and agency of man; as if
they were directed by the stars. This art, which owed its origin to the
practice of knavery on credulity, is now universally exploded by the
intelligent part of mankind. Judicial astrology is commonly said to have
been invented in Chaldea, and thence transmitted to the Egyptians,
Greeks, and Romans; though some will have it of Egyptian origin, and
ascribe the invention to Cham. But we derive it from the Arabians. The
Chaldeans, and the Egyptians, and indeed almost all the nations of
antiquity, were infatuated with the chimæras of astrology. It originated
in the notion, that the stars have an influence, either beneficial or
malignant, upon the affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made
the ground of certain prediction, in particular cases; and the whole art
consisted in applying astronomical observations to this fanciful
purpose. Diodorus Siculus relates, that the Chaldeans learned these arts
from the Egyptians; and he would not have made this assertion, if there
had not been at least a general tradition that they were practised from
the earliest times in Egypt. The system was, in those remote ages,
intimately connected with Sabaism, or the worship of the stars as
divinities; but whether it emanates from idolatry or fatality, it denies
God and his providence, and is therefore condemned in the Scriptures,
and ranked with practices the most offensive and provoking to the Divine
Majesty.

ASTYAGES, otherwise, Cyaxares, king of the Medes, and successor to
Phraortes. He reigned forty years, and died A. M. 3409. He was father to
Astyages, otherwise called Darius the Mede. He had two daughters,
Mandane and Amyit: Mandane married Cambyses, the Persian, and was the
mother of Cyrus; Amyit married Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar,
and was the mother of Evilmerodach.

ASTYAGES, otherwise called Ahasuerus in the Greek, Dan. ix, 1, or
Cyaxares in Xenophon, or Apandus in Ctesias, was appointed by his father
Cyaxares governor of Media, and sent with Nabopolassar, king of Babylon,
against Saracus, otherwise called Chynaladanus, king of Assyria. These
two princes besieged Saracus in Nineveh, took the city, and dismembered
the Assyrian empire. Astyages was with Cyrus at the conquest of Babylon,
and succeeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, as is expressly
mentioned in Daniel, v, 30, 31, A. M. 3447. After his death Cyrus
succeeded him, A. M. 3456.

ASUPPIM, a word which signifies gatherings, and the name of the treasury
of the temple of Jerusalem, 1 Chron. xxvi, 15.

ATHALIAH, the daughter of Omri, king of Samaria, and wife to Jehoram,
king of Judah. This princess, being informed that Jehu had slain her son
Ahaziah, resolved to take the government upon herself, 2 Kings xi; which
that she might effect without opposition, she destroyed all the children
that Jehoram had by other wives, and all their offspring. But Jehosheba,
the sister of Ahaziah, by the father’s side only, was at this time
married to Jehoiada, the high priest; and while Athaliah’s executioners
were murdering the rest, she conveyed Joash the son of Ahaziah away, and
kept him and his nurse concealed in an apartment of the temple, during
six years. In the seventh year, his uncle Jehoiada being determined to
place him on the throne of his ancestors, and procure the destruction of
Athaliah, he engaged the priests and Levites, and the leading men in all
the parts of the kingdom in his interest, and in a public assembly
produced him, and made them take an oath of secrecy and fidelity to him.
He then distributed arms among the people, whom he divided into three
bodies, one to guard the person of the king, and the other two to secure
the gates of the temple. After this, he brought out the young prince,
set the crown on his head, put the book of the law into his hand, and
with sound of trumpet proclaimed him; which was seconded with the joyful
shouts and acclamations of the people. Athaliah, hearing the noise, made
all haste to the temple; but when, to her astonishment, she saw the
young king seated on a throne, she rent her clothes and cried out,
“Treason!” But, at the command of Jehoiada, the guards seized and
carried her out of the temple, putting all to the sword who offered to
rescue or assist her; and then taking her to the stable gate belonging
to the palace, there put her to death, A. M. 3126.

ATHANASIANS, the orthodox followers of St. Athanasius, the great and
able antagonist of Arius. The Athanasian Creed, though generally
admitted not to be drawn up by this father, (but probably, as Doctor
Waterland says, by Hilary, bishop of Arles, in the fifth century,) is
universally allowed to contain a fair expression of his sentiments. This
creed says, “The Catholic faith is this: that we worship One God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the persons, nor
dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another
of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal,
the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such
is the Holy Ghost;” namely, “uncreate, incomprehensible, eternal,” &c.
The true key to the Athanasian Creed lies in the knowledge of the errors
to which it was opposed. The Sabellians considered the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit as one in person;--this was “confounding the persons:” the
Arians considered them as differing in essence--three beings;--this was
“dividing the substance:” and against these two hypotheses was the creed
originally framed. And since every sect was willing to adopt the
language of Scripture, it was thought necessary to adopt scholastic
terms, in order to fix the sense of Scripture language. Many, however,
hold the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, and approve its terms, who
object to its damnatory clauses. See ARIANS.

ATHANASIUS, the celebrated patriarch of Alexandria, resisted Arius and
his erroneous doctrines; and his sentiments as to the Trinity are
embodied in the creed which bears his name, though not composed by him.
At the Council of Nice, though then but a deacon of Alexandria, his
reputation for skill in controversy gained him an honourable place in
the council, and with great dexterity he exposed the sophistry of those
who pleaded on the side of Arius. Notwithstanding the influence of the
emperor, who had recalled Arius from banishment, and upon a plausible
confession of his faith, in which he affected to be orthodox in his
sentiments, directed that he should be received by the Alexandrian
church, Athanasius refused to admit him to communion, and exposed his
prevarication. The Arians upon this exerted themselves to raise tumults
at Alexandria, and to injure the character of Athanasius with the
emperor, who was prevailed upon to pronounce against him a sentence of
banishment. In the beginning of the reign of Constantius he was
recalled; but was again disturbed and deposed through the influence of
the Arians. Accusations were also sent against him and other bishops
from the east to the west, but they were acquitted by Pope Julius in
full council. Athanasius was restored to his see upon the death of the
Arian bishop, who had been placed in it. Arianism, however, being in
favour at court, he was condemned by a council convened at Arles, and by
another at Milan, and was obliged to fly into the deserts. He returned
with the other bishops whom Julian the apostate recalled from
banishment, and in A. D. 362, held a council at Alexandria, where the
belief of a consubstantial Trinity was openly professed. Many now were
recovered from Arianism, and brought to subscribe the Nicene Creed.
During the reign of Jovian also Athanasius held another council, which
declared its adherence to the Nicene faith; and with the exception of a
short retirement under Valens he was permitted to sit down in quiet and
govern his affectionate church of Alexandria. Athanasius was an eminent
instrument of maintaining the truth in an age when errors affecting the
great foundation of our faith were urged with great subtlety. He was by
his acuteness able to trace the enemy through his most insidious modes
of attack; and thus to preserve the simple and unwary from being misled
by terms and distinctions, which, whilst they sounded in unison with the
true faith of the Gospel, did in fact imply, or at least open the door
to, the most deadly errors. The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as
explained by him, at length triumphed over the heresies which at one
time met with so much support and sanction; and the views of Athanasius
have been received, in substance, by all orthodox churches to the
present time.

ATHEIST, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not
believe in the existence of a God, or who owns no being superior to
nature. It is compounded of the two terms, α negative, and Θεὸς, God,
signifying _without God_. Atheists have been also known by the name
infidels; but the word infidel is now commonly used to distinguish a
more numerous party, and is become almost synonymous with Deist. He who
disbelieves the existence of a God, as an infinite, intelligent, and a
moral agent, is a direct or speculative Atheist; he who confesses a
Deity and providence in words, but denies them in his life and actions,
is a practical Atheist. That Atheism existed in some sense before the
flood, may be suspected from what we read in Scripture, as well as from
Heathen tradition; and it is not very unreasonable to suppose, that the
deluge was partly intended to evince to the world a heavenly power, as
Lord of the universe, and superior to the visible system of nature. This
was at least a happy consequence of that fatal catastrophe; for, as it
is observed by Dean Sherlock, “The universal deluge, and the confusion
of languages, had so abundantly convinced mankind of a divine power and
providence, that there was no such creature as an Atheist, till their
ridiculous idolatries had tempted some men of wit and thought, rather to
own no God than such as the Heathens worshipped.”

Atheistical principles were long nourished and cherished in Greece, and
especially among the atomical, peripatetic, and skeptical philosophers;
and hence some have ascribed the origin of Atheism to the philosophy of
Greece. This is true, if they mean that species of refined Atheism,
which contrives any impious scheme of principles to account for the
origin of the world, without a divine being. For though there may have
been in former ages, and in other countries, some persons irreligious in
principle as well as in practice, yet we know of none who, forming a
philosophical scheme of impiety, became a sect, and erected colleges of
Atheistical learning, till the arrogant and enterprising genius of
Greece undertook that detestable work. Carrying their presumptuous and
ungoverned speculations into the very essence of the divinity, at first
they doubted, and at length denied, the existence of a first cause
independent of nature and of a providence that superintends its laws,
and governs the concerns of mankind. These principles, with the other
improvements of Greece, were transferred to Rome; and, excepting in
Italy, we hear little of Atheism, for many ages after the Christian æra.
“For some ages before the Reformation,” says Archbishop Tillotson,
“Atheism was confined to Italy, and had its chief residence at Rome.
But, in this last age, Atheism has travelled over the Alps and infected
France, and now of late it hath crossed the seas, and invaded our
nation, and hath prevailed to amazement.” However, to Tillotson, and
other able writers, we owe its suppression in this country; for they
pressed it down with a weight of sound argument, from which it has never
been able to raise itself. For although in our time, in France and
Germany a subtle Atheism was revived, and spread its unhallowed and
destructive influence for many years throughout the Continent, it made
but little progress in this better-instructed nation.

Atheism, in its primary sense, comprehends, or at least goes beyond,
every heresy in the world; for it professes to acknowledge no religion,
true or false. The two leading hypotheses which have prevailed, among
Atheists, respecting this world and its origin, are, that of Ocellus
Lucanus, adopted and improved by Aristotle, that it was eternal; and
that of Epicurus, that it was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
“That the soul is material and mortal, Christianity an imposture, the
Scripture a forgery, the worship of God superstition, hell a fable, and
heaven a dream, our life without providence, and our death without hope,
like that of asses and dogs, are part of the glorious gospel of our
modern Atheists.”

The being of a God may be proved from the marks of design, and from the
order and beauty visible in the world; from universal consent; from the
relation of cause and effect; from internal consciousness; and from the
necessity of a final as well as an efficient cause.

Of all the false doctrines and foolish opinions that ever infested the
mind of man, nothing can possibly equal that of Atheism, which is such a
monstrous contradiction of all evidence, to all the powers of
understanding, and the dictates of common sense, that it may be well
questioned whether any man can really fall into it by a deliberate use
of his judgment. All nature so clearly points out, and so loudly
proclaims, a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, that
whoever hears not its voice, and sees not its proofs, may well be
thought wilfully deaf, and obstinately blind. If it be evident,
self-evident to every man of thought, that there can be no effect
without a cause, what shall we say of that manifold combination of
effects, that series of operations, that system of wonders, which fill
the universe, which present themselves to all our perceptions, and
strike our minds and our senses on every side? Every faculty, every
object of every faculty, demonstrates a Deity. The meanest insect we can
see, the minutest and most contemptible weed we can tread upon, is
really sufficient to confound Atheism, and baffle all its pretensions.
How much more that astonishing variety and multiplicity of God’s works
with which we are continually surrounded! Let any man survey the face of
the earth, or lift up his eyes to the firmament; let him consider the
nature and instincts of brute animals, and afterward look into the
operations of his own mind, and will he presume to say or suppose that
all the objects he meets with are nothing more than the result of
unaccountable accidents and blind chance? Can he possibly conceive that
such wonderful order should spring out of confusion? or that such
perfect beauty should be ever formed by the fortuitous operations of
unconscious, unactive particles of matter? As well, nay better, and more
easily, might he suppose that an earthquake might happen to build towns
and cities; or the materials carried down by a flood fit themselves up
without hands into a regular fleet. For what are towns, cities, or
fleets, in comparison of the vast and amazing fabric of the universe! In
short, Atheism offers such violence to all our faculties, that it seems
scarce credible it should ever really find any place in the human
understanding. Atheism is unreasonable, because it gives no tolerable
account of the existence of the world. This is one of the greatest
difficulties with which the Atheist has to contend. For he must suppose
either that the world is eternal, or that it was formed by chance and a
fortuitous concourse of the parts of matter. That the world had a
beginning, is evident from universal tradition, and the most ancient
history that exists; from there being no memorials of any actions
performed previously to the time assigned in that history as the æra of
the creation; from the origin of learning and arts, and the liability of
the parts of matter to decay. That the world was not produced by chance,
is also evident. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to ascribe to
chance an effect which appears with all the characters of a wise design
and contrivance. Will chance fit means to ends, even in ten thousand
instances, and not fail in a single one? How often might a man, after
shaking a set of letters in a bag, throw them on the ground, before they
would become an exact poem, or form a good discourse in prose? In short,
the arguments in proof of Deity are so numerous, and at the same time so
obvious to a thinking mind, that to waste time in disputing with an
Atheist, is approaching too much toward that irrationality, which may be
considered as one of the most striking characteristics of the sect.

The more noted Atheist, since the Reformation, are Machiavel, Spinoza,
Hobbes, Blount, and Vanini. To these may be added Hume, and Voltaire the
corypheus of the sect, and the great nursing father of that swarm of
them which has appeared in these last days.

Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “Demonstration of the Being of a God,” says,
that Atheism arises either from stupid ignorance, or from corruption of
principles and manners, or from the reasonings of false philosophy; and
he adds, that the latter, who are the only Atheistical persons capable
of being reasoned with at all, must of necessity own that, supposing it
cannot be proved to be true, yet it is a thing very desirable, and which
any wise man would wish to be true, for the great benefit and happiness
of man, that there was a God, an intelligent and wise, a just and good
Being, to govern the world. Whatever hypothesis these men can possibly
frame, whatever argument they can invent, by which they would exclude
God and providence out of the world; that very argument or hypothesis,
will of necessity lead them to this concession. If they argue, that our
notion of God arises not from nature and reason, but from the art and
contrivance of politicians; that argument itself forces them to confess,
that it is manifestly for the interest of human society, that it should
be believed there is a God. If they suppose that the world was made by
chance, and is every moment subject to be destroyed by chance again; no
man can be so absurd as to contend, that it is as comfortable and
desirable to live in such an uncertain state of things, and so
continually liable to ruin, without any hope of renovation, as in a
world that is under the preservation and conduct of a powerful, wise,
and good God. If they argue against the being of God, from the faults
and defects which they imagine they can find in the frame and
constitution of the visible and material world; this supposition obliges
them to acknowledge that it would have been better the world had been
made by an intelligent and wise Being, who might have prevented all
faults and imperfections. If they argue against providence, from the
faultiness and inequality which they think they discover in the
management of the moral world; this is a plain confession, that it is a
thing more fit and desirable in itself, that the world should be
governed by a just and good Being, than by mere chance or unintelligent
necessity. Lastly, if they suppose the world to be eternally and
necessarily self-existent, and consequently that every thing in it is
established by a blind and eternal fatality; no rational man can at the
same time deny, but that liberty and choice, or a free power of acting,
is a more eligible state, than to be determined thus in all our actions,
as a stone is to move, downward, by an absolute and inevitable fate. In
a word, which way soever they turn themselves, and whatever hypothesis
they make, concerning the original and frame of things, nothing is so
certain and undeniable, as that man, considered without the protection
and conduct of a superior Being, is in a far worse case than upon
supposition of the being and government of God, and of men’s being under
his peculiar conduct, protection, and favour.

ATHENS, a celebrated city of Greece, too well known to be here
described. St. Paul’s celebrated sermon, Acts xvii, was preached on the
Areopagus, or Hill of Mars, where a celebrated court was held which took
cognizance of matters of religion, blasphemies against the gods, the
building of temples, &c. (See _Areopagus_.) The inscription on the
altar, “to the unknown God,” which St. Paul so appropriately made the
text of his discourse, was adopted on the occasion of the city having
been relieved from a pestilence; and they erected altars to “the God
unknown,” either as not knowing to which of their divinities they were
indebted for the favour, or, which is more probable, because there was
something in the circumstances of this deliverance, which led them to
refer it to a higher power than their own gods, even to the supreme God,
who was not unfrequently styled, the “unknown,” by the wiser Heathens.
The existence of such altars is expressly mentioned by Lucian. On the
place where the great Apostle bore his noble testimony against idols,
and declared to them the God whom they ignorantly worshipped, Dr. E. D.
Clarke, the traveller, remarks, “It is not possible to conceive a
situation of greater peril, or one more calculated to prove the
sincerity of a preacher, than that in which the Apostle was here placed;
and the truth of this, perhaps, will never be better felt than by a
spectator, who from this eminence actually beholds the monuments of
Pagan pomp and superstition by which he, whom the Athenians considered
as the _setter forth of strange gods_, was then surrounded: representing
to the imagination the disciples of Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist
of the porch, and the skeptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and
lowly man, who, ‘rude in speech,’ without the ‘enticing words of man’s
wisdom,’ enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile to
their prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges of the Areopagitæ seems
to have been set at defiance by the zeal of St. Paul on this occasion;
namely, that of inflicting extreme and exemplary punishment upon any
person who should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or
blaspheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by means of
steps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene here exhibited is so
striking, that a brief description of it may prove how truly it offers
to us a commentary upon the Apostle’s words, as they were delivered upon
the spot. He stood upon the top of the rock, and beneath the canopy of
heaven. Before him there was spread a glorious prospect of mountains,
islands, seas, and skies; behind him towered the lofty Acropolis,
crowned with all its marble temples. Thus every object, whether in the
face of nature, or among the works of art, conspired to elevate the
mind, and to fill it with reverence toward that Being who made and
governs the world, Acts xvii, 24, 28; who sitteth in that light which no
mortal eye can approach, and yet is nigh unto the meanest of his
creatures; in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”

ATONEMENT, the satisfaction offered to divine justice by the death of
Christ for the sins of mankind, by virtue of which all true penitents
who believe in Christ are personally reconciled to God, are freed from
the penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement
for sin made by the death of Christ, is represented in the Christian
system as the means by which mankind may be delivered from the awful
catastrophe of eternal death; from judicial inflictions of the
displeasure of a Governor, whose authority has been contemned, and whose
will has been resisted, which shall know no mitigation in their degree,
nor bound to their duration. This end it professes to accomplish by
means which, with respect to the Supreme Governor himself, preserve his
character from mistake, and maintain the authority of his government;
and with respect to man, give him the strongest possible reason for
hope, and render more favourable the condition of his earthly probation.
These are considerations which so manifestly show, from its own internal
constitution, the superlative importance and excellence of Christianity,
that it would be exceedingly criminal to overlook them.

How sin may be forgiven without leading to such misconceptions of the
divine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby weaken the
influence of the divine government, must be considered as a problem of
very difficult solution. A government which admitted no forgiveness,
would sink the guilty to despair; a government which never punishes
offence, is a contradiction,--it cannot exist. Not to punish the guilty,
is to dissolve authority; to punish without mercy, is to destroy, and
where all are guilty, to make the destruction universal. That we cannot
sin with impunity, is a matter determined. The Ruler of the world is not
careless of the conduct of his creatures; for that penal consequences
are attached to the offence, is not a subject of argument, but is matter
of fact evident by daily observation of the events and circumstances of
the present life. It is a principle therefore already laid down, that
the authority of God must be preserved; but it ought to be remarked,
that in that kind of administration which restrains evil by penalty, and
encourages obedience by favour and hope, we and all moral creatures are
the interested parties, and not the divine Governor himself, whom,
because of his independent and all-sufficient nature, our transgressions
cannot injure. The reasons, therefore, which compel him to maintain his
authority do not terminate in himself. If he treats offenders with
severity, it is for our sake, and for the sake of the moral order of the
universe, to which sin, if encouraged by a negligent administration, or
by entire or frequent impunity, would be the source of endless disorder
and misery; and if the granting of pardon to offence be strongly and
even severely guarded, so that no less a satisfaction could be accepted
than the death of God’s own Son, we are to refer this to the moral
necessity of the case as arising out of the general welfare of
accountable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, and not to any
reluctance on the part of our Maker to forgive, much less to any thing
vindictive in his nature,--charges which have been most inconsiderately
and unfairly said to be implied in the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious
sufferings. If it then be true, that the release of offending man from
future punishment, and his restoration to the divine favour, ought, for
the interests of mankind themselves, and for the instruction and caution
of other beings, to be so bestowed, that no license shall be given to
offence;--that God himself, whilst he manifests his compassion, should
not appear less just, less holy, than he really is;--that his authority
should be felt to be as compelling, and that disobedience should as
truly, though not unconditionally, subject us to the deserved penalty,
as though no hope of forgiveness had been exhibited;--we ask, On what
scheme, save that which is developed in the New Testament, are these
necessary conditions provided for? Necessary they are, unless we contend
for a license and an impunity which shall annul all good government in
the universe, a point for which no reasonable man will contend; and if
so, then we must allow that there is strong internal evidence of the
truth of the doctrine of Scripture, when it makes the offer of pardon
consequent only upon the securities we have before mentioned. If it be
said, that sin may be pardoned in the exercise of the divine
prerogative, the reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised
toward a part of mankind only, the passing by of the rest would be with
difficulty reconciled to the divine character; and if the benefit were
extended to all, government would be at an end. This scheme of bringing
men within the exercise of a merciful prerogative, does not therefore
meet the obvious difficulty of the case; nor is it improved by confining
the act of grace only to repentant criminals. For in the immediate view
of danger, what offender, surrounded with the wreck of former
enjoyments, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures, now past for ever,
and beholding the approach of the delayed penal visitation, but would
repent? Were the principle of granting pardon to repentance to regulate
human governments, every criminal would escape, and judicial forms would
become a subject for ridicule. Nor is it recognised by the divine Being
in his conduct to men in the present state, although in this world
punishments are not final and absolute. Repentance does not restore
health injured by intemperance; property, wasted by profusion; or
character, once stained by dishonourable practices. If repentance alone
could secure pardon, then all must be pardoned, and government
dissolved, as in the case of forgiveness by the exercise of mere
prerogative; but if an arbitrary selection be made, then different and
discordant principles of government are introduced into the divine
administration, which is a derogatory supposition.

The question proposed abstractedly, How may mercy be extended to
offending creatures, the subjects of the divine government, without
encouraging vice, by lowering the righteous and holy character of God,
and the authority of his government, in the maintenance of which the
whole universe of beings are interested? is, therefore, at once one of
the most important and one of the most difficult that can employ the
human mind. None of the theories which have been opposed to Christianity
affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. They assume principles
either destructive of moral government, or which cannot, in the
circumstances of man, be acted upon. The only answer is found in the
Holy Scriptures. They alone show, and, indeed, they alone profess to
show, how God may be “just,” and yet the “justifier” of the ungodly.
Other schemes show how he may be merciful; but the difficulty does not
lie there. The Gospel meets it, by declaring “the righteousness of God,”
at the same time that it proclaims his mercy. The voluntary sufferings
of the Divine Son of God “for us,” that is, in our room and stead,
magnify the justice of God; display his hatred to sin; proclaim “the
exceeding sinfulness” of transgression, by the deep and painful manner
in which they were inflicted upon the Substitute; warn the persevering
offender of the terribleness, as well as the certainty, of his
punishment; and open the gates of salvation to every penitent. It is a
part of the same divine plan also to engage the influence of the Holy
Spirit, to awaken penitence in man, and to lead the wanderer back to
himself; to renew our fallen nature in righteousness, at the moment we
are justified through faith, and to place us in circumstances in which
we may henceforth “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” All
the ends of government are here answered--no license is given to
offence,--the moral law is unrepealed,--a day of judgment is still
appointed,--future and eternal punishments still display their awful
sanctions,--a new and singular display of the awful purity of the divine
character is afforded,--yet pardon is offered to all who seek it; and
the whole world may be saved.

With such evidence of suitableness to the case of mankind, under such
lofty views of connection with the principles and ends of moral
government, does the doctrine of the atonement present itself. But other
important considerations are not wanting to mark the united wisdom and
goodness of that method of extending mercy to the guilty, which
Christianity teaches us to have been actually and exclusively adopted.
It is rendered, indeed, “worthy of all acceptation,” by the circumstance
of its meeting the difficulties we have just dwelt upon,--difficulties
which could not otherwise have failed to make a gloomy impression upon
every offender awakened to a sense of his spiritual danger; but it must
be very inattentively considered, if it does not farther commend itself
to us, by not only removing the apprehensions we might feel as to the
severity of the divine Lawgiver, but as exalting him in our esteem as
“the righteous Lord, who loveth righteousness,” who surrendered his
beloved Son to suffering and death, that the influence of moral goodness
might not be weakened in the hearts of his creatures; and as a God of
love, affording in this instance a view of the tenderness and benignity
of his nature infinitely more impressive and affecting than any abstract
description could convey, or than any act of creating and providential
power and grace could exhibit, and, therefore, most suitable to subdue
that enmity which had unnaturally grown up in the hearts of his
creatures, and which, when corrupt, they so easily transfer from a law
which restrains their inclination to the Lawgiver himself. If it be
important to us to know the extent and reality of our danger, by the
death of Christ it is displayed, not in description, but in the most
impressive action; if it be important that we should have an assurance
of the divine placability toward us, it here receives a demonstration
incapable of being heightened; if gratitude be the most powerful motive
of future obedience, and one which renders command on the one part, and
active service on the other, “not grievous but joyous,” the recollection
of such obligations as those which the “love of Christ” has laid us
under, is a perpetual spring to this energetic affection, and will be
the means of raising it to higher and more delightful activity for ever.
All that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful
majesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; all that can win back the
heart of man to his Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a matter
of affection and delight as well as duty; all that can extinguish the
angry and malignant passions of man to man; all that can inspire a
mutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-denying charity for the
benefit of others; all that can arouse by hope, or tranquillize by
faith; is to be found in the vicarious death of Christ, and the
principles and purposes for which it was endured.

The first declaration, on this subject, after the appearance of Christ,
is that of John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus coming unto him, “Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;” where it is
obvious, that when John called our Lord, “the Lamb of God,” he spoke of
him under a sacrificial character, and of the effect of that sacrifice
as an atonement for the sins of mankind. This was said of our Lord, even
before he entered on his public office; but if any doubt should exist
respecting the meaning of the Baptist’s expression, it is removed by
other passages, in which a similar allusion is adopted, and in which it
is specifically applied to the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin.
In the Acts of the Apostles, the following words of Isaiah are, by
Philip the evangelist, distinctly applied to Christ, and to his death:
“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his
shearer, so opened he not his mouth. in his humiliation his judgment was
taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken
from the earth.” This particular part of the prophecy being applied to
our Lord’s death, the whole must relate to the same subject; for it is
undoubtedly one entire prophecy, and the other expressions in it are
still stronger: “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised
for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with
his stripes we are healed: the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us
all.” In the First Epistle of Peter, is also a strong and very apposite
text, in which the application of the term “lamb” to our Lord, and the
sense in which it is applied, can admit of no doubt: “Forasmuch as ye
know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot,” 1 Peter i, 18, 19. It is therefore evident that the Prophet
Isaiah, six hundred years before the birth of Jesus; that John the
Baptist, on the commencement of his ministry; and that St. Peter, his
friend, companion and Apostle, subsequent to the transaction; speak of
Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, under the figure of a lamb
sacrificed.

The passages that follow, plainly and distinctly declare the atoning
efficacy of Christ’s death: “Now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” “Christ was once
offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall
he appear the second time without sin unto salvation,” Heb. ix, 26, 28.
“This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down
on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified,” Heb. x, 12. It is observable, that nothing
similar is said of the death of any other person, and that no such
efficacy is imputed to any other martyrdom. “While we were yet sinners
Christ died for us; much more then, being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him: for if, when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life,” Rom. v, 8–10. The words,
“reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” show that his death had an
efficacy in our reconciliation; but reconciliation is only preparatory
to salvation. “He has reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in
the body of his flesh through death,” Col. i, 20, 22. What is said of
reconciliation in these texts, is in some others spoken of
sanctification, which is also preparatory to salvation. “We are
sanctified,”--how? “by the offering of the body of Christ once for all,”
Heb. x, 10. In the same epistle, the blood of Jesus is called “the blood
of the covenant by which we are sanctified.” In these and many other
passages that occur in different parts of the New Testament, it is
therefore asserted that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the
procuring of human salvation. Such expressions are used concerning no
other person, and the death of no other person; and it is therefore
evident, that Christ’s death included something more than a confirmation
of his preaching; something more than a pattern of a holy and patient
martyrdom; something more than a necessary antecedent to his
resurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof of our
resurrection from the dead. Christ’s death was all these, but it was
something more. It was an atonement for the sins of mankind; and in this
way only it became the accomplishment of our eternal redemption. See DAY
OF EXPIATION.

AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German princes
was convened by the emperor Charles V, to meet at Augsburgh, for the
express purpose of composing the religious troubles which then
distracted Germany. On this occasion Melancthon was employed to draw up
this famous confession of faith which may be considered as the creed of
the German reformers, especially of the more temperate among them. It
consisted of twenty-one articles, including the following points:--The
Trinity, original sin, the incarnation, justification by faith, the word
and sacraments, necessity of good works, the perpetuity of the church,
infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper, repentance and confession, the proper
use of the sacraments, church order, rites and ceremonies, the
magistracy, a future judgment, free will, the worship of saints, &c. It
then proceeds to state the abuses of which the reformers chiefly
complained, as the denial of the sacramental cup to the laity, the
celibacy of the clergy, the mass, auricular confession, forced
abstinence from meats, monastic vows, and the enormous power of the
church of Rome. The confession was read at a full meeting of the diet,
and signed by the elector of Saxony, and three other princes of the
German empire.

John Faber, afterward archbishop of Vienna, and two other Catholic
divines, were employed to draw up an answer to this confession, which
was replied to by Melancthon in his “Apology for the Augsburgh
Confession” in 1531. This confession and defence; the articles of
Smalcald, drawn up by Luther; his catechisms, &c, form the symbolical
books of the Lutheran church; and it must be owned that they contain
concessions in favour of some parts of popery, particularly the real
presence, that few Protestants in this country would admit.

AUGUSTINE, or, as he is sometimes called in the court style of the
middle ages, ST. AUSTIN, one of the ancient fathers of the church, whose
writings for many centuries had almost as potent an influence on the
religious opinions of Christendom as those of Aristotle exercised over
philosophy. Indeed, it has often been mentioned as a fact, with
expressions of regret, that the writings of no man, those of the
Stagirite excepted, contributed more than those of St. Augustine to
encourage that spirit of subtle disquisition which subsequently
distinguished the era of the Schoolmen. He was born, November 13th, A.
D. 354, at Tagasta, an episcopal city of Numidia in Africa. His parents,
Patricius and Monica, were Christians of respectable rank in life, who
afforded their son all the means of instruction which his excellent
genius and wonderful aptitude for learning seemed to require. He studied
grammar and rhetoric at Madura, until he was sixteen years old; and
afterward removed to Carthage, to complete his studies. In both these
cities, in all the fervour of unregenerate youth, he entered eagerly
into the seducing scenes of dissipation and folly with which he was
surrounded, and became not only depraved but infamous in his conduct. In
this respect he was not improved by his subsequent connection with the
Manichees, whose unhallowed principles afforded an excuse for his
immorality, and threw a veil over the vilest of his actions. The
simplicity and minuteness with which he has narrated the numerous
incidents of his childhood, youth, and mature age, in his celebrated
book of “Confessions,” have afforded abundant matter of ridicule to the
profane and infidel wits of this and the last age. The reflections,
however, which accompany his narrative, are generally important and
judicious, and furnish to the moral philosopher copious materials for a
history of the varieties of the human heart, and are of superior value
to the humble Christian for the investigation and better knowledge of
his own. With a strange though not uncommon inconsistency, few books
have been more frequently quoted as authority on matters relating to
general literature and philosophy by infidels themselves, than St.
Augustine’s otherwise despised “Confessions,” and his “City of God.”
But, whatever else is taught in this remarkable piece of autobiography,
every pious reader will be delighted with the additional proofs which it
contains of the ultimate prevalence of faithful prayer, especially on
the part of Christian parents. Monica’s importunate prayers to heaven
followed the aberrations of her graceless son,--when he settled at
Carthage as a teacher of rhetoric; when he removed to Rome, and lodged
with a Manichee;--and when he finally settled at Milan as professor of
rhetoric. St. Ambrose was at that time, A. D. 384, bishop of Milan, and
to his public discourses Augustine began to pay much attention. His
heart became gradually prepared for the reception of divine truth, and
for that important change of heart and principles which constitutes
“conversion.” The circumstances attending this change, though often
related, are not unworthy of being repeated, if only to show that the
mode of the Holy Spirit’s operations was in substance the same in those
early days as they are now; and time was when some of the soundest
divines and most worthy dignitaries of the church of England were in the
habit of referring with approbation to this well attested instance of
change of heart. One of his Christian countrymen, Pontinius, who held a
high situation at court, having perceived a copy of St. Paul’s Epistles
lying on the table, entered one day into conversation with him and his
friend Alipius about the nature of faith and the happiness of those who
lived in the enjoyment of religion. Augustine was deeply affected at the
close of this visit; and when Pontinius had retired, giving vent to his
feelings he addressed Alipius in a most animated strain: “How is this?
What shall we do? Ignorant people come, and seize upon heaven; and we,
with our learning, (senseless wretches that we are!) behold we are
immersed in flesh and blood! Are we ashamed to follow them? Yet is it
not a still greater shame, not even to be able to follow them?” Full of
remorse and contrition Augustine left the house and retired to a secret
part of the garden, followed by his friend, who seemed on this occasion
to be a partaker of his grief only because he saw him grieved in spirit.
Unwilling to unman himself, as he accounted it, before Alipius, he left
him; and throwing himself down under the branches of a large fig tree he
poured out a torrent of tears which he was unable any longer to
restrain, and exclaimed in bitterness of soul, “When, O Lord, when will
thy anger cease? Why tomorrow? Why not at this time?” He instantly heard
what he considered to be the voice of a child, saying _Tolle, lege_,
“Take and read.” These two Latin words were repeated several times;
Augustine reflected upon them, checked his tears, received them as the
voice of God, and running into the house, opened, according to the
divine direction, the Epistles of St. Paul which he had left on the
table, and attentively read the first passage which he found. It was
Romans xiii, 13, 14; a passage peculiarly applicable to him, in
reference to his former habits and present state of mind: “Not in
rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife
and envying: but put ye on THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, and make not provision
for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.” He shut up the book, and was
amazed that all his doubts and fears had vanished. Alipius was speedily
informed of this wonderful change in his feelings and views; and after
having desired to see the two verses, in the spirit of a true seeker he
pointed out to Augustine the passage which immediately follows, and
which he considered as peculiarly adapted to his own case: “Him that is
weak in the faith receive ye,” &c, Rom. xiv, 1. The two friends then ran
to acquaint Monica with these circumstances, the knowledge of which
transported her with joy.

In a frame of mind not unfamiliar to those who have themselves had “much
forgiven,” Augustine wished to retire at once from so wicked a world as
that in which he had passed the first thirty-two years of his dissolute
life. His secession, however, was only a temporary one; for he and
Alipius were, a few months afterward, received by baptism into the
Christian church. After having composed several religious treatises in
his retreat near Tagasta, especially against the errors of the
Manichees, from which he had been so recently reclaimed, he was, in the
year 392, ordained priest by Valerius, bishop of Hippo, now a part of
the Barbary States on the coast of Africa. He there held a public
disputation with Fortunatus, a celebrated priest among the Manichees,
and acquitted himself with great spirit and success, he also wrote and
preached largely and to great effect against the Donatists and
Manichees. His reputation as a divine increased; and he was, at the
close of the year 395, ordained bishop of Hippo, in which high station
he continued with great advantage to wage war against various orders of
heretics.

Augustine had hitherto directed his theological artillery principally
against the predestinarian errors of the Manichees; but he was soon
called upon to change his weapons and his mode of warfare, in attacking
a new and not less dangerous class of heretics. In the year 412 he began
to write against the injurious doctrines of Pelagias, a native of
Britain, who had resided for a considerable time at Rome, and acquired
universal esteem by the purity of his manners, his piety, and his
erudition. Alarmed at the consequences which seemed to him obviously to
result from allowing that Adam’s sin is transmitted to all his
posterity, and fortified in his sentiments on this subject by those of
Origen and Ruffinus, with the latter of whom he had associated, he
boldly denied tenets which he did not believe. In the defence of his
opinions, Pelagius, was seconded by Celestius, a man equally eminent for
his talents and his virtues. Their principles were propagated at first
rather by hints and intimations, than by open avowal and plain
declarations; but this reserve was laid aside when they perceived the
ready reception which their doctrines obtained; and Celestius began
zealously to disseminate them in Africa, while Pelagius sowed the same
tares in Palestine, whence they were speedily transplanted to almost
every corner of Christendom. If the brief notices, which have come down
to us respecting their tenets, in the writings of their adversaries, be
correct, they affirmed, “It is not _free_ will if it requires the aid of
God; because every one has it within the power of his own will to do any
thing, or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from
the help which God affords, but is owing to our own free will. The
prayers which the church offers up either for the conversion of
unbelievers and other sinners, or for the perseverance of believers, are
poured forth in vain. The unrestricted capability of men’s own free will
is amply sufficient for all these things, and therefore no necessity
exists for asking of God those things which we are able of ourselves to
obtain; the gifts of grace being only necessary to enable men to do that
more easily and completely which yet they could do themselves though
more slowly and with greater difficulty; and that they are perfectly
free creatures,” in opposition to all the current notions of
predestination and reprobation. These novel opinions were refuted by St.
Augustine and St. Jerom, as well as by Orosius a Spanish presbyter, and
they were condemned as heresies in the council of Carthage and in that
of Milevum. The discussions which then arose have been warmly agitated
in various subsequent periods of the Christian church, though little new
light has been thrown upon them from that age to the present. In his
eagerness to confute these opponents St. Augustine employed language so
strong as made it susceptible of an interpretation wholly at variance
with the accountability of man. This led to farther explanations and
modifications of his sentiments, which were multiplied when the
Semi-Pelagians arose, who thought that the truth lay between his
doctrines and those of the Pelagians. Concerning original sin, he
maintained that it was derived from our first parents; and he believed
he had ascertained in what the original sin conveyed by Adam to his
posterity consisted. In his sentiments, however, upon the latter point
he was rather inconsistent, at one time asserting that the essence of
original sin was concupiscence, and at another expressing doubts
respecting his own position. This subject was bequeathed as a legacy to
the schoolmen of a subsequent age, who exercised their subtle wits upon
all its ramifications down to the period of the council of Trent. On the
consequences of the fall of our first parents, St. Augustine taught that
by it human nature was totally corrupted, and deprived of all
inclination and ability to do good. Before the age in which he lived,
the early fathers held what, in the language of systematic theology, is
termed the synergestic system, or the needfulness of human coöperation
in the works of holiness; but though the freedom of the will was not
considered by them as excluding or rendering unnecessary the grace of
God, yet much vagueness is perceptible in the manner in which they
express themselves, because they had not examined the subject with the
same attention as the theologians by whom they were succeeded. Those
early divines generally used the language of Scripture, the fertile
invention of controversial writers, not having as yet displayed itself,
except on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and subsidiary terms and
learned distinctions not being then required by any great differences of
opinion. But as soon as Pelagius broached his errors, the attention of
Christians was naturally turned to the investigation of the doctrine of
grace. The opinions of St. Augustine on this subject, which soon became
those of the great body of the Christian church, admitted the necessity
of divine grace, or the influence of the Holy Spirit, for our obedience
to the law of God. He ascribed the renovation of our moral constitution
wholly to this grace, denied all coöperation of man with it for
answering the end to be accomplished, and represented it as
irresistible. He farther affirmed that it was given only to a certain
portion of the human race, to those who showed the fruits of it in their
sanctification, and that it secured the perseverance of all upon whom it
was bestowed. Plaifere in his “_Appello Evangelium_” has given the
following as the substance of that opinion of the order of
predestination of which “many do say that St. Austin was the first
author: 1. That God from all eternity decreed to create mankind holy and
good. 2. That he foresaw man, being tempted by Satan, would fall into
sin, if God did not hinder it; he decreed not to hinder. 3. That out of
mankind, seen fallen into sin and misery, he chose a certain number to
raise to righteousness and to eternal life, and rejected the rest,
leaving them in their sins. 4. That for these his chosen he decreed to
send his Son to redeem them, and his Spirit to call them and sanctify
them; the rest he decreed to forsake, leaving them to Satan and
themselves, and to punish them for their sins.”

After St. Augustine had thus in a great degree new moulded the science
of theology, and had combined with it as an essential part of divine
truth, that the fate of mankind was determined by the divine decree
independently of their own efforts and conduct, and that they were thus
divided into the elect and reprobate, it became necessary, in order to
preserve consistency, to introduce into his system a limitation with
respect to baptism, and to prevent the opinions concerning it from
interfering with those which flowed from the doctrine of predestination.
He accordingly taught, that baptism brings with it the forgiveness of
sins; that it is so essential, that the omission of it will expose us to
condemnation; and that it is attended with regeneration. He also
affirmed that the virtue of baptism is not in the water; that the
ministers of Christ perform the external ceremony, but that Christ
accompanies it with invisible grace; that baptism is common to all,
whilst, grace is not so; and that the same external rite may be death to
some, and life to others. By this distinction he rids himself of the
difficulty which would have pressed upon his scheme of theology, had
pardon, regeneration, and salvation been _necessarily_ connected with
the outward ordinance of baptism; and limits its proper efficacy to
those who are comprehended, as the heirs of eternal life, in the decree
of the Almighty. Many, however, of those who strictly adhere to him in
other parts of his doctrinal system, desert him at this point. Bishop
Bedell speaks thus in disparagement of his baptismal views, in a letter
to Dr. Ward: “This I do yield to my Lord of Sarum most willingly, that
the justification, sanctification, and adoption which children have in
baptism, is not _univocè_ [univocally] the same with that which _adulti_
[adults] have. I think the emphatical speeches of Augustine against the
Pelagians, and of Prosper, are not so much to be regarded (who say the
like of the eucharist also) touching the necessity and efficacy in the
case of infants; and they are very like the speeches of Lanfranc and
Guitmund of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, opposing _veracitér_,
[truly] and _veré_ [truly] to _sacramentalitér_; [sacramentally;] which
is a false and absurd contraposition. The opinion of the Franciscans out
of Scotus and Bernard, mentioned in the council of Trent, seems to be
the true opinion; for they make the sacraments to be effectual, ‘because
God gives them _effectus regularitér concomitantes_,’ [regularly
accompanying effects,] and to contain grace no otherwise than as an
effectual sign; and that grace is received by them as an investiture by
a ring or staff, which is _obsignando_, [by signation.] Consider that if
you will aver, that baptism washes away otherwise than sacramentally,
that is, obsignatorily, original sin; yet you must allow that manner of
washing for future actual sins; and you must make two sorts of
justification, one for children, another for _adulti_; [adults;] and
(which passes all the rest) you must find some promise in God’s covenant
wherein he binds himself to wash away sin without faith or repentance.
By this doctrine, you must also maintain that children do spiritually
eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, if they receive the
eucharist, as for ages they did, and by the analogy of the passover they
may; and sith [if] the use of this sacrament _toties quoties_ [as often
as it is used] must needs confer grace, it seems it were necessary to
let them communicate, and the oftener the better, to the intent they
might be stronger in grace: which opinion, though St. Austin and many
more of the ancients do maintain, I believe you will not easily
condescend unto, or that children dying without baptism are damned.”
These remarks are important, as proceeding from the pen of the personal
friend of Father Paul, who wrote the History of the council of Trent.

In the various discussions which have arisen concerning predestination
and the doctrines with which it is connected, some modern divines have
quoted the arguments of St. Augustine against the Manichees, and others
those which he employed against the Pelagians, according to the
discordant views which the combatants severally entertain on these
controverted points. One of them has thus expressed himself, in his
endeavour to reconcile St Augustine with himself:--“The heresy of
Pelagius being suppressed, the catholic doctrine in that point became
more settled and confirmed by the opposition; such freedom being left to
the will of man, as was subservient unto grace, coöperating in some
measure with those heavenly influences. And so much is confessed by St.
Augustine himself, where he asks this question, ‘Doth any man affirm
that free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam?’ And
thereunto he makes this answer: ‘Freedom is perished by sin; but it is
that freedom only which we had in paradise, of having perfect
righteousness with immortality.’ For, otherwise, it appears to be his
opinion, that man was not merely passive in all the acts of grace which
conduced to glory, according to the memorable saying of his, so common
in the mouths of all men, ‘He who first made us without our help will
not vouchsafe to save us at last without our concurrence.’ If any
harsher expressions have escaped his pen, (as commonly it happeneth in
the heats of a disputation,) they are to be qualified by this last rule,
and by that before, in which it was affirmed, that ‘God could not with
justice judge and condemn the world, if all men’s sins proceeded not
from their own free will, but from some overruling providence which
inforced them to it.‘” Another admirer of this father offers the
following as an attempt at reconciliation: “St. Augustine denied that
the coöperation of man is at all exerted to produce the renewal of our
nature; but, when the renewal had been produced, he admitted that there
was an exercise of the will combined with the workings of grace. In the
tenth chapter of his work against the Manichæans, the bishop of Hippo
thus expresses himself: ‘Who is it that will not exclaim, _How foolish
it is to deliver precepts to that man who is not at liberty to perform
what is commanded! And how unjust it is to condemn him who had not power
to fulfil the commands!_ Yet these unhappy persons [the Manichees] do
not perceive that they are ascribing such injustice and want of equity
to God. But what greater truth is there than this, that God has
delivered precepts, and that human spirits have freedom of will?‘
Elsewhere he says, ‘Nothing is more within our power than our own will.
The will is that by which we commit sin, and by which we live
righteously.’ Nothing can be plainer than that the writer of these
passages admitted the liberty of the human will, and the necessity of
our own exertions in conjunction with divine grace. How this is to be
reconciled with his general doctrine, is perhaps indicated in the
following passage from his book _De Gratiâ et lib. Arbitrio, c. 17_.
Speaking of grace he says, ‘That we may _will_ God _works_ without us;
but when we _will_, and so _will_ as to _do_, he _co-works_ with us; yet
unless he either _works_ that we may will, or _co-works_ when we do
will, we are utterly incapable of doing any thing in the good works of
piety.’” These are but very slight specimens of the mode in which
learned and ingenious men have tried to give a kind of symmetrical
proportion to this father’s doctrinal system. Several large treatises
have been published with the same praiseworthy intention; the pious
authors of them either entirely forgetting, or having never read, the
rather latitudinarian indulgence of opinion which St. Augustine claims
for himself in his “Retractations,” in which he has qualified the
harshness of his previous assertions on many subjects. If, however, an
estimate may be formed of what this father intended in his various
pacifacatory doctrinal explanations from what he has actually admitted
and expressed, it may be safely affirmed that no systematic writer of
theology seems so completely to have entered into the last and best
views of the bishop of Hippo, or so nearly reconciled the apparent
discordances in them, as Arminius has done; and few other authors have
rendered more ample justice to his sentiments, talents, and character,
than the famous Dutch Professor.

Many were the theological labours to which he was invited by the most
eminent of his contemporaries; and hastily as some of his lucubrations
were executed, it is not surprising that among two hundred and
seventy-two treatises on different subjects, some are of inferior value
and unworthy of the fame which he had acquired in the church. After a
life of various changes, and of a mixed character, he died A. D. 430, in
the seventy-sixth year of his age; having been harassed at the close of
life by seeing his country invaded by the Vandals, and the city of which
he was the bishop besieged. Though those barbarians took Hippo and
burned it, they saved his library, which contained his voluminous
writings.

St. Augustine was a diligent man in the sacred calling; and that the
office of a bishop even in that age of the church was no sinecure, is
evident from several notices in his letters. At the close of one
addressed to Marcellinus he gives the subjoined account: “If I were able
to give you a narrative of the manner in which I spend my time, you
would be both surprised and distressed on account of the great number of
affairs which oppress me without my being able to suspend them. For when
some little leisure is allowed me by those who daily attend upon me
about business, and who are so urgent with me that I can neither shun
them nor ought to despise them, I have always some other writings to
compose, which indeed ought to be preferred, [to those which Marcellinus
requested,] because the present juncture will not permit them to be
postponed. For the rule of charity is, not to consider the greatness of
the friendship, but the necessity of the affair. Thus I have continually
something or other to compose which diverts me from writing what would
be more agreeable to my inclinations, daring the little intervals in
that multiplicity of business with which I am burdened either through
the wants or the passions of others.” He frequently complains of this
oppressive weight of occupation in which his love of his flock had
engaged him, by obeying the Apostolical precept, which forbids
Christians from going to law before Pagan tribunals. In reference to
this employment his biographer, Posidonius, says: “At the desire of
Christians, or of men belonging to any sect whatever, he would hear
causes with patience and attention, sometimes till the usual hour of
eating, and sometimes the whole day without eating at all, observing the
dispositions of the parties, and how much they advanced or decreased in
faith and good works; and when he had opportunity he instructed them in
the law of God, and gave them suitable advice, requiring nothing of them
except Christian obedience. He sometimes wrote letters, when desired, on
temporal subjects; but looked upon all this as unprofitable occupation,
which drew him aside from that which was better and more agreeable to
himself.”

The character of this eminent father has been much misrepresented both
as a man and as a writer. Whoever looks into his writings for accurate
and enlarged views of Christian doctrine, looks for that which could not
be expected in the very infancy of Biblical criticism. He was a
rhetorician by profession, and the degenerate taste of that age must be
blamed, rather than the individual who wrote in the style which then
prevailed. The learning of St. Augustine, and particularly his knowledge
of Greek, have been disputed; and hence the importance of his Biblical
criticisms has been depreciated. In the account of the early part of his
life he confesses his great aversion to the study of that language; and
as he tells us, in his maturer age, that he read the Platonists in a
Latin version, it has perhaps been too hastily concluded that he never
made any great proficiency in it. But though it be allowed that his
comments on Scripture consist chiefly of popular reflections, spiritual
and moral, or allegorical and mystical perversions of the literal
meaning; yet the works of this father are not wholly destitute of
remarks and critical interpretations, that are pertinent and judicious:
to such, after a series of extracts from his writings, Dr. Lardner has
referred his readers. With regard to his knowledge of Greek, this
impartial and candid author is of opinion, that he understood that
language better than some have supposed; and he has cited several
passages from which it may be perceived, that St. Augustine frequently
compared his copies of the Latin version with those of the Greek
original. Le Clerc himself allows that he sometimes explains Greek words
and phrases in a very felicitous manner. Indeed, the commencement of his
correspondence with St. Jerom proves him to have been no contemptible
critic. In this he besought him, in the name of all the African
churches, to apply himself to the translation into Latin of the Greek
interpreters of Scripture, rather than to enter upon a new translation
from the original Hebrew; and to point out those passages in which the
Hebrew differed from the Septuagint, as he had previously done in the
book of Job. Voltaire and other profane wits have, in the exercise of
their buffoonery, impeached his moral conduct; but their charges, when
impartially examined, will be seen to be founded in ignorance or in
malice. They resemble those which the same parties prefer against
Prophets, Apostles, and against Christ himself. Mosheim observes that
Augustine’s high reputation filled the Christian world; and “not without
reason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in the
character of that illustrious man. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted
and zealous pursuit of truth, an indefatigable application, an
invincible patience, a sincere piety, and a subtle and lively wit,
conspired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foundations.” Such
a testimony as this far outweighs the vituperative remarks and petty
sneers of a thousand infidels. See PELAGIANS and SYNODS.

AUGUSTUS, emperor of Rome, and successor of Julius Cæsar. The battle of
Actium, which he fought with Mark Antony, and which made him master of
the empire, happened fifteen years before the birth of Christ. This is
the emperor who appointed the enrolment mentioned Luke ii, 1, which
obliged Joseph and the Virgin Mary to go to Bethlehem, the place where
Jesus Christ was born. Augustus procured the crown of Judea for Herod,
from the Roman senate. After the defeat of Mark Antony, Herod adhered to
Augustus, and was always faithful to him; so that Augustus loaded him
with honours and riches.

AVEN, a city of Egypt, afterward called Heliopolis, and On, Ezek. xxx,
17. Herodotus informs us that in this city there was an annual assembly
in honour of the sun, and a temple dedicated to him. It appears,
however, highly probable, by the behaviour of Pharaoh to Joseph and
Jacob, and especially by Joseph’s care to preserve the land to the
priests, Gen. xlvii, 22, 26, that the true religion prevailed in Egypt
in his time; and it is incredible that Joseph should have married the
daughter of the priest of On, had that name among the Egyptians denoted
only the material light; which, however, no doubt they, like all the
rest of the world, idolized in after times, and to which we find a
temple dedicated among the Canaanites, under this name, Joshua vii, 2.

AVENGER OF BLOOD. He who prosecuted the man-slayer under the law was
called the avenger of blood, and had a right to slay the person, if he
found him without a city of refuge. See GOEL.

AVIMS, a people descended from Hevus, the son of Canaan. They dwelt at
first in the country which was afterward possessed by the Caphtorims, or
Philistines. The Scripture says expressly, that the Caphtorims drove out
the Avims, who dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, Deut. ii, 23. There
were also Avims, or Hivites, at Shechem, or Gibeon, Joshua xi, 19; for
the inhabitants of Shechem were Hivites. Lastly, there were some of them
beyond Jordan, at the foot of Mount Hermon. Bochart thinks, that Cadmus,
who conducted a colony of the Phœnicians into Greece, was a Hivite.
His name, Cadmus, comes from the Hebrew _Kedem_, “the east,” because he
came from the eastern parts of the land of Canaan. The name of his wife
Hermione was taken from Mount Hermon, at the foot whereof the Hivites
dwelt. The metamorphoses of the companions of Cadmus into serpents is
founded upon the signification of the name of Hivites, which, in the
Phœnician language, signifies _serpents_.

AZARIAH, or UZZIAH, king of Judah, son of Amaziah. He began to reign at
the age of sixteen years, and reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem; his
mother’s name being Jecholiah, 2 Kings xv. Azariah did that which was
right in the sight of the Lord; nevertheless he did not destroy the high
places; and, against the express prohibition of God, the people
continued to sacrifice there. Having taken upon him to offer incense in
the temple, which office belonged entirely to the priests, he was struck
with a leprosy, and continued without the city, separated from other men
until the day of his death, 2 Chron. xxvi. Josephus says, that upon this
occasion a great earthquake happened; and that the temple opening at the
top, a ray of light darted upon the king’s forehead, the very moment he
took the censer into his hand, and he instantly became a leper; nay,
that the earthquake was so very violent, that it tore in sunder a
mountain west of Jerusalem, and rolled one half of it over and over to
the distance of four furlongs, till at length it was stopped by another
mountain which stood over against it; but choked up the highway, and
covered the king’s gardens with dust. This is what Josephus adds to the
history related in the Chronicles; but the truth of it may be justly
suspected. We know, indeed, that there was a very great earthquake in
the reign of Uzziah; for Amos, chap. i, 1, and Zechariah, chap. xiv, 5,
make mention of it: however, it is not certain that it happened at the
very time that Uzziah took upon him to offer incense.

During the time that Uzziah was a leper, his son Jotham, as his father’s
viceroy, took the public administration upon himself, and succeeded him
after his death, which happened in the fifty-second year of his reign,
A. M. 3246. He was not buried in the royal sepulchre; but in the same
field, at some distance, on account of his leprosy.

The first part of Uzziah’s reign was very successful: he obtained great
advantages over the Philistines, Ammonites, and Arabians. He made
additions to the fortifications at Jerusalem, and always kept an army on
foot of three hundred and seven thousand men, and upwards, 2 Chron.
xxvi; and he had great magazines, well stored with all sorts of arms, as
well offensive as defensive; and he was a great lover of agriculture.


BAAL, BEL, or BELUS, denoting _lord_, a divinity among several ancient
nations; as the Canaanites, Phœnicians, Sidonians, Carthaginians,
Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. The term _Baal_, which is itself
an appellative, served at first to denote the true God, among those who
adhered to the true religion. Accordingly, the Phœnicians, being
originally Canaanites, having once had, as well as the rest of their
kindred, the knowledge of the true God, probably called him _Baal_, or
_lord_. But they, as well as other nations, gradually degenerating into
idolatry, applied this appellation to their respective idols; and thus
were introduced a variety of divinities, called _Baalim_, or _Baal_,
with some epithet annexed to it, as _Baal Berith_, _Baal Gad_, _Baal
Moloch_, _Baal Peor_, _Baal Zebub_, &c. Some have supposed that the
descendants of Ham first worshipped the sun under the title of Baal, 2
Kings xxiii, 5, 11; and that they afterward ascribed it to the patriarch
who was the head of their line; making the sun only an emblem of his
influence or power. It is certain, however, that when the custom
prevailed of deifying and worshipping those who were in any respect
distinguished among mankind, the appellation of Baal was not restricted
to the sun, but extended to those eminent persons who were deified, and
who became objects of worship in different nations. The Phœnicians
had several divinities of this kind, who were not intended to represent
the sun. It is probable that Baal, Belus, or Bel, the great god of the
Carthaginians, and also of the Sidonians, Babylonians, and Assyrians,
who, from the testimony of Scripture, appears to have been delighted
with human sacrifices, was the Moloch of the Ammonites; the Chronus of
the Greeks, who was the chief object of adoration in Italy, Crete,
Cyprus, and Rhodes, and all other countries where divine honours were
paid him; and the Saturn of the Latins. In process of time, many other
deities, beside the principal ones just mentioned, were distinguished by
the title of Baal among the Phœnicians, particularly those of Tyre,
and of course among the Carthaginians, and other nations. Such were
Jupiter, Mars, Bacchus, and Apollo, or the sun.

The temples and altars of Baal were generally placed on eminences: they
were places inclosed by walls, within which was maintained a perpetual
fire; and some of them bad statues or images, called in Scripture
“Chamanim.” Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem,
observed, some remains of these enclosures in Syria. Baal had his
prophets and his priests in great numbers; accordingly, we read of four
hundred and fifty of them that were fed at the table of Jezebel only;
and they conducted the worship of this deity, by offering sacrifices, by
dancing round his altar with violent gesticulations and exclamations, by
cutting their bodies with knives and lancets, and by raving and
pretending to prophesy, as if they were possessed by some invisible
power.

It is remarkable that we do not find the name Baal so much in popular
use east of Babylonia; but it was general west of Babylonia, and to the
very extremity of western Europe, including the British isles. The
worship of Bel, Belus, Belenus, or Belinus, was general throughout the
British islands; and certain of its rites and observances are still
maintained among us, notwithstanding the establishment of Christianity
during so many ages. A town in Perthshire, on the borders of the
Highlands, is called _Tilliebeltane_ or _Tulliebeltane_; that is, the
_eminence_, or _rising ground, of the fire of Baal_. In the
neighbourhood is a Druidical temple of eight upright stones, where it is
supposed the fire was kindled. At some distance from this is another
temple of the same kind, but smaller; and near it a well still held in
great veneration. On Beltane morning, superstitious people go to this
well, and drink of it; then they make a procession round it nine times.
After this they in like manner go round the temple. So deep-rooted is
this Heathenish superstition in the minds of many who reckon themselves
good Protestants, that they will not neglect these rites, even when
Beltane falls on the Sabbath.

In Ireland, Bel-tein is celebrated on the twenty-first of June, at the
time of the solstice. There, as they make fires on the tops of hills,
every member of the family is made to pass through the fire; as they
reckon this ceremony necessary to ensure good fortune through the
succeeding year. This resembles the rites used by the Romans in the
Palilia. Bel-tein is also observed in Lancashire.

In Wales, this annual fire is kindled in autumn, on the first day of
November; which being neither at the solstice nor equinox, deserves
attention. It may be accounted for by supposing that the lapse of ages
has removed it from its ancient station, and that the observance is kept
on the same day, nominally, though that be now removed some weeks
backward from its true station. However that may be, in North Wales
especially, this fire is attended by many ceremonies; such as running
through the fire and smoke, each participator casting a stone into the
fire.

The Hebrews often imitated the idolatry of the Canaanites in adoring
Baal. They offered human sacrifices to him in groves, upon high places,
and upon the terraces of houses. Baal had priests and prophets
consecrated to his service. All sorts of infamous and immodest actions
were committed in the festivals of Baal and Astarte. See Jer. xxxii, 35;
2 Kings xvii, 16; xxiii, 4, 5, 12; 1 Kings xviii, 22; 2 Kings x, 19; 1
Kings xiv, 24; xv, 12; 2 Kings xxiii, 7; Hosea iv, 14. This false deity
is frequently mentioned in Scripture in the plural number, _Baalim_,
which may intimate that the name _Baal_ was given to several different
deities.

There were many cities in Palestine, whose names were compounded of
_Baal_ and some other word: whether it was that the god Baal was adored
in them, or that these places were looked upon as the capital
cities,--_lords_ of their respective provinces,--is uncertain.

BAAL BERITH, the god of the Shechemites, Judges viii, 33; ix, 4, 46.

BAAL PEOR. Peor is supposed to have been a part of Mount Abarim; and
Baal was the great idol or chief god of the Phœnicians, and was known
and worshipped under a similar name, with tumultuous and obscene rites,
all over Asia. He is the same as the Bel of the Babylonians. Baal, by
itself, signifies _lord_, and was a name of the solar or principal god.
But it was also variously compounded, in allusion to the different
characters and attributes of the particular or local deities who were
known by it, as Baal Peor, Baal Zebub, Baal Zephon, &c. Baal Peor, then,
was probably the temple of an idol belonging to the Moabites, on Mount
Abarim, which the Israelites worshipped when encamped at Shittim; this
brought a plague upon them, of which twenty-four thousand died, Num.
xxxv. Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, to whom Solomon erected an
altar, 1 Kings xi, 7, is supposed to have been the same deity. Baal Peor
has been farther supposed by some to have been Priapus; by others,
Saturn; by others, Pluto; and by others again, Adonis. Mr. Faber agrees
with Calmet in making Baal Peor the same with Adonis; a part of whose
worship consisted in bewailing him with funeral rites, as one lost or
dead, and afterward welcoming, with extravagant joy, his fictitious
return to life. He was in an eminent degree the god of impurity. Hosea,
speaking of the worship of this idol, emphatically calls it “that
shame,” Hos. ix, 10. Yet in the rites of this deity the Moabite and
Midianite women seduced the Israelites to join.

BAAL ZEBUB, BEELZEBUB, or BEL-ZEBUB, signifies the _god of flies_, and
was an idol of the Ekronites. It is not easy to discover how this false
deity obtained its name. Some commentators think that he was called Baal
Samin, or the lord of heaven; but that the Jews, from contempt, gave him
the name of Baal-zebub. Others with greater reason believe that he was
denominated “the god of flies” by his votaries, because he defended them
from flies, which are extremely troublesome in hot countries; in the
same manner as the Eleans worshipped Hercules under the appellation of
Ἀπόμυιος, _the fly chaser_. Pliny is of opinion, that the name of Achor,
the god invoked at Cyrene against flies, is derived from Accaron, or
Ekron, where Baal-zebub was worshipped, and where he had a famous temple
and oracle. Winkelman has given the figures of two heads, “both of them
images of Jupiter, called by the Greeks Ἀπόμυιος, and by the Romans
_Muscarius_; that is to say, _fly driver_; for to this Jupiter was
attributed the function of driving away flies.”

It is evident that Beelzebub was considered as the patron deity of
medicine; for this is plainly implied in the conduct of Ahaziah, 2 Kings
i. The Greek mythology considered Apollo as the god of medicine, and
attributed also to him those possessions by a pythonic spirit which
occasionally perplexed spectators, and of which we have an instance in
Acts xvi, 19. Apollo, too, was the sun. Hence we probably see the reason
why Ahaziah sent to Beelzebub to inquire the issue of his accident;
since Beelzebub was Apollo, and Apollo was the god of physic. The Jews,
who changed _Beelzebub_ into _Beelzebul_, “god of a dunghill,” perhaps
had a reference to the Greek of _pytho_, which signifies _putrefied_. In
Scripture Beelzebub is called “the prince of devils,” Matt. xii, 24;
Luke xi, 15; merely, it would seem, through the application of the name
of the chief idol of the Heathen world to the prince of evil spirits.
This was natural, since the Jews were taught in their own Scriptures to
consider all the idols of the Heathens “devils.” Those commentators who
think that the idol of Ekron himself is intended, have indulged in an
improbable fancy. See HORNET.

BAAL ZEPHON, or _the god of the watch tower_, was probably the temple of
some idol, which served at the same time for a place of observation for
the neighbouring sea and country, and a beacon to the travellers by
either. It was situated on a cape or promontory on the eastern side of
the western or Heroopolitan branch of the Red Sea, near its northern
extremity, over against Pihahiroth, or the opening in the mountains
which led from the desert, on the side of Egypt, to the Red Sea.

BAASHA, the son of Ahijah, commander-in-chief of the armies belonging to
Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, king of Israel. Baasha killed his master
treacherously at the siege of Gibbethon, a city of the Philistines, A.
M. 3051, and usurped the crown, which he possessed twenty-four years, 1
Kings xv, 27, &c. And, to secure himself in his usurpation, he massacred
all the relatives of his predecessor; which barbarous action proved the
accomplishment of the prophecy denounced against the house of Jeroboam
by Ahijah, the prophet, 1 Kings xiv, 1, &c.

BABEL, the tower and city founded by the descendants of Noah in the
plain of Shinar. The different tribes descended from Noah were here
collected, and from this point were dispersed, through the confusion of
their language. The time when this tower was built is differently stated
in the Hebrew and Samaritan chronologies. The former fixes it in the
year 101 after the flood, which Mr. Faber thinks encumbered with
insuperable difficulties. This writer then goes on to show, that the
chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch reconciles every date, and
surmounts every difficulty. It represents Shem as dying nearly a century
and a half before the death of Peleg, instead of more than that number
of years afterward, and almost four centuries and a half before the
death of Abraham; whom, in accordance with the history, it makes to
survive his father Terah precisely a hundred years. It removes the
difficulties with which the Hebrew chronology invests the whole history,
by giving time, while it allows the dispersion to have taken place in
the latter part of Peleg’s life, for the thirteen sons of his younger
brother Joktan to have become heads of families; for Noah and his sons
to have died, as it is proved they must have done, prior to the
emigration from Armenia; for Nimrod, instead of being a boy, to have
been of an age suitable to his exploits, and to have acquired the
sovereign command, not, in the face of all probability, while the four
great patriarchs were living, but after their decease; and for the
families of mankind to have multiplied sufficiently to undertake the
stupendous work of the tower. It explains also the silence respecting
Shem in the history of Abraham, by making the former die in Armenia four
hundred and forty years before the latter was born, instead of surviving
him thirty-five years; and, lastly, it makes sacred history accord with
profane; the Babylonic history of Berosus, and the old records consulted
by Epiphanius, both placing the death of Noah and his sons before the
emigration from Armenia.

The sum of the whole is as follows: All the descendants of Noah remained
in Armenia in peaceable subjection to the patriarchal religion and
government during the lifetime of the four royal patriarchs, or till
about the beginning of the sixth century after the flood; when,
gradually falling off from the pure worship of God, and from their
allegiance to the respective heads of families, and seduced by the
schemes of the ambitious Nimrod, and farther actuated by a restless
disposition, or a desire for a more fertile country, they migrated in a
body southwards, till they reached the plains of Shinar, probably about
sixty years after the death of Shem. Here, under the command of their
new leader, and his dominant military and sacerdotal Cuthites, by whom
the original scheme of idolatry, the groundwork of which was probably
laid in Armenia, was now perfected; and, with the express view to
counteract the designs of the Almighty in their dispersion into
different countries, they began to build the city and tower, and set up
a banner which should serve as a mark of national union, and concentrate
them in one unbroken empire; when they were defeated and dispersed by
the miraculous confusion of tongues. All this probably occupied the
farther space of twenty or twenty-one years; making eighty-one from the
death of Shem, and five hundred and eighty-three after the flood. All of
which also will come within the life of Peleg, who, according to the
Samaritan Pentateuch, died in the year 640. The tower of Belus in
Babylon, mentioned by Herodotus, was probably either the original tower
of Babel repaired, or it was constructed upon its massive foundations.
The remains of this tower are still to be seen, and are thus described
by Captain Mignan, in his Travels in Chaldea:--

“At day light I departed for the ruins, with a mind absorbed by the
objects which I had seen yesterday. An hour’s walk, indulged in intense
reflection, brought me to the grandest and most gigantic northern mass,
on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, and distant about four miles and a
half from the eastern suburb of Hillah. It is called by the natives, _El
Mujellibah_, ‘the overturned;’ also _Haroot_ and _Maroot_, from a
tradition handed down, with little deviation, from time immemorial, that
near the foot of the ruin there is a well, invisible to mortals, in
which those rebellious angels were condemned by God to be hung with
their heels upward, until the day of judgment, as a punishment for their
wickedness. This solid mound, which I consider, from its situation and
magnitude, to be the remains of the Tower of Babel, (an opinion likewise
adopted by that venerable and highly distinguished geographer, Major
Rennell,) is a vast oblong square, composed of kiln-burnt and sun-dried
bricks, rising irregularly to the height of one hundred and thirty-nine
feet, at the south-west; whence it slopes toward the north-east to a
depth of one hundred and ten feet. Its sides face the four cardinal
points. I measured them carefully, and the following is the full extent
of each face: that to the north, along the visible face, is two hundred
and seventy-four yards; to the south, two hundred and fifty-six yards;
to the east, two hundred and twenty-six yards; and to the west, two
hundred and forty yards. The summit is an uneven flat, strewed with
broken and unbroken bricks, the perfect ones measuring thirteen inches
square, by three thick. Many exhibited the arrow-headed character, which
appeared remarkably fresh. Pottery, bitumen, vitrified and petrified
brick, shells, and glass, were all equally abundant. The principal
materials composing this ruin are, doubtless, mud bricks baked in the
sun, and mixed up with straw. It is not difficult to trace brick work
along each front, particularly at the south-west angle, which is faced
by a wall, composed partly of kiln-burnt brick, that in shape exactly
resembles a watch tower or small turret. On its summit there are still
considerable traces of erect building; at the western end is a circular
mass of sold brick work, sloping toward the top, and rising from a
confused heap of rubbish. The chief material forming this fabric
appeared similar to that composing the ruin called Akercouff, a mixture
of chopped straw, with slime used as cement; and regular layers of
unbroken reeds between the horizontal courses of the bricks. The base is
greatly injured by time and the elements; particularly to the
south-east, where it is cloven into a deep furrow from top to bottom.
The sides of the ruin exhibit hollows worn partly by the weather, but
more generally formed by the Arabs, who are incessantly digging for
bricks, and hunting for antiquities.”

BABYLON, 2 Kings xxiv, 1. The capital of Chaldea, built by Nimrod, Gen.
x, 10. It was under Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon, then become the seat of
universal empire, is supposed to have acquired that extent and
magnificence, and that those stupendous works were completed which
rendered it the wonder of the world and of posterity: and accordingly,
this prince, then the most potent on the earth, arrogated to himself the
whole glory of its erection; and in the pride of his heart exclaimed,
“Is not this great Babylon that I have built?” The city at this period
stood on both sides of the river, which intersected it in the middle. It
was, according to the least computation, that of Diodorus Siculus, 45
miles in circumference; and according to Herodotus, the older author of
the two, 60 miles. Its shape was that of a square, traversed each way by
25 principal streets; which of course intersected each other, dividing
the city into 626 squares. These streets were terminated at each end by
gates of brass, of prodigious size and strength, with a smaller one
opening toward the river. The walls, from the most moderate accounts,
were 75 feet in height and 32 in breadth; while Herodotus makes them 300
in height and 75 in breadth: which last measurement, incredible as it
may seem, is worthy of credit, as Herodotus is much the oldest author
who describes them, and who gives their original height; whereas, those
who follow him in their accounts of these stupendous walls, describe
them as they were after they had been taken down to the less elevation
by Darius Hystaspes. They were built of brick, cemented with bitumen
instead of mortar; and were encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, lined
with the same materials, as were also the banks of the river in its
course through the city: the inhabitants descending to the water by
steps through the smaller brazen gates before mentioned. The houses were
three or four stories high, separated from each other by small courts or
gardens, with open spaces and even fields interspersed over the immense
area enclosed within the walls. Over the river was a bridge, connecting
the two halves of the city, which stood, the one on its eastern, and the
other on its western, bank; the river running nearly north and south.
The bridge was 5 furlongs in length, and 30 feet in breadth, and had a
palace at each end, with, it is said, a subterraneous passage beneath
the river, from one to the other: the work of Semiramis. Within the city
was the temple of Belus, or Jupiter, which Herodotus describes as a
square of two stadia, or a quarter of a mile: in the midst of which
arose the celebrated tower, to which both the same writer, and Strabo,
give an elevation of one stadium, or 660 feet; and the same measure at
its base; the whole being divided into eight separate towers, one above
another, of decreasing dimensions to the summit; where stood a chapel,
containing a couch, table, and other things of gold. Here the principal
devotions were performed; and over this, on the highest platform of all,
was the observatory, by the help of which the Babylonians arrived to
such perfection in astronomy, that Calisthenes the philosopher, who
accompanied Alexander to Babylon, found astronomical observations for
1903 years backwards from that time; which reach as high as the 115th
year after the flood. On either side of the river, according to
Diodorus, adjoining to the bridge, was a palace; that on the western
bank being by much the larger. This palace was eight miles in
circumference, and strongly fortified with three walls one within
another. Within it were the celebrated pensile or hanging gardens,
enclosed in a square of 400 feet. These gardens were raised on terraces,
supported by arches, or rather by piers, laid over with broad flat
stones; the arch appearing to be unknown to the Babylonians: which
courses of piers rose above one another, till they reached the level of
the top of the city walls. On each terrace or platform, a deep layer of
mould was laid, in which flowers, shrubs and trees were planted; some of
which are said to have reached the height of 50 feet. On the highest
level was a reservoir, with an engine to draw water up from the river by
which the whole was watered. This novel and astonishing structure, the
work of a monarch who knew not how to create food for his own pampered
fancy, or labour for his debased subjects or unhappy captives, was
undertaken to please his wife Amyitis; that she might see an imitation
of the hills and woods of her native country, Media.

Yet, while in the plenitude of its power, and, according to the most
accurate chronologers, 160 years before the foot of an enemy had entered
it, the voice of an enemy had entered it, the voice of prophecy
pronounced the doom of the mighty and unconquered Babylon. A succession
of ages brought it gradually to the dust; and the gradation of its fall
is marked till it sinks at last into utter desolation. At a time when
nothing but magnificence was around this city, emphatically called the
great, fallen Babylon was delineated by the pencil of inspiration
exactly as every traveller now describes its ruins.

The immense fertility of Chaldea, which retained also the name of
Babylonia till after the Christian æra, corresponded with the greatness
of Babylon. It was the most fertile region of the whole east. Babylonia
was one vast plain, adorned and enriched by the Euphrates and the
Tigris, from which, and from the numerous canals that intersected the
country from the one river to the other, water was distributed over the
fields by manual labour and by hydraulic machines, giving rise, in that
warm climate and rich exhaustless soil, to an exuberance of produce
without a known parallel, over so extensive a region, either in ancient
or modern times. Herodotus states, that he knew not how to speak of its
wonderful fertility, which none but eye witnesses would credit; and,
though writing in the language of Greece, itself a fertile country, he
expresses his own consciousness that his description of what he actually
saw would appear to be improbable, and to exceed belief. Such was the
“Chaldees’ excellency,” that it departed not on the first conquest, nor
on the final extinction of its capital, but one metropolis of Assyria
arose after another in the land of Chaldea, when Babylon had ceased to
be “the glory of kingdoms.”

2. Manifold are the prophecies respecting Babylon and the land of the
Chaldeans; and the long lapse of ages has served to confirm their
fulfilment in every particular, and to render it at last complete. The
judgments of Heaven are not casual, but sure; they are not arbitrary,
but righteous. And they were denounced against the Babylonians, and the
inhabitants of Chaldea, expressly because of their idolatry, tyranny,
oppression, pride, covetousness, drunkenness, falsehood, and other
wickedness. The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos did see:
“The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people: a
tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord
of Hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country,
from the end of heaven, even the Lord and the weapons of his
indignation, to destroy the whole land. Behold, the day of the Lord
cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land
desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Babylon,
the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be
as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited,
neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither
shall the Arabian pitch tent there: neither shall the shepherds make
their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there: and
their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell
there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands
shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant
palaces.” “Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon,
and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Thy pomp
is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is
spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. Thou shalt be brought down
to hell, to the sides of the pit. Thou art cast out of the grave like an
abominable branch.--I will cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant,
the son, and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a possession
for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom
of destruction, saith the Lord of Hosts.” “Babylon is fallen, is fallen;
and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.”
“Thus saith the Lord, that saith unto the deep, Be dry; and I will dry
up thy rivers: that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform
all my pleasure,--and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before
him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” “Bel boweth
down,” &c. “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of
Babylon: sit on the ground, there is no throne, O daughter of the
Chaldeans. Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of
the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called the lady of kingdoms.”

Many other prophecies against Babylon, and the whole land of Chaldea,
are found in the Old Testament; and though the limits of this article
will only allow a reference to be made to the exact fulfilment of a few,
there is not one of the great number of predictions on record, the
accomplishment of which has not been remarked by numerous writers, and
more especially by those who have visited the spot. For, though for many
centuries the site of Babylon was unknown, or the ruins of other
Chaldean cities mistaken for its remains, its true situation and present
condition have been, within a few years, satisfactorily ascertained, and
accurately described, by several most intelligent and enterprising
travellers.

When in the plenitude of its greatness, splendour and strength, Babylon
first yielded to the arms of Cyrus, whose name, and the manœuvre by
which the city was taken, were mentioned by Isaiah nearly two hundred
years before the event; which was also predicted by Jeremiah: “Go up, O
Elam, (or Persia,) besiege, O Media. The Lord hath raised up the spirit
of the kings of the Medes, for his device is against Babylon, to destroy
it.” The kings of Persia and Media, prompted by a common interest,
freely entered into a league against Babylon, and with one accord
entrusted the command of their united armies to Cyrus, the relative and
eventually the successor of them both.--But the taking of Babylon was
not reserved for these kingdoms alone: other nations had to be “prepared
against her.” “Set up a standard in the land; blow the trumpet among the
nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the
kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Aschenaz: Lo, I will raise and cause to
come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north
country,” &c. Cyrus subdued the Armenians, who had revolted against
Media, spared their king, bound them over anew to their allegiance, by
kindness rather than by force, and incorporated their army with his
own.--“The mighty men of Babylon have foreborne to fight. They have
remained in their holds; their might hath failed, they became as women.”
So dispirited became its people, that Babylon, which had made the world
to tremble, was long besieged, without making any effort to drive off
the enemy. But, possessed of provisions for twenty years, which in their
timid caution they had plentifully stored, they derided Cyrus from their
impregnable walls, within which they remained. Their profligacy, their
wickedness and false confidence were unabated; they continued to live
carelessly in pleasures: and Babylon the great, unlike to many a small
fortress and unwalled town, made not one struggle to regain its freedom
or to be rid of the foe.--Much time having been lost, and no progress
being made in the siege, the anxiety of Cyrus was strongly excited, and
he was reduced to great perplexity, when at last it was suggested and
immediately determined to divert the course of the Euphrates. And while
the unconscious and reckless citizens were engaged in dancing and
merriment, the river was suddenly turned into the lake, the trench, and
the canals; and the Persians, both foot and horse, so soon as the
subsiding of the water permitted, entered by its channel, and were
followed by the allies in array, along the dry part of the river. “I
will dry up thy sea, and make thy springs dry. That saith to the deep,
Be dry, I will dry up thy rivers.”--One detachment was placed where the
river first enters the city, and another where it leaves it. And “one
post did run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to show
the king of Babylon that his city is taken at the end, and that the
passages are shut.” “They were taken,” says Herodotus, “by _surprise_;
and such is the extent of the city, that, as the inhabitants themselves
affirm, they who lived in the extremities were made prisoners before any
alarm was communicated to the centre of the place,” where the palace
stood. Thus a “snare was laid for Babylon, it was taken, and it was not
aware; it was found and also caught; for it had sinned against the Lord.
How is the praise of the whole earth surprised!”--“In their heat I will
make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice
and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord. I will bring
them down like lambs to the slaughter,” &c. “I will make drunken her
princes and her wise men, her captains and her rulers, and her mighty
men, and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep,” &c. Cyrus, as the night
drew on, stimulated his assembled troops to enter the city, because in
that night of general revel within the walls, many of them were asleep,
many drunk, and confusion universally prevailed. On passing, without
obstruction or hinderance, into the city, the Persians, slaying some,
putting others to flight, and joining with the revellers, as if
slaughter had been merriment, hastened by the shortest way to the
palace, and reached it ere yet a messenger had told the king that his
city was taken. The gates of the palace, which was strongly fortified,
were shut. The guards stationed before them, were _drinking_ beside a
blazing light, when the Persians rushed impetuously upon them. A louder
and altered clamour, no longer joyous, caught the ear of the inmates of
the palace, and the bright light showed them the work of destruction,
without revealing its cause. And not aware of the presence of an enemy
in the midst of Babylon, the king himself, (who had been roused from his
revelry by the hand writing on the wall,) excited by the warlike tumult
at the gates, commanded those within to examine from whence it arose;
and according to the same word, by which “the gates” (leading from the
river to the city) “were not shut, the loins of kings were loosed to
open before Cyrus the two-leaved gates” of the palace. The eager
Persians sprang in. “The king of Babylon heard the report of them;
anguish took hold of him;” he and all who were about him perished; God
had “numbered” his kingdom and finished it; it was “divided,” and given
to the Medes and Persians; the lives of the Babylonian princes, and
lords, and rulers, and captains, closed with that night’s festival; the
drunken slept “a perpetual sleep, and did not wake.”--“I will fill thee
with men as with caterpillars.” Not only did the Persian army enter with
ease as caterpillars, together with all the nations that had come up
against Babylon, but they seemed also as numerous. Cyrus, after the
capture of the city, made a great display of his cavalry in the presence
of the Babylonians, and in the midst of Babylon. Four thousand guards
stood before the palace gates, and two thousand on each side. These
advanced as Cyrus approached; two thousand spearmen followed them. These
were succeeded by four square masses of Persian cavalry, each consisting
of ten thousand men: and to these again were added, in their order, the
Median, Armenian, Hyrcanian, Caducian, and Sacian horsemen,--all, as
before, “riding upon horses, every man in array,”--with lines of
chariots, four abreast, concluding the train of the numerous hosts.
Cyrus afterward reviewed, at Babylon, the whole of his army, consisting
of one hundred and twenty thousand horse, two thousand chariots, and six
hundred thousand foot. Babylon, which was taken when not aware, and
within whose walls no enemy, except a captive, had been ever seen, was
thus “filled with men as with caterpillars,” as if there had not been a
wall around it. The Scriptures do not relate the manner in which Babylon
was taken, nor do they ever allude to the exact fulfilment of the
prophecies. But there is, in every particular, a strict coincidence
between the predictions of the prophets and the historical narratives,
both of Herodotus and Xenophon.

3. Every step in the progress of the decline of Babylon was the
accomplishment of a prophecy. Conquered, for the first time, by Cyrus,
it was afterward reduced from an imperial to a tributary city. “Come
down and sit in the dust, O daughter of Babylon: sit on the ground,
there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans.” After the Babylonians
rebelled against Darius, the walls were reduced in height, and all the
gates destroyed. “The wall of Babylon shall fall, her walls are thrown
down.”--Xerxes, after his ignominious retreat from Greece, rifled the
temples of Babylon, the golden images alone of which were estimated at
20,000,000_l_, beside treasures of vast amount. “I will punish Bel in
Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he has
swallowed up; I will do judgment upon the graven images of
Babylon.”--Alexander the Great attempted to restore it to its former
glory, and designed to make it the metropolis of a universal empire. But
while the building of the temple of Belus, and the reparation of the
embankments of the Euphrates, were actually carrying on, the conqueror
of the world died, at the commencement of this his last undertaking, in
the height of his power, and in the flower of his age. “Take balm for
her pain, if so be that she may be healed. We would have healed Babylon,
but she is not healed.” The building of the neighbouring city of
Seleucia was the chief cause of the decline of Babylon, and drained it
of a great part of its population. And at a later period, or about 130
years before the birth of Christ, Humerus, a Parthian governor, who was
noted as excelling all tyrants in cruelty, exercised great severities on
the Babylonians; and having burned the forum and some of the temples,
and destroyed the fairest parts of the city, reduced many of the
inhabitants to slavery on the slightest pretexts, and caused them,
together with all their households, to be sent into Media. “They shall
remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.” The “golden city” thus
gradually verged, for centuries, toward poverty and desolation.
Notwithstanding that Cyrus resided chiefly at Babylon, and sought to
reform the government, and remodel the manners of the Babylonians, the
succeeding kings of Persia preferred, as the seat of empire, Susa,
Persepolis, or Ecbatana, situated in their own country: and in like
manner the successors of Alexander did not attempt to complete his
purpose of restoring Babylon to its preeminence and glory; but, after
the subdivision of his mighty empire, the very kings of Assyria, during
their temporary residence even in Chaldea, deserted Babylon, and dwelt
in Seleucia. And thus the foreign inhabitants, first Persians and
afterward Greeks, imitating their sovereigns by deserting Babylon, acted
as if they verily had said, “Forsake her, and let us go every man unto
his own country; for her judgment is reached unto heaven, and is lifted
up even to the skies.”

4. But kindred judgments, the issue of common crimes, rested on the land
of Chaldea, as well as on its doomed metropolis. “They come from a far
country, from the end of the earth, to destroy the whole land. Many
nations and great kings shall serve themselves of thee also,” &c. The
Persians, the Macedonians, the Parthians, the Romans, the Saracens, and
the Turks, are the chief of the many nations who have unscrupulously and
unsparingly “served themselves” of the land of the Chaldeans: and Cyrus
and Darius, kings of Persia; Alexander the Great; and Seleucus, king of
Assyria; Demetrius and Antiochus the Great; Tragan, Severus, Julian, and
Heraclius, emperors of Rome; the victorious Omar, the successor of
Mohammed; Holagou, and Tamerlane,--are “great kings” who successively
subdued or desolated Chaldea, or exacted from it tribute to such an
extent, as scarcely any other country ever paid to a single conqueror.
And though the names of some of these nations were unknown to the
Babylonians, and unheard of in the world at the time of the prophecy,
most of these “many nations and great kings” need now but to be named,
to show that, in local relation to Chaldea, “they came from the utmost
border, from the coasts of the earth.”--“I will punish the land of the
Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations; cut off the sower
from Babylon, and him that handleth the sickle in the time of harvest. A
drought is on her waters, and they shall be dried up. Behold the
hinder-most of the nations, a dry land and a desert.” The land of the
Chaldeans was indeed made--perpetual, or long continued, desolation.
Ravaged and spoiled for ages, the Chaldees’ excellency finally
disappeared, and the land became desolate, as still it remains.
Rauwolff, who passed through it in 1574, describes the country as bare,
and “so dry and barren that it cannot be tilled.” And the most recent
travellers all concur in describing it in similar terms. On the one
side, near to the site of Opis, “the country all around,” says Mr.
Buckingham, “appears to be one wide desert, of sandy and barren soil,
thinly scattered over with brushwood and tufts of reedy grass.” On the
other, between Bussorah and Bagdad, “immediately on either bank of the
Tigris,” observes Mignan, “is the _untrodden desert_. The absence of all
cultivation, the sterile, arid, and wild character of the whole scene,
formed a contrast to the rich and delightful accounts delineated in
Scripture. The natives, in travelling over these pathless deserts, are
compelled to explore their way by the stars.” “The whole country between
Bagdad and Hillah is a perfectly flat and (with the exception of a few
spots as you approach the latter place) _uncultivated waste_. That it
was at some former period in a far different state, is evident from the
number of canals by which it is traversed, now _dry_ and neglected; and
the quantity of heaps of earth covered with fragments of brick and
broken tiles, which are seen in every direction, the indisputable traces
of former population. At present the only inhabitants of the tract are
the Sobeide Arabs. Around, as far as the eye can reach is a _trackless
desert_.”--“Her cities are desolations.” The course of the Tigris
through Babylonia, instead of being adorned with cities, is marked with
the sites of “ancient ruins.” Sitace, Sabata, Narisa, Fuchera, Sendia,
“no longer exist.” A succession of longitudinal mounds, crossed at right
angles by others, mark the supposed site of Artemita, or Destagered. Its
once luxuriant gardens are covered with grass; and a higher mound
distinguishes “the royal residence” from the ancient streets. “Extensive
ridges and mountains, (near to Houmania,) varying in height and extent,
are seen branching in every direction.” A wall, with sixteen bastions,
is the only memorial of Apollonia. The once magnificent Seleucia is now
a scene of desolation. There is not a single entire edifice, but the
country is strewed for miles with fragments of decayed buildings. “As
far,” says Major Keppel, “as the eye could reach, the horizon presented
a broken line of mounds; the whole of this place was a desert flat.” On
the opposite bank of the Tigris, where Ctesiphon its rival stood, beside
fragments of walls and broken masses of brick work, and remains of vast
structures encumbered with heaps of earth, there is one magnificent
monument of antiquity “in a remarkably perfect state of preservation,”
“a large and noble pile of building, the front of which presents to view
a wall three hundred feet in length, adorned with four rows of arched
recesses, with a central arch, in span eighty-six feet, and above a
hundred feet high, supported by walls sixteen feet thick, and leading to
a hall which extends to the depth of a hundred and fifty-six feet,” the
width of the building. A great part of the back wall, and of the roof,
is broken down; but that which remains “still appears much larger than
Westminster Abbey.” It is supposed to have been the lofty palace of
Chosroes; but there desolation now reigns. “On the site of Ctesiphon,”
says Mignan, “the smallest insect under heaven would not find a single
blade of grass wherein to hide itself, nor one drop of water to allay
its thirst.” In the rear of the palace, and attached to it, are mounds
two miles in circumference, indicating the utter desolation of
buildings, formed to minister to luxury.

5. But let us come to the fulfilment of these wonderful prophecies in
the present condition of Babylon itself, as described by those who have
most recently visited it.

“Babylon shall become heaps.” Babylon the glory of kingdoms is now the
greatest of ruins. “Immense tumuli of temples, palaces, and habitations
of every description,” are every where seen, and form “long and varied
lines of ruins,” which, in some places, says Sir R. K. Porter, “rather
resemble natural hills than _mounds_ which cover the remains of great
and splendid edifices.” These buildings, which were once the labour of
slaves and the pride of kings, are now misshapen heaps of rubbish. “The
whole face of the country,” observes Rich, “is covered with vestiges of
building, in some places consisting of brick walls surprisingly fresh,
in others, merely a _vast succession of mounds_ of rubbish, of such
indeterminate figures, variety, and extent, as to involve the person who
should have formed any theory in inextricable confusion.”--“Let nothing
of her be left.” “Vast heaps constitute _all that now remains_ of
ancient Babylon,” says Rich. All its grandeur is departed; all its
treasures have been spoiled; all its excellence has utterly vanished;
the very heaps are searched for bricks, when nothing else can be found;
even these are _not left_, wherever they can be taken away; and Babylon
has for ages been “a quarry above ground,” ready to the hand of every
successive despoiler. Without the most remote allusion to this prophecy,
Captain Mignan describes a mound attached to the palace, ninety yards in
breadth by half that height, the whole of which is deeply furrowed, in
the same manner as the generality of the mounds. “The ground is
extremely soft, and tiresome to walk over, and appears _completely
exhausted_ of all its building materials; _nothing now is left_, save
one towering hill, the earth of which is mixed with _fragments_ of
broken brick, red varnished pottery, tile, bitumen, mortar, glass,
shells, and pieces of mother of pearl,”--worthless fragments, of no
value to the poorest. “From thence shall she be taken, let nothing of
her be left.” While the workmen “cast her up as heaps” while excavating
for bricks, that they may “take” them “from thence,” and that “nothing
may be left;” they labour more than trebly in the fulfilment of
prophecy: for the numerous and deep excavations form pools of water, on
the over-flowing of the Euphrates, and, annually filled, they are not
dried up throughout the year. “Deep cavities are also formed by the
Arabs, when digging for hidden treasure.” Thus “the ground,” says
Buckingham, “is sometimes covered with pools of water in the hollows.”

“Sit in the dust, sit on the ground, O daughter of the Chaldeans.” The
surface of the mounds which form all that remains of Babylon, consists
of decomposed buildings, reduced to dust; and over all the ancient
streets and habitations, there is literally nothing but the dust of the
ground on which to sit.--“Thy nakedness shall be uncovered.” “Our path,”
says Captain Mignan, “lay through the great mass of ruined heaps on the
site of ‘shrunken Babylon;’ and I am perfectly incapable of conveying an
adequate idea of the dreary, lonely nakedness that appeared before
me.”--“Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness.” “There reigns
throughout the ruins,” says Sir R. K. Porter, “a silence profound as the
grave.” “Babylon is now a silent scene, a sublime solitude.”--“It shall
never be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to generation.” From
Rauwolff’s testimony it appears that, in the sixteenth century, “there
was not a house to be seen.” And now “the eye wanders over a barren
desert, in which the ruins are nearly the only indication that it had
ever been inhabited.” “It is impossible,” adds Major Keppel, “to behold
this scene and not to be reminded how exactly the predictions of Isaiah
and Jeremiah have been fulfilled, even in the appearance Babylon was
doomed to present, that ‘she should never be inhabited;’ that ‘the
Arabian should not pitch his tent there;’ that she should ‘become
heaps;’ that her cities should be ‘a desolation, a dry land, and a
wilderness.’” “Babylon is spurned alike by the heel of the Ottomans, the
Israelites, and the sons of Ishmael.” It is “a tenantless and desolate
metropolis,” remarks Mignan. “It shall not be inhabited, but be wholly
desolate. Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the
shepherds make their folds there.” It was prophesied of Ammon that it
should be a stable for camels and a couching place for flocks; and of
Philistia, that it should be cottages for shepherds, and a pasture of
flocks. But Babylon was to be visited with a far greater desolation, and
to become unfit or unsuited even for such a purpose; and that neither a
tent would be pitched there, even by an Arab, nor a fold made by a
shepherd, implies the last degree of solitude and desolation. “It is
common in these parts for shepherds to make use of ruined edifices to
shelter their flocks in.” But Babylon is an exception. Instead of taking
the bricks from thence, the shepherd might very readily erect a defence
from wild beasts, and make a fold for his flock amidst the heaps of
Babylon; and the Arab who fearlessly traverses it by day, might pitch
his tent by night. But neither the one nor the other could now be
persuaded to remain a single night among the ruins. The superstitious
dread of evil spirits, far more than the natural terror of the wild
beasts, effectually prevents them. Captain Mignan was accompanied by six
Arabs, completely armed; but he “could not induce them to remain toward
night, from the apprehension of evil spirits. It is impossible to
eradicate this idea from the minds of this people, who are very deeply
imbued with superstition.”

“Wild beasts of the deserts shall lie there, and their houses shall be
full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs
(goats) shall dance there,” &c. “There are many dens of wild beasts in
various parts. And while the lower excavations are often pools of water,
in most of the cavities are numbers of bats and owls.” The king of the
forest now ranges over the site of that Babylon which Nebuchadnezzar
built for his own glory. And the temple of Belus, the greatest work of
man, is now like unto a natural den of lions. Two or three majestic
lions were seen upon its heights by Sir Robert Ker Porter, as he was
approaching it; and “the broad prints of their feet were left plain in
the clayey soil.” Major Keppel saw there a similar foot-print of a lion.
It is also the unmolested retreat of jackalls, hyenas, and other noxious
animals. Wild beasts are numerous at the Mujelibé, as well as on Birs
Nimrood. “The mound,” says Kinneir, “was full of large holes: we entered
some of them, and found them strewed with the carcasses and skeletons of
animals recently killed. The ordure of wild beasts was so strong, that
prudence got the better of curiosity; for we had no doubt as to the
savage nature of the inhabitants. Our guides, indeed, told us, that all
the ruins abounded in lions, and other wild beasts: so literally has the
divine prediction been fulfilled, that wild beasts of the deserts should
lie there, and their houses be full of doleful creatures; that the wild
beasts of the islands should cry in their desolate houses.”

“The sea is come upon Babylon. She is covered with the multitude of the
waves thereof.” The traces of the western bank of the Euphrates are now
no longer discernible. The river overflows unrestrained; and the very
ruins, with “every appearance of the embankment,” have been swept away.
“The ground there is low and marshy, and presents not the slightest
vestige of former buildings, of any description whatever.” “Morasses and
ponds,” says Porter, “tracked the ground in various parts. For a long
time after the general subsiding of the Euphrates, great part of this
plain is little better than a swamp,” &c. “The ruins of Babylon are then
inundated, so as to render many parts of them inaccessible, by
converting the valleys among them into morasses.” But while Babylon is
thus “covered with the multitude of waves, and the waters come upon it;”
yet, in striking contrast and seeming contradiction to such a feature of
desolation, (like the formation of “pools of water,” from the “casting
up of heaps,”) are the elevated sunburnt ruins, which the waters do not
overflow, and the “dry waste” and “parched and burning plain,” on which
the heaps of Babylon lie, equally prove that it is “a desert, a dry
land, and a wilderness.” One part, even on the western side of the
river, is “low and marshy, and another,” says Mignan, “an arid desert.”

Many other striking particulars might be collected; and we may conclude
in the words of Mr. Keith, from whose work on the prophecies several of
the above particulars have been extracted:--“Is it possible that there
can be any attestation of the truth of prophecy, if it be not witnessed
here? Is there any spot on earth which has undergone a more complete
transformation? ‘The records of the human race,’ it has been said with
truth, ‘do not present a contrast more striking than that between the
primeval magnificence of Babylon and its long desolation.’ Its ruins
have of late been carefully and scrupulously examined by different
natives of Britain, of unimpeached veracity; and the result of every
research is a more striking demonstration of the literal accomplishment
of every prediction. How few spots are there on earth of which we have
so clear and faithful a picture as prophecy gave to fallen Babylon at a
time when no spot on earth resembled it less than its present desolate
solitary site! or could any prophecies respecting any single place have
been more precise, or wonderful, or numerous, or true, or more gradually
accomplished throughout many generations? And when they look at what
Babylon was, and what it is, and perceive the minute realization of them
all, may not nations learn wisdom, may not tyrants tremble, and may not
skeptics think?”

The reasons why prophecies so numerous and particular were recorded
concerning Babylon, appear to have been, 1. That Babylon was the great
oppressor of the Jews. 2. That it was the type of all the powerful
persecuting enemies of the church of God, especially of Rome; and in its
fate they may read their own. 3. That the accomplishment of prophecy in
the destruction of so eminent an empire might give a solemn testimony to
the truth of the Scriptures to the whole earth, and to all ages.

BACKSLIDING, a falling off, or defection in matters of religion; an
apostasy, Acts xxi, 21; 2 Thess. ii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 1. This may be either
partial or complete: partial, when it is in the heart, as Prov. xiv, 14;
complete, as that described in Heb. vi, 4, &c; x, 6, &c. On the latter
passage Chrysostom observes, “When a house has a strong foundation,
suppose an arch fall, some of the beams break, or a wall decline, while
the foundation is good, these breaches may be repaired; so in religion,
whilst a person maintains the true doctrines, and remains on the firm
rock, though he fall, true repentance may restore him to the favour and
image of God: but as in a house, when the foundation is bad, nothing can
save the building from ruin; so when heretical doctrines are admitted
for a foundation, nothing can save the professor from destruction.” It
is important in interpreting these passages to keep it steadfastly in
mind, that the apostasy they speak of is not only _moral_ but
_doctrinal_.

BADGER, תחש. This word in a plural form occurs, Exod. xxv, 5; xxvi, 14;
xxxv, 7, 23; xxxvi, 19; xxxix, 34; Num. iv, 6, 8, 10–12, 14, 25; Ezek.
xvi, 10; and is joined with ערת, skins used for the covering of the
tabernacle in the wilderness. The Jewish interpreters are agreed as to
its being some animal. Jarchi says it was a beast of many colours, which
no more exists. Kimchi holds the same opinion. Aben Ezra thinks it some
animal of the bovine kind, of whose skins shoes are made; alluding to
Ezek. xvi, 10. Most modern interpreters have taken it to be the badger,
and among these our English translators; but, in the first place, the
badger is not an inhabitant of Arabia; and there is nothing in its skin
peculiarly proper either for covering a tabernacle or making shoes.
Hasæus, Michaelis, and others, have laboured to prove that it is the
mermaid, or _homo marinus_, the _trichekus_ of Linnæus. Faber, Dathe,
and Rosenmuller, think that it is the seal, or sea calf, _vitulus
marinus_, the skin of which is both strong and pliable, and was
accounted by the ancients as a most proper outer covering for tents, and
was also made into shoes, as Rau has clearly shown. Niebuhr says, “A
merchant of Abushahr called _dahash_ that fish which the captains in
English vessels call porpoise, and the Germans, sea hog. In my voyage
from Maskat to Abushahr, I saw a prodigious quantity together near Ras
Mussendom, that were all going the same way, and seemed to swim with
great vehemence.” Bochart thinks that not an _animal_, but a _colour_,
was intended, Exodus xxv, 5; so that the covering of the tabernacle was
to be azure, or sky blue.

BAG, a purse or pouch, Deut. xxv, 13; 1 Sam. xvii, 40; Luke xii, 33; Job
xiv, 17. The money collected in the treasuries of eastern princes was
reckoned up in certain equal sums, put into bags and sealed. These are,
in some parts of the Levant, called _purses_, where they estimate great
expenses by so many purses. The money collected in the temple in the
time of Joash, for its reparation, seems, in like manner, to have been
told up in bags of equal value; and these were probably delivered sealed
to those who paid the workmen, 2 Kings xii, 10. In the east, in the
present day, a bag of money passes, for some time at least, currently
from hand to hand, under the authority of a banker’s seal, without any
examination of its contents. See Tobit ix, 5; xi, 16.

BAKING BREAD. Abraham directed Sarah to bake cakes upon the hearth, for
the use of the strangers who had visited him, Genesis xviii, 6. Elijah
requests the same of the widow of Zarephath, 1 Kings xvii, 13. Amnon the
son of David requests Tamar his sister to come and make cakes in his
sight, that he might eat at her hand, 2 Sam. xiii, 6. These and other
allusions to the preparation of bread will be explained by referring to
eastern customs. Rauwolff observes that travellers frequently bake bread
in the deserts of Arabia, on the ground heated for that purpose by fire,
covering their cakes of bread with ashes and coals, and turning them
several times till they are enough. The eastern bread is made in small
thin cakes, and is generally eaten new. Sometimes it was however made to
keep several days, as the shew bread; and a sort of rusks, or bread for
travelling, Joshua ix, 12. The eastern ladies of rank often prepare
cakes, pastry, &c, in their own apartments.

BALAAM, a prophet of the city of Pethor, or Bosor, upon the Euphrates,
whose intercourse with Balak, king of the Moabites, who sent for him to
curse the Israelites, is recorded at large by Moses, Num. xxii-xxiv. It
has been a subject of controversy, whether Balaam was a true prophet or
a mere diviner, magician, or fortune teller. Origen says that his whole
power consisted in magic and cursing. Theodoret is of opinion that
Balaam did not consult the Lord, but that he was supernaturally
inspired, and constrained to speak against his own inclination. Cyril
says that he was a magician, an idolater, and a false prophet, who spoke
truth against his will; and St. Ambrose compares him to Caiaphas, who
prophesied without being aware of the import of what he said. Jerom
seems to have adopted the opinion of the Hebrews; which was, that Balaam
knew the true God, erected altars to him, and that he was a true
prophet, though corrupted by avarice, Num. xxii, 18. St. Austin and
other commentators have inclined to this opinion. Dr. Jortin supposes
that Balaam was a worshipper of the true God, and a priest and prophet
of great reputation; and that he was sent for by Balak from a notion
which generally prevailed, that priests and prophets could sometimes, by
prayers and sacrifices duly and skilfully applied, obtain favours from
God, and that their imprecations were efficacious. He conceives that the
prophet had been accustomed to revelations, and that he used to receive
them in visions, or in dreams of the night. It cannot be denied that the
Scripture expressly calls him a prophet, 2 Pet. ii, 15, and therefore
those are probably right who think that he had once been a good man and
a true prophet, till, loving the wages of unrighteousness, and
prostituting the honour of his office to covetousness, he apostatized
from God, and, betaking himself to idolatrous practices, fell under the
delusion of the devil, of whom he learned all his magical enchantments;
though at this juncture, when the preservation of his people was
concerned, it might be consistent with God’s wisdom to appear to him and
overrule his mind by the impulse of real revelations. As to what passed
between him and his ass, when that animal was miraculously enabled to
speak to its master, commentators are divided in their opinions; whether
it really and literally happened as Moses relates it, or whether it be
an allegory only, or was the mere imagination or vision of Balaam. But
St. Peter evidently mentions it as a fact literally and certainly
occurring: “the dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice, when she forbade
the madness of the prophet,” 2 Pet. ii, 16. This, it is true, has
frequently been made the subject of profane banter by those whose
skepticism leads them to scoff at all prodigies. But how absurd is it to
subject a miraculous event to the ordinary rules of reasoning! “Say what
you will of the formation of the tongue and jaws being unfit for
speaking,” says Bishop Newton, “yet an adequate cause is assigned for
this wonderful event; for it is expressly said that ‘the Lord opened the
mouth of the ass;’ and who that believes a God, can doubt his power to
do this and much more? The miracle was by no means needless or
superfluous; it was well adapted to convince Balaam that the mouth and
tongue were under God’s direction, and that the same divine power which
caused the dumb ass to speak contrary to its nature, could, in like
manner, make him utter blessings contrary to his inclination. And,
accordingly, he was overruled to bless the people, though he came
prepared and disposed to curse them; which was the greater miracle of
the two; for the ass was merely passive, but Balaam resisted the good
motions of God.” The prophecy which Balaam delivered concerning Israel
on this remarkable occasion, and which is contained in Numbers xxiv,
5–9, has been greatly admired by critics. Bishop Lowth, in particular,
remarks that he knows nothing in the whole scope of the Hebrew poetry
more exquisite or perfect. “It abounds,” says he, “in splendid imagery,
copied immediately from the tablet of nature; and is chiefly conspicuous
for the glowing elegance of the style, and the form and diversity of the
figures.”

After his predictions, Balaam returned into his own country; but before
he left the land of Moab, as if vexed with his own disappointment in
missing the promised reward, and with a purpose of revenging himself on
the Israelites, as the cause of it, he instructed the Moabites and
Midianites in a wicked scheme, which was to send their daughters into
the camp of the Israelites, in order to draw them first into lewdness,
and then into idolatry, the certain means of depriving them of the help
of that God who protected them. This artifice succeeded; for as the
Israelites lay encamped at Shittim, many of them were deluded by these
strange women, not only to commit whoredom with them, but to assist at
their sacrifices, and worship their god Baal-Peor, Num. xxv, 1–3; xxxi,
16; Mic. vi, 5; 2 Pet. ii, 15; Jude 11; Rev. ii, 14; Deut. xxiii, 4, 5;
Joshua xxiv, 9, 10; Neh. xiii, 2. God commanded Moses to avenge this
crime. He therefore declared war against the Midianites, killed five of
their princes, and a great number of other persons without distinction
of age or sex, among whom was Balaam himself.

Moses says that Balaam consulted the Lord, and calls the Lord his God:
“I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord _my_ God,” Num. xxii,
18. The reason why Balaam calls Jehovah, “_my_ God” may be, because he
was of the posterity of Shem, who maintained the worship of Jehovah, not
only in his own person, but among his descendants; so that while the
posterity of Ham fell into idolatry, and the posterity of Japhet were
settled at a distance in Europe, the Shemites generally, though not
universally, retained the worship of God.

BALDNESS is a natural effect of old age, in which period of life the
hair of the head, wanting nourishment, falls off, and leaves the head
naked. Artificial baldness was used as a token of mourning; it is
threatened to the voluptuous daughters of Israel, instead of well set
hair, Isaiah iii, 24. See Mic. i, 16; and instances of it occur, Isaiah
xv, 2; Jer. xlvii, 5. See Ezek, vii, 18; Amos viii, 10.

The insult offered to Elisha by the young people of Bethel, improperly
rendered “little children,” who cried out after him, “Go up, thou bald
head,” may here be noticed. The town of Bethel was one of the principal
nurseries of Ahab’s idolatry, and the contempt was offered to Elisha in
his public character as a prophet of the Lord. If in the expression, “Go
up,” there was also a reference to the translation of Elijah, as turning
it into jest, this was another aggravation of the sin, to which these
young people were probably instigated by their parents. The malediction
laid upon them by the prophet was not an act of private resentment, but
evidently proceeded from prophetic impulse.

BALM, צרי, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11; Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8;
Ezek. xxvii, 17. Balm, or balsam, is used with us as a common name for
many of those oily resinous substances, which flow spontaneously or by
incision, from certain trees or plants, and are of considerable use in
medicine and surgery. It serves therefore very properly to express the
Hebrew word צרי, which the LXX have rendered ῥητίνη, and the ancients
have interpreted _resin_ indiscriminately.

BALSAM TREE, בעל־שמין; in Arabic, _abuschâm_, that is, “father of
scent,” sweet-scented. According to Mr. Bruce, the _balessan_, _balsam_,
or _balm_, is an evergreen shrub, or tree, which grows to about fourteen
feet high, spontaneously and without culture in its native country,
Azab, and all along the coast to Babelmandel. There were three kinds of
balsam extracted from this tree. The first was called _opobalsamum_, and
was most highly esteemed. It was that which flowed spontaneously, or by
means of incision, from the trunk or branches of the tree in summer
time. The second was _carpobalsamum_, made by expressing the fruit when
in maturity. The third, and least esteemed of all, was _hylobalsamum_,
made by a decoction of the buds and small young twigs. The great value
set upon this drug in the east is traced to the earliest ages. The
Ishmaelites, or Arabian carriers and merchants, trafficking with the
Arabian commodities into Egypt, brought with them צרי as a part of their
cargo, Gen. xxxvii, 25; xliii, 11. Josephus, in the history of the
antiquities of his country, says that a tree of this balsam was brought
to Jerusalem by the queen of Saba, and given among other presents to
Solomon, who, as we know from Scripture, was very studious of all sorts
of plants, and skilful in the description and distinction of them. And
here, indeed, it seems to have been cultivated and to have thriven; so
that the place of its origin, through length of time, combined with
other reasons, came to be forgotten. Notwithstanding the positive
authority of Josephus, and the great probability that attends it, we
cannot put it in competition with what we have been told in Scripture,
as we have just now seen that the place where it grew, and was sold to
merchants, was Gilead in Judea, more than 1730 years before Christ, or
1000 before the queen of Saba; so that in reading the verse, nothing can
be plainer than that it had been transplanted into Judea, flourished,
and had become an article of commerce in Gilead, long before the period
he mentions. “A company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their
camels, bearing spicery and balm, and myrrh, going to carry it down to
Egypt,” Gen. xxxvii, 25. Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Pliny, Strabo,
Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, Justin, Solinus, and Serapion, speaking of
its costliness and medicinal virtues, all say that this balsam came from
Judea. The words of Pliny are, “But to all other odours whatever, the
balsam is preferred, produced in no other part but the land of Judea,
and even there in two gardens only; both of them belonging to the king,
one no more than twenty acres, the other still smaller.” The whole
valley of Jericho was once esteemed the most fruitful in Judea; and the
obstinacy with which the Jews fought here to prevent the balsam trees
from falling into the possession of the Romans, attests the importance
which was attached to them. This tree Pliny describes as peculiar to the
vale of Jericho, and as “more like a vine than a myrtle.” It was
esteemed so precious a rarity, that both Pompey and Titus carried a
specimen to Rome in triumph; and the balsam, owing to its scarcity, sold
for double its weight in silver, till its high price led to the practice
of adulteration. Justin makes it the chief source of the national
wealth. He describes the country in which it grew, as a valley like a
garden, environed with continual hills, and, as it were, enclosed with a
wall. “The space of the valley contains 200,000 acres, and is called
Jericho. In that valley, there is wood as admirable for its fruitfulness
as for its delight, for it is intermingled with palm trees and
opobalsamum. The trees of the opobalsamum have a resemblance to fir
trees; but they are lower, and are planted and husbanded after the
manner of vines. On a set season of the year they sweat balsam. The
darkness of the place is beside as wonderful as the fruitfulness of it;
for although the sun shines no where hotter in the world, there is
naturally a moderate and perpetual gloominess of the air.” According to
Mr. Buckingham, this description is most accurate. “Both the heat and
the gloominess,” he says, “were observed by us, though darkness would be
an improper term to apply to this gloom.”

BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, a controversy that arose with Dr. Hoadly, bishop
of Bangor. That prelate, in a sermon preached before George I, asserted
that Christ was supreme in his own kingdom; that he had not delegated
his power, like temporal lawgivers during their absence, to any persons
as his vicegerents or deputies; and that the church of England, as all
other national churches, was merely a civil or human institution,
established for the purpose of diffusing and perpetuating the knowledge
and belief of Christianity. On the meeting of the convocation, a
committee was appointed to examine this publication. A heavy censure was
passed against it, as tending to subvert all government and discipline
in the church of Christ, to reduce his kingdom to a state of anarchy and
confusion, and to impugn and impeach the royal supremacy in matters
ecclesiastical, and the authority of the legislature to enforce
obedience in matters of religion, by severe sanction. To these
proceedings a sudden stop was put by proroguing the convocation; but the
controversy which had been commenced was continued for several years.

BANNER, an ensign, or standard, used by armies or caravans on their
journeys in the eastern countries. The original דגל, is rendered by
lexicographers and translators under this word, as a noun, in which form
it often occurs, _a standard_, _banner_; as a verb, once, _to set up a
banner_; Psalm xx, 5; as a participle pahul, _vexillatus_, one
distinguished by a banner, the chief; as a participle niphal, bannered,
or with banners. The meaning of the root is illustrated by the very
ingenious and sensible author of “Observations on Divers Passages of
Scripture,” who shows, from Pitts and Pococke, that, “as in Arabia and
the neighbouring countries, on account of the intense heat of the sun by
day, people generally choose to travel in the night; so, to prevent
confusion in their large caravans, particularly in the annual one to
Mecca, each company, of which the caravan consists, has its distinct
portable beacon, which is carried on the top of a pole, and consists of
several lights, which are somewhat like iron stoves, into which they put
short dry wood, with which some of the camels are loaded. Every company
has one of these poles belonging to it; some of which have ten, some
twelve, of these lights on their tops, more or less; and they are
likewise of different figures, as well as numbers; one, perhaps, in an
oval shape; another, triangular, or in the form of an M, or N, &c, so
that by these every one knows his respective company. They are carried
in the front, and set up in the place where the caravan is to pitch,
before that comes up, at some distance from one another. As travelling
then in the night must be, generally speaking, more agreeable to a great
multitude in that desert, we may believe a compassionate God, for the
most part, directed Israel to move in the night. And in consequence,
must we not rather suppose the standards of the tribes were movable
beacons, like those of the Mecca pilgrims, than flags or any thing of
that kind?” This ingenious author seems, however, to forget, 1. That the
pillar of fire was with the Israelites to direct their marches. 2. That
the Israelites were not a mere caravan, but an army; and, as such, for
order, required standards as well by day as by night. See ARMIES.

BANQUET. The hospitality of the present day in the east exactly
resembles that of the remotest antiquity. The parable of the “great
supper” is in those countries literally realized. And such was the
hospitality of ancient Greece and Rome. When a person provided an
entertainment for his friends or neighbours, he sent round a number of
servants to invite the guests; these were called _vocatores_ by the
Romans, and κλητώρες by the Greeks. The day when the entertainment is to
be given is fixed some considerable time before; and in the evening of
the day appointed, a messenger comes to bid the guests to the feast. The
custom is thus introduced in Luke: “A certain man made a great supper,
and bade many; and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that
were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready.” They were not now
asked for the first time; but had already accepted the invitation, when
the day was appointed, and were therefore already pledged to attend at
the hour when they might be summoned. They were not taken unprepared,
and could not in consistency and decency plead any prior engagement.
They could not now refuse, without violating their word, and insulting
the master of the feast, and, therefore, justly subjected themselves to
punishment. The terms of the parable exactly accord with established
custom. The Jews did not always follow the same method; sometimes they
sent a number of servants different ways among the friends they meant to
invite; and at other times, a single male domestic.

The Persians send a deputation to meet their guests: this deputation are
called openers of the way; and the more distinguished the persons sent,
and the greater the distance to which they go, so much greater is the
honour. So it is proclaimed, “Go forth and behold king Solomon, with the
crown wherewith his mother crowned him.” “The bridegroom cometh, go ye
forth to meet him.” The names of the persons to be invited were
inscribed upon tablets, and the gate was set open to receive those who
had obtained them; but to prevent any getting in that had no ticket,
only one leaf of the door was left open; and that was strictly guarded
by the servants of the family. Those who were admitted had to go along a
narrow passage to the room; and after all who had received tickets of
admission were assembled, the master of the house rose and shut to the
door; and then the entertainment began. The first ceremony, after the
guests arrived at the house of entertainment, was the salutation
performed by the master of the house, or one appointed in his place.
Among the Greeks, this was sometimes done by embracing with arms around;
but the most common salutation was by the conjunction of their right
hands, the right hand being reckoned a pledge of fidelity and
friendship. Sometimes they kissed the lips, hands, knees, or feet, as
the person deserved more or less respect. The Jews welcomed a stranger
to their house in the same way; for our Lord complains to Simon, that he
had given him no kiss, had welcomed him to his table with none of the
accustomed tokens of respect.

The custom of reclining was introduced from the nations of the east, and
particularly from Persia, where it seems to have been adopted at a very
remote period. The Old Testament Scriptures allude to both customs; but
they furnish undeniable proofs of the antiquity of sitting. As this is
undoubtedly the most natural and dignified posture, so it seems to have
been universally adopted by the first generations of men; and it was not
till after the lapse of many ages, and when degenerate man had lost much
of the firmness of his primitive character, that he began to recline.

The tables were constructed of three different parts or separate tables,
making but one in the whole. One was placed at the upper end crossways,
and the two others joined to its ends, one on each side, so as to leave
an open space between, by which the attendants could readily wait at all
the three. Round these tables were placed beds or couches, one to each
table; each of these beds was called _clinium_; and three of these being
united, to surround the three tables, made the _triclinium_. At the end
of each _clinium_ was a footstool, for the convenience of mounting up to
it. These beds were formed of mattresses, and supported on frames of
wood, often highly ornamented; the mattresses were covered with cloth or
tapestry, according to the quality of the entertainer. At the splendid
feast which Ahasuerus made for the nobles of his kingdom, beds of silver
and gold were placed round the tables; according to a custom in the east
of naming a thing from its principal ornament, these must have been
couches profusely ornamented with the precious metals. Each guest
inclined the superior part of his body upon his left arm, the lower part
being stretched out at length, or a little bent; his head was raised up,
and his back sometimes supported with pillows. In conversation, those
who spoke raised themselves almost upright, supported by cushions. When
they ate, they raised themselves on their elbow, and made use of the
right hand; which is the reason our Lord mentions the hand of Judas in
the singular number: “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the
same shall betray me,” Matt. xxvi, 23. See ACCUBATION.

When a Persian comes into an assembly, and has saluted the house, he
then measures with his eye the place to which his degree of rank
entitles him; he straightway wedges himself into the line of guests,
without offering any apology for the general disturbance which he
produces. It often happens that persons take a higher seat than that to
which they are entitled. The Persian scribes are remarkable for their
arrogance in this respect, in which they seem to bear a striking
resemblance to the Jews of the same profession in the days of our Lord.
The master of the entertainment has, however, the privilege of placing
any one as high in the rank of the assembly as he may choose. And Mr.
Morier saw an instance of it at a public entertainment to which he was
invited. When the assembly was nearly full, the governor of Kashan, a
man of humble mien, although of considerable rank, came in and seated
himself at the lowest place; when the master of the house, after
numerous expressions of welcome, pointed with his hand to an upper seat
in the assembly, to which he desired him to move, and which he
accordingly did. These circumstances furnish a beautiful and striking
illustration of the parable which our Lord uttered, when he saw how
those that were invited chose the highest places.

Before the Greeks went to an entertainment, they washed and anointed
themselves; for it was thought very indecent to appear on such an
occasion, defiled with sweat and dust; but they who came off a journey
were washed, and clothed with suitable apparel, in the house of the
entertainer, before they were admitted to the feast. When Telemachus and
Pisistratus arrived at the palace of Menelaus, in the course of their
wanderings, they were immediately supplied with water to wash, and with
oil to anoint, themselves, before they took their seats by the side of
the king. The oil used on such occasions, in the palaces of nobles and
princes, was perfumed with roses and other odoriferous herbs. They also
washed their hands before they sat down to meat. To these customary
marks of respect, to which a traveller, or one who had no house of his
own, was entitled, our Lord alludes in his defence of Mary: “And he
turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I
entered into thine house; thou gavest me no water for my feet, but she
hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her
head. Thou gavest me no kiss; but this woman, since the time I came in,
hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint;
but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment,” Luke vii, 44. Homer
mentions it as a custom quite common in those days, for daughters to
wash and afterward to anoint the feet of their parents. Our Saviour was
in the circumstances of a traveller; he had no home to wash and anoint
himself in, before he went to Simon’s house; and, therefore, had a right
to complain that his entertainer had failed in the respect that was due
to him as a stranger, at a distance from the usual place of his
residence. The Jews regularly washed their hands and their feet before
dinner; they considered this ceremony as essential, which discovers the
reason of their astonishment, when they observed the disciples of Christ
sit down at table without having observed this ceremony: “Why do thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not
their hands when they eat bread,” Matt. xv, 2. After meals they wash
them again; for, says the evangelist, “the Pharisees and all the Jews,
except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the
elders,” Mark vii, 3, 4. When they washed their hands themselves, they
plunged them into the water up to the wrists; but when others performed
this office for them, it was done by pouring it upon their hands. The
same custom prevailed in Greece, for Homer says, the attendants poured
water on the hands of their chiefs. This was a part of the service which
Elisha performed for his master Elijah; and in every instance under the
law where water was applied to the body by another, it was done, not by
plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling. To wash the feet was a mean and
servile office, and, therefore, generally performed by the female
servants of the family. It was occasionally performed, however, by
females of the highest rank; for the daughter of Cleobulus, one of the
Grecian sages, and king of Lindus, a city on the south-east part of
Rhodes, was not ashamed to wash the feet of her father’s guests. And it
was customary for them to kiss the feet of those to whom they thought a
more than common respect was due; for the daughter of Philocleon, in
Aristophanes, washed her father, anointed his feet, and, stooping down,
kissed them. The towel which was used to wipe the feet after washing,
was considered through all the east as a badge of servitude. Suetonius
mentions it as a sure mark of the intolerable pride of Caligula, the
Roman emperor, that when at supper he suffered senators of the highest
rank, sometimes to stand by his couch, sometimes at his feet, girt with
a towel. Hence it appears that this honour was a token of humiliation,
which was not, however, absolutely degrading and inconsistent with all
regard to rank. Yet our blessed Redeemer did not refuse to give his
disciples, and Judas Iscariot himself, that proof of his love and
humility.

The entertainment was conducted by a _symposiarch_, or governor of the
feast. He was, says Plutarch, one chosen among the guests, the most
pleasant and diverting in the company, that would not get drunk, and yet
would drink freely; he was to rule over the rest, to forbid any
disorder, but to encourage their mirth. He observed the temper of the
guests, and how the wine worked upon them; how every one could bear his
wine, and to endeavour accordingly to keep them all in harmony, and in
an even composure, that there might be no disquiet nor disturbance. To
do this effectually, he first proclaimed liberty to every one to drink
what he thought proper, and then observing who among them was most ready
to be disordered, mixed more water with his wine, to keep him equally
sober with the rest of the company; so that this officer took care that
none should be forced to drink, and that none, though left to their own
choice, should get intoxicated. Such, we have reason to believe, was the
governor of the feast at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which our Lord
honoured with his presence. The term ἀρχιτρίκλινος literally signifies
the governor of a place furnished with three beds; and he acted as one
having authority; for he tasted the wine before he distributed it to the
company, which, it is universally admitted, was one of the duties of a
symposiarch. Neither the name nor the act accords with the character and
situation of a guest; he must, therefore, have been the symposiarch, or
governor of the feast. The existence of such an officer among the Jews
is placed beyond a doubt, by a passage in the apocryphal book of
Ecclesiasticus, where his office is thus described: “If thou be made the
master of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the
rest; take diligent care of them, and so sit down. And when thou hast
done all thine office, take thy place, that thou mayest be merry with
them, and receive a crown for the well-ordering of the feast,”
Ecclesiasticus xxxii, 1. See ARCHITRICLINUS.

BAPTISM, from the Greek word βαπτίζω, is a rite or ceremony by which
persons are initiated into the profession of the Christian religion; or,
it is the appointed mode by which a person assumes the profession of
Christianity, or is admitted to a participation of the privileges
belonging to the disciples of Christ. It was by this mode that those who
believed the Gospel were to be separated from unbelievers, and joined to
the visible Christian church; and the rite accompanying it, or washing
with water, was probably intended to represent the washing away, or
renouncing, the impurities of some former state, viz. the sins that had
been committed, and the vicious habits that had been contracted; and to
this purpose it may be observed, that the profession of repentance
always accompanied, or was understood to accompany, the profession of
faith in Christ. That our Lord instituted such an ordinance as baptism,
is plain from the commission given to the Apostles after his
resurrection, and recorded in Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. To this rite there
is also an allusion in Mark xvi, 16; John iii, 5; Acts ii, 41; viii, 12,
36–38; xxii, 16. The design of this institution, which was to express
faith in Christ on the part of those who were baptized, and to declare
their resolution of openly professing his religion, and cultivating real
and universal holiness, appears from Rom. vi, 3, 4; 1 Peter iii, 21;
Ephes. v, 26; and Titus iii, 5. We find no account of baptism as a
distinct religious rite, before the mission of John, the forerunner of
Christ, who was called the “Baptist,” on account of his being commanded
by God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to
repent. Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites, and,
indeed, was required after contracting any kind of uncleanness. Also,
soon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom
of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their
proselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite,
and give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable that
this had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose
account of the rite of circumcision, and of the manner of performing it,
is by no means circumstantial. Or, baptism, after circumcision, might
have come into use gradually from the natural propriety of the thing,
and its easy conformity to other Jewish customs. For if no Jew could
approach the tabernacle, or temple, after the most trifling uncleanness,
without washing, much less would it be thought proper to admit a
proselyte from a state so impure and unclean as Heathenism was conceived
to be, without the same mode of purification. The antiquity of this
practice of proselyte baptism among the Jews, has been a subject of
considerable debate among divines. It is strenuously maintained by
Lightfoot. Dr. John Owen considers the opinion, that Christian baptism
came from the Jews, as destitute of all probability. On the other hand,
Mr. Wall has made it highly probable, to say the least, from many
testimonies of the Jewish writers, who without one dissenting voice
allow the fact, that the practice of Jewish baptism obtained before and
at, as well as after, our Saviour’s time. There is also a strong
intimation, even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice among
the Jews in the time of John the Baptist, John i, 25. The testimonies of
the Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because the practice,
reported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain
among them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it
pretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would
ever have become a custom among the Jews afterward. Would they begin to
proselyte persons to their religion by baptism in imitation of the
disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet if this
proselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it
must have been a mere innovation in imitation of Christians, which is
not very likely. This ceremony is performed by immersion in the oriental
churches. The practice of the western churches is, to sprinkle the water
on the head or face of the person to be baptized, except in the church
of Milan, in whose ritual it is ordered, that the head of the infant be
plunged three times into the water; the minister at the same time
pronouncing the words, “_I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost_;” importing that by this ceremony the person
baptized is received among the professors of that religion which God,
the Father of all, revealed to mankind by the ministry of his Son, and
confirmed by the miracles of his Spirit.

2. It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St.
Matthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts,
or in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never
appears elsewhere, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There
are many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical writers, as used in
baptism, which were introduced after the age of Justin Martyr, but which
are now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the
east; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the
imposition of hands. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing
with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in
public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing
without it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till
the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great
virtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the
fourth century, says the devil cannot approach those who have the
heavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to
defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the
council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism
and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be
baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted
candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest
touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his
face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the
Sunday following. They had also various other ceremonies; some of which
are now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to
this day.

3. The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue
in the church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made
such an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in
which _one_ baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this
must be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that
relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism
was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this
explication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and
not confined to the Jews, appears from Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, compared
with Acts x, 47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede
water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those
that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been
that of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called
baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn
from 1 Cor. i, 17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses,
and all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after
this, the Apostle speaks of _all_ Christians as baptized; and argues
from the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine
he would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of
God that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi, 3,
&c; Col. ii, 12; Gal. iii, 27.

4. Baptism, in early times, was only administered at Easter and
Whitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared
for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to
answer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers, were first
instituted in the second century, though they were afterward admitted
also in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daillé, was not
done till the fourth century. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or
godfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the
second century; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not
answer for themselves. The catechumens were not forward in coming to
baptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elected bishop of
Milan; and some of the fathers not till the time of their death. Some
deferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out of too much
attachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the
primitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all
antecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying
rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the
point of death. Cases of this kind occur at the beginning of the third
century. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last
gasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantius; and two of his
other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were
baptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, however, that,
though some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were
indispensably necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that
for any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an
institution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should
submit to it, is an act of disobedience to his authority, which is
inconsistent with true faith.

5. The word _baptism_ is frequently taken for _sufferings_, Mark x, 38;
Luke xii, 50; Matt. xx, 22, 23. Of expressions like these we find some
traces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote
tribulations, Psalm lxix, 1, 15; cxxiv, 4, 5; and where to be swallowed
up by the waters, and to pass through the great waters, signify to be
overwhelmed with miseries and calamities.

6. St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection of the dead, among
several other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, “If the dead
rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” 1
Cor. xv, 29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given;
three of which only shall be here mentioned. “It means,” say some,
“‘baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ,
and who are thus supported by a sucession of new converts, immediately
offering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who
advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been
slain in their sight.’” Others think it signifies, “In hope of blessings
to be received after they are numbered with the dead.” Dr. Macknight
supplies the words, τῆς ἀναϛάσεως, and reads the clause, “Who are
baptized for the resurrection of the dead;” or in consequence of their
believing in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of
which faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great
sufferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no
resurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all.

7. As to the subjects of baptism, the anti-pædobaptists hold that
believing adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of
Christ to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such
only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants,
who cannot be thus taught, ought to be excluded. “It does not appear,”
say they, “that the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ,
ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian
faith, and professed their belief of it.” They contend that infants can
receive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and
repentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites.

8. As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word βαπτίζω
signifies to _immerse_ or _dip_, and that only; that John baptized in
Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus
came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into
the water; that the terms, _washing_, _purifying_, _burying in baptism_,
so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that
immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first
Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty,
and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear
from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need
of but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that
all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration
of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from
previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of
Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

9. The Pædobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the
subjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not
been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they
think, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that,
as the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii, 7;
Heb. viii, 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that
as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant,
infants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites
had to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii, 39; Rom. iv, 11.
Farther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive
command for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come
to the Lord’s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the
week; neither of these being expressly commanded. If baptizing infants
had been a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could
have been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church,
and yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute
or controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter to a
narrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the
membership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a
religious ordinance, Gen. xvii; Gal. iii, 14, 17. (2.) That this right
of infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the
case, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has
appointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with
baptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism;
therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear
that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same
relation to God and his church in which they were originally placed
under former dispensations. That infants are to be received into the
church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following
passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii; Isa. xliv, 3; Matt. xix, 13; Luke ix,
47, 48; Acts ii, 38, 39; Rom. xi, 17, 21; 1 Cor. vii, 14.

10. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ
and his Apostles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were
excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is
difficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not
to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would
have us “receive” them, how can we keep them out of the visible church?
Beside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect
that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were
baptized, it is also probable there were children among them. From the
year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred
and fifty years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize
infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have
been scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus,
who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp,
who was John’s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned
from the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century,
affirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ
and his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the
year 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that
children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote
about 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants
had been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to
that time. “The catholic church every where declares,” says Chrysostom,
in the fifth century, “that infants should be baptized;” and Augustine
affirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or
sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They
farther believe that there needed no mention in the New Testament of
receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and
never repealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be
remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New
Testament, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized
in adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for
baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as
much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism;
since they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the
other. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and
a great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if
this be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if
they be capable of enjoying the thing signified?

11. As to the mode, the Pædobaptists deny that the term βαπτίζω, which
is a derivative of βάπτω, and, consequently, must be something less in
its signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express
plunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning;
that Christ absolutely enjoined immersion; and that it is his positive
will that no other mode should be used. As the word βαπτίζω is used to
express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling,
pouring, &c, Heb. ix, 10, for the custom of washing before meals, and
the washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence
that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by
immersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the
application of water in some form or other. It no where signifies _to
dip_, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing;
and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute;
just as in the Lord’s Supper, the time of day, the number and posture of
the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are
circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in
baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the
Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the
Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of
divine influences, Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16–22; John
i, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16. The term
_sprinkling_, also, is made use of in reference to the act of
purification, Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. ix, 13, 14; and
therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But, it is
observed, that John baptized “_in_ Jordan:” to this it is replied, To
infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle,
would, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek
preposition, ἐν, is used when it is said they should be “baptized with
fire;” but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The
Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, ἐν, “by water only;”
but, ἐν, “by water and blood.” There the same word, ἐν, is translated
_by_; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which
we could say he came _in_ water. It has been remarked that ἐν is, more
than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered _at_; and in a
hundred and fifty others it is translated _with_. If it be rendered so
here, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no
proof that he plunged his disciples in it.

Jesus, it is said, came up _out of_ the water; but this is no proof that
he was immersed, as the Greek term, ἀπὸ, often signifies _from_: for
instance, “Who hath warned you to flee _from_,” not _out of_, “the wrath
to come?” with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged
that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is
answered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the
expression of their going down _into_ the water necessarily includes
dipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The preposition
εἰς, translated _into_, often signifies no more than _to_, or _unto_:
see Matt. xv, 24; Rom. x, 10; Acts xxviii, 14; Matt. iii, 11; xvii, 27:
so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was
one person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As
to the Apostle’s expression, “buried with him in baptism,” that has no
force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a
custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has
any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is
here alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly
life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we
may live a new life of faith and love.

To conclude: it is urged, against the mode of immersion, that, as it
carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the
Gospel dispensation; as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance;
as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject
unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed
utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body
would, in all probability, be instant death; as in other situations it
would be impracticable, for want of water; it cannot be considered as
necessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest
improbability that it was ever practised in the times of the New
Testament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian church.

BAPTISTS, or ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS, so called from their rejecting the
baptism of infants. The Baptists in England form one of “the three
denominations of Protestant Dissenters.” The constitution of their
churches, and their modes of worship, are congregational, or
independent. They bore a considerable share in the sufferings of the
seventeenth and preceding centuries: for there were many among the
Lollards and Wickliffites who disapproved of infant baptism. There were
also many of this faith among the Protestants and Reformers abroad. In
Holland, Germany, and the north, they went by the names of Anabaptists
and Mennonites; and in Piedmont and the south, they were found among the
Albigenses and Waldenses. The Baptists subsist chiefly under two
denominations,--the Particular or Calvinistical, and the General or
Arminian. The former is by far the most numerous. Some of both
denominations, General and Particular, allow of free or mixed communion;
admitting to the Lord’s table pious persons who have not been immersed,
while others consider that as an essential requisite to communion. These
are sometimes called Strict Baptists. Other societies of this
denomination observe the seventh day of the week as their Sabbath,
apprehending the original law of the Sabbath to remain in force,
unaltered and unrepealed. These are called Seventh-day Baptists. A
considerable number of the General Baptists have gone into Unitarianism;
in consequence of which, those who maintained the doctrines of the
Trinity and atonement, in the latter part of the eighteenth century,
formed themselves into what is called “The New Connection,” or
Association. These preserve a friendly correspondence with their other
brethren in things which concern the general interests of the
denomination, but hold no religious communion with them. Some
congregations of General Baptists admit three distinct orders of church
officers: messengers or ministers, elders, and deacons. The Baptists in
America, and in the East and West Indies, are chiefly Calvinists; but
most of them admit of free communion. The Scottish Baptists form a
distinct denomination, and are distinguished by several peculiarities of
church government. “No trace can be found of a Baptist church in
Scotland,” says Mr. Jones, “excepting one which appears to have been
formed out of Cromwell’s army, previous to 1765, when a church was
settled at Edinburgh, under the pastoral care of Mr. Carmichael and Mr.
Archibald M’Lean. Others have since been formed at Dundee, Glasgow, and
in most of the principal towns of Scotland:” also at London, and in
various parts of England. They think that the order of public worship,
which uniformly obtained in the Apostolic churches, is clearly set forth
in Acts ii, 42–47; and therefore they endeavour to follow it out to the
utmost of their power. They require a plurality of elders in every
church, administer the Lord’s Supper, and make contributions for the
poor every first day of the week. The prayers and exhortations of the
brethren form a part of their church order, under the direction and
control of the elders, to whom it exclusively belongs to preside in
conducting the worship, to rule in cases of discipline, and to labour in
the word and doctrine, in distinction from the brethren exhorting one
another. The elders are all laymen, generally chosen from among the
brethren; but, when circumstances require, are supported by their
contributions. They approve also of persons who are properly qualified
for it, being appointed by the church to preach the Gospel and baptize,
though not vested with any pastoral charge. The discipline and
government of the Scottish Baptists are strictly congregational.

BARACHIAS, the father of Zacharias, mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35, as slain
between the temple and the altar. There is a great diversity of opinions
concerning the person of this Zacharias, the son of Barachias. Some
think him to be Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada, who was killed by the
orders of Joash, between the temple and the altar, 2 Chron. xxiv, 21.
Campbell thinks, with Father Simon, that Jehoiada had two names,
Barachias and Jehoiada. See ZACHARIAS.

BARAK, son of Abinoam, chosen by God to deliver the Hebrews from that
bondage under which they were held by Jabin, king of the Canaanites,
Judges iv, 4, 5, &c. He refused to obey the Lord’s commands, signified
to him by Deborah, the prophetess, unless she consented to go with him.
Deborah accompanied Barak toward Kedesh of Naphtali; and, having
assembled ten thousand men, they advanced to mount Tabor. Sisera, being
informed of this movement, marched with nine hundred chariots of war,
and encamped near the river Kishon. Barak rapidly descended from mount
Tabor, and the Lord having spread terror through Sisera’s army Barak
easily obtained a complete victory. Sisera was killed by Jael. Barak and
Deborah composed a hymn of thanksgiving; and the land had peace forty
years from A. M. 2719 to 2759, B. C. 1245.

BARBARIAN. The word לעו (rendered _barbarian_; LXX, βάρβαρος,) in the
Hebrew sense of it, signifies _a stranger_; one who knows neither the
holy language nor the law. According to the notions of the Greeks, all
nations who were not Greeks, or not governed by laws like the Greeks,
were barbarians. The Persians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabians, Gauls,
Germans, and even the Romans, were, in their phraseology, barbarians,
however learned or polite they might be in themselves. St. Paul
comprehends all mankind under the names of Greeks and barbarians: “I am
a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians; to the wise and to
the unwise,” Rom. i, 14. St. Luke calls the inhabitants of the island of
Malta barbarians, Acts xxviii, 2, 4. St. Paul, writing to the
Colossians, uses the terms _barbarian_ and _Scythian_ almost in the same
signification. In 1 Cor. xiv, 11, he says, that if he who speaks a
foreign language in an assembly be not understood by those to whom he
discourses, with respect to them he is a barbarian; and, reciprocally,
if he understand not those who speak to him, they are to him barbarians.
Barbarian, therefore, is used for every stranger or foreigner who does
not speak our native language, and includes no implication whatever of
savage nature or manners in those respecting whom it is used. It is most
probably derived from _berbir_, “a shepherd;” whence _Barbary_, the
country of wandering shepherds; _Bedouins_, _Sceni_, _Scythei_, as if,
wanderers in tents; therefore barbarians.

BAR-JESUS, or, according to some copies, BAR-JEU, was a Jewish magician
in the island of Crete, Acts xiii, 6. St. Luke calls him Elymas. He was
with the pro-consul Sergius Paulus, who, sending for Paul and Barnabas,
desired to hear the word of God. Bar-Jesus endeavouring to hinder the
pro-consul from embracing Christianity, Paul, filled with the Holy
Ghost, “set his eyes upon him, and said, O full of all subtilty and
mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt
thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Behold, the hand
of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun
for a season;” which took place immediately. The pro-consul, who saw
this miracle, was converted. Origen and Chrysostom think that Elymas, or
Bar-Jesus, was converted likewise; and that St. Paul speedily restored
his sight.

BARLEY, שערה, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xxvii, 16, &c;; a well-known kind of
grain. It derives its Hebrew name from the long hairy beard which grows
upon the ear. Pliny, on the testimony of Menander, says that barley was
the most ancient aliment of mankind. In Palestine the barley was sown
about October, and reaped in the end of March, just after the passover.
In Egypt the barley harvest was later; for when the hail fell there,
Exodus ix, 31, a few days before the passover, the flax and barley were
bruised and destroyed: for the flax was at its full growth, and the
barley began to form its green ears; but the wheat, and more backward
grain, were not damaged, because they were only in the blade, and the
hail bruised the young shoots which produce the ears.

The rabbins sometimes called barley the food of beasts, because in
reality they fed their cattle with it, 1 Kings iv, 28; and from Homer
and other ancient writers we learn, that barley was given to horses. The
Hebrews, however, frequently used barley bread, as we find by several
passages of Scripture: for example, David’s friends brought to him in
his flight wheat, barley, flour, &c, 2 Sam. xvii, 28. Solomon sent
wheat, barley, oil, and wine, to the labourers King Hiram had furnished
him, 2 Chron. ii, 15. Elijah had a present made him, of twenty barley
loaves, and corn in the husk, 2 Kings iv, 22. And, by miraculously
increasing the five barley loaves, Christ fed a multitude of about five
thousand, John vi, 8–10. The jealousy-offering, in the Levitical
institution, was to be barley meal, Num. v, 15. The common mincha, or
offering, was of fine wheat flour, Lev. ii, 1; but this was of barley, a
meaner grain, probably to denote the vile condition of the person in
whose behalf it was offered. For which reason, also, there was no oil or
frankincense permitted to be offered with it. Sometimes barley is put
for a low, contemptible reward or price. So the false prophets are
charged with seducing the people for handfuls of barley, and morsels of
bread, Ezek. xiii, 19. Hosea bought his emblematic bride for fifteen
pieces of silver, and a homer and a half of barley, Hosea iii, 2.

BARNABAS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, and companion of St. Paul in his
labours. He was a Levite, born in the isle of Cyprus. His proper name
was Joses, to which the Apostles added Barnabas, signifying _the son of
consolation_. He is generally considered one of the seventy disciples,
chosen by our Saviour. He was brought up with Paul at the feet of
Gamaliel. When that Apostle came to Jerusalem, three years after his
conversion, Barnabas introduced him to the other Apostles, Acts ix, 26,
27, about A. D. 37. Five years afterward, the church at Jerusalem, being
informed of the progress of the Gospel at Antioch, sent Barnabas
thither, who beheld with great joy the wonders of the grace of God, Acts
xi, 22, 24. He exhorted the faithful to perseverance. Some time
afterward, he went to Tarsus, to seek Paul, and bring him to Antioch,
where they jointly laboured two years, and converted great numbers; and
here the disciples were first called Christians. They left Antioch A. D.
44, to convey alms from this church to that at Jerusalem. At their
return they brought John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. While they were
at Antioch, the Holy Ghost directed that they should be separated for
those labours among the Gentiles to which he had appointed them. They
departed into Cyprus, where they converted Sergius Paulus, the
pro-consul. They preached at Perga in Pamphylia without much success, by
reason of the obstinacy and malice of the Jews; but being come to
Iconium, they made many converts. Here the Jews stirred up a sedition,
and obliged them to retire to Derbe and Lystra, in Lycaonia, where St.
Paul curing one Æneas, who had been lame from his birth, the people of
Lystra regarded them as gods; calling Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul,
Mercury; and would have sacrificed to them, which the two Apostles with
great difficulty hindered: nevertheless, soon afterward, they were
persecuted in this very city. Having revisited the cities through which
they had passed, and where they had preached the Gospel, they returned
to Antioch in Syria.

In A. D. 51, Barnabas was sent with Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem, on
occasion of disputes concerning the observance of legal rites, to which
the Jews wished to subject the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas were present
in the council at Jerusalem, and returned immediately to Antioch. Peter,
arriving there soon afterward, was led to countenance, in some degree,
by his conduct, the observance of the Mosaic distinctions. Barnabas,
too, (who, being by descent a Levite, might retain some former notions,)
used the like dissimulation: but Paul reproved Peter and Barnabas with
great freedom. Paul afterward determining to visit the churches in the
isle of Cyprus, and in Asia Minor, Barnabas desired that John Mark might
accompany them: but Paul objected, because Mark had left them on the
first journey. Hereupon the two Apostles separated: Paul went toward
Asia; and Barnabas, with Mark, to Cyprus. This is all we know certainly
concerning Barnabas.

There is extant among the writings of the fathers an epistle which is
attributed to Barnabas; though, being without an inscription, it is not
known to whom it professes to have been addressed. It was first
published by Archbishop Usher, in Greek and Latin, and translated by
Archbishop Wake, in his “Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers,”
and has often been reprinted. That it is not the production of Barnabas,
the companion of Paul, may be safely concluded from internal evidence;
though it may have been written by some other person of the same name.
There is also a tract which goes by the name of, “The Gospel of
Barnabas,” still extant; from which Dr. White, at the end of his Bampton
Lectures, has given extracts sufficiently copious to satisfy any
impartial mind that it is spurious.

BARRENNESS. This was looked upon as reproachful among the Greeks and
Romans, but more particularly so among the Jews; which may be accounted
for by the constant expectation of Messiah, and the hope that every
woman had, that she might be the mother of the promised seed. This
constant hope of the speedy coming of the great “Seed of the woman”
serves also to account for many circumstances in the Old Testament
history. “Couple it,” says the Rev. J. J. Blunt, “with this
consideration, and I see the scheme of revelation, like the physical
scheme, proceeding with beautiful uniformity: a unity of plan
‘connecting,’ as it has been well said by Paley, ‘the chicken roosting
upon its perch with the spheres revolving in the firmament;’ and a unity
of plan connecting in like manner the meanest accidents of a household
with the most illustrious visions of a prophet. Abstracted from this
consideration, I see in the history of Moses details of actions, some
trifling, some even offensive, pursued at a length (when compared with
the whole) singularly disproportionate; while things which the angels
would desire to look into are passed over and forgotten. But this
principle once admitted, all is consecrated; all assumes a new aspect;
trifles, that seem at first not bigger than a man’s hand, occupy the
heavens; and wherefore Sarah laughed, for instance, at the prospect of a
son, and wherefore that laugh was rendered immortal in his name; and
wherefore the sacred historian dwells on a matter so trivial, whilst the
world and its vast concerns were lying at his feet, I can fully
understand. For then I see the hand of God shaping every thing to his
own ends, and in an event thus casual, thus easy, thus unimportant,
telling forth his mighty design of salvation to the world, and working
it up into the web of his noble prospective counsels, Gen. xxi, 6. I see
that nothing is great or little before Him who can bend to his purposes
whatever he willeth, and convert the light-hearted and thoughtless
mockery of an aged woman into an instrument of his glory, effectual as
the tongue of the seer which he touched with living coals from the
altar. Bearing this master-key in my hand, I can interpret the scenes of
domestic mirth, of domestic stratagem, or of domestic wickedness, with
which the history of Moses abounds. The Seed of the woman, that was to
bruise the serpent’s head, Gen. iii, 15, however indistinctly
understood, (and probably it was understood very indistinctly,) was the
one thing longed for in the families of old; was ‘the desire of all
nations,’ as the Prophet Haggai expressly calls it, Hag. ii, 7; and,
provided they could accomplish this desire, they (like others, when
urged by an overpowering motive) were often reckless of the means, and
rushed upon deeds which they could not defend. Then did the wife forget
her jealousy, and provoke, instead of resenting, the faithlessness of
her husband, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3, 9; then did the mother forget a
parent’s part, and teach her own child treachery and deceit, Gen. xxv,
23; xxvii, 13; then did daughters turn the instincts of nature backward,
and deliberately work their own and their father’s shame, Gen. xix, 31;
then did the daughter-in-law veil her face, and court the incestuous
bed, Gen. xxxviii, 14; and to be childless, was to be a by-word, Gen.
xvi, 5; xxx, 1; and to refuse to raise up seed to a brother, was to be
spit upon, Gen. xxxviii, 26; Deut. xxv, 9; and the prospect of the
promise, like the fulfilment of it, did not send peace into families,
but a sword; and three were set against two, and two against three, Gen.
xxvii, 41; and the elder, who would be promoted unto honour, was set
against the younger, whom God would promote, Gen. iv, 5; xxvii, 41; and
national differences were engendered by it, as individuals grew into
nations, Gen. xix, 37; xxvi, 35; and even the foulest of idolatries may
be traced, perhaps, to this hallowed source; for the corruption of the
best is the worst corruption of all, Num. xxv, 1, 2, 3. It is upon this
principle of interpretation, and I know not upon what other so well,
that we may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who have made
those parts of the Mosaic history a stumbling-block to many, which, if
rightly understood, are the very testimony of the covenant; and a
principle which is thus extensive in its application and successful in
its results; which explains so much that is difficult, and answers so
much that is objected against, has, from this circumstance alone, strong
presumption in its favour, strong claims upon our sober regard.”

BARSABAS. Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus, was one of the first
disciples of Jesus Christ, and probably one of the seventy. When St.
Peter proposed to the disciples to fill up the place of Judas the
traitor, by choosing another Apostle, Acts i, 21, Barsabas was nominated
along with Matthias; but the lot fell on Matthias, who was therefore
numbered with the eleven Apostles. We know nothing farther of the life
of this Barsabas.

2. BARSABAS was also the surname of Judas, one of the principal
disciples mentioned, Acts xv, 22, &c. Barsabas and some others were sent
by the Apostles, with Paul and Barnabas, to Antioch, and carried a
letter with them from the Apostles, signifying what the council at
Jerusalem had decreed. After the reading of the letter to the brethren,
which was received with joy, Barsabas and Silas continued here some time
longer, instructing and confirming the brethren; after which Silas and
Barsabas returned to Jerusalem. This is all we know of Barsabas Judas.

BARTHOLOMEW, one of the twelve Apostles, Matt. x, 3, is supposed to be
the same person who is called Nathanael, one of the first of Christ’s
disciples. This opinion is founded on the circumstance, that as the
evangelist John never mentions Bartholomew in the number of the
Apostles, so the other evangelists never mention Nathanael. And as in
John i, 45, Philip and Nathanael are mentioned together as coming to
Jesus, so in the other evangelists Philip and Bartholomew are constantly
associated together. The supposition also acquires additional
probability from considering, that Nathanael is particularly mentioned
among the Apostles to whom Christ appeared at the sea of Tiberias, after
his resurrection; Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael, of Cana in
Galilee; the sons of Zebedee, namely, James and John; with two other of
his disciples, probably Andrew and Philip, John xxi, 2. It is an early
tradition, that Bartholomew propagated the faith as far as India, and
also in the more northern and western parts of Asia, and that he finally
suffered martyrdom. But all the particulars respecting the life and
labours of the Apostles, not mentioned in the New Testament, are
exceedingly uncertain.

BARUCH, the son of Neriah, and grandson of Maaseiah, was of illustrious
birth, and of the tribe of Judah. He had a brother of the name of
Seraiah, who occupied an important station in the court of King
Zedekiah; but he himself adhered to the person of the Prophet Jeremiah,
and was his most steady friend, though his attachment to him drew on
himself several persecutions and much ill treatment. He appears to have
acted as his secretary during a great part of his life, and never left
him till they were parted by death. In the reign of Jehoiakim, king of
Judah, A. M. 3398, Jeremiah having been thrown into prison, the Lord
commanded him to commit to writing all the prophecies that he had
delivered until that time. He accordingly sent for Baruch, and dictated
them to him by word of mouth. Some time afterward he instructed the
latter to go and read them to the people, who were then assembled in the
temple; on which Michaiah, who happened to be present, and heard them,
instantly gave notice of them to the king’s counsellors. The latter
immediately sent for Baruch, and commanded him to repeat to them what he
had been reading to the people in the temple; which he accordingly did,
to their great astonishment: and, finding that they contained some very
unwelcome tidings respecting the fate of the kingdom, they inquired how
he came into possession of them; intimating that their duty to the king
required that they should make him acquainted therewith. Baruch was at
the same time advised to consult his own safety, and to let no man know
where he was to be found; after which they took from him the roll of his
prophecies, and deposited it in the chamber of Elishama, the scribe.
They next waited on the king, and told him what had passed. The latter
sent Jehudi to fetch the book; which being brought, Jehoiakim commanded
it to be read in his presence, and in the presence of his nobles who
surrounded him. But Jehudi had not proceeded far before the king took
the book, cut it with his secretary’s penknife, and threw it into the
fire, where it was consumed before their faces. He at the same time gave
orders to have both Baruch and Jeremiah seized; but the hand of
Providence concealed them from his fury.

Jeremiah was instructed a second time to commit his prophecies to
writing; and Baruch wrote them as before, with the addition of several
others which were not contained in the former book. In the fourth year
of the reign of Zedekiah, Baruch went to Babylon, carrying with him a
long letter from Jeremiah, in which the Prophet foretold the judgments
that should come upon Babylon, and promised the Jews, who were then
captives in that country, that they should again be restored to their
own land. The latter were exceedingly affected at hearing Jeremiah’s
letter read to them, and returned an answer to their brethren at
Jerusalem. After his return to Jerusalem, Baruch continued his constant
attendance on Jeremiah; and when Jerusalem was besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar, and Jeremiah thrown into prison, Baruch also was
confined with him: but when the city had surrendered, Nebuzaraddan
showed him much kindness, granted him his liberty, and permitted him to
go with Jeremiah wherever he chose.

The remnant of the people who had been left in Judea under the care of
Gedaliah, having adopted the resolution of going into Egypt, and finding
that Jeremiah opposed their taking that journey, threw the blame upon
Baruch; insinuating that the latter had influenced the Prophet to
declare against it. They were, however, both of them at last compelled
to follow the people into Egypt, where Jeremiah soon afterward died; on
which Baruch retired to Babylon, where the rabbins say he also died in
the twelfth year of the captivity, Jer. xxxvi; xliii. The book of Baruch
is justly placed among the apocryphal writings. Grotius thinks it a
fiction written by some Hellenistic Jew; and St. Jerome gives as the
reason why he did not write a commentary upon it, that the Jews
themselves did not deem it canonical.

BASHAN, or BASAN, one of the most fertile cantons of Canaan, which was
bounded on the west by the river Jordan, on the east by the mountains of
Gilead, on the south by the brook of Jabbok, and on the north by the
land of Geshur. The whole kingdom took its name from the hill of Bashan,
which is situated in the middle of it, and by the Greeks is called
Batanæa. It had no less than sixty walled towns in it, beside villages.
It afforded an excellent breed of cattle, and stately oaks, and was, in
short, a plentiful and populous country. Og, king of the Amorites,
possessed this country when Moses made the conquest thereof. In the
division of the Holy Land, it was assigned to the half tribe of
Manasseh. Of the present state of this portion of the ancient
possessions of the Israelites, Mr. Buckingham, in his Travels, gives the
following account: “We ascended the steep on the north side of the
Zerkah, or Jabbok; and, on reaching the summit, came again on a
beautiful plain, of an elevated level, and still covered with a very
rich soil. We had now quitted the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites,
and entered into that of Og, the king of Bashan, both of them well known
to all the readers of the early Scriptures. We had quitted too, the
districts apportioned to the tribes of Reuben and of Gad, and entered
that part which was allotted to the half tribe of Manasseh, beyond
Jordan eastward, leaving the land of the children of Ammon on our right,
or to the east of the Jabbok, which, according to the authority before
quoted, divided Ammon, or Philadelphia, from Gerasa. The mountains here
are called the land of Gilead in the Scriptures, and in Josephus; and,
according to the Roman division, this was the country of the Decapolis,
so often spoken of in the New Testament, or the province of Gaulonitis,
from the city of Gaulon, its early capital. We continued our way over
this elevated tract, continuing to behold, with surprise and admiration,
a beautiful country on all sides of us: its plains covered with a
fertile soil, its hills clothed with forests; at every new turn
presenting the most magnificent landscapes that could be imagined. Among
the trees, the oak was frequently seen; and we know that this territory
produced them of old. In enumerating the sources from which the supplies
of Tyre were drawn in the time of her great wealth and naval splendour,
the Prophet says, ‘Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars,’
Ezek. xxvii, 6. Some learned commentators indeed, believing that no oaks
grew in these supposed desert regions, have translated the word by
‘alders,’ to prevent the appearance of inaccuracy in the inspired
writer. The expression of ‘the fat bulls of Bashan,’ which occurs more
than once in the Scriptures, seemed to us equally inconsistent, as
applied to the beasts of a country generally thought to be a desert, in
common with the whole tract which is laid down in our modern maps as
such between the Jordan and the Euphrates; but we could now fully
comprehend, not only that the bulls of this luxuriant country might be
proverbially fat, but that its possessors, too, might be a race renowned
for strength and comeliness of person. The general face of this region
improved as we advanced farther in it; and every new direction of our
path opened upon us views which surprised and charmed us by their
grandeur and their beauty. Lofty mountains gave an outline of the most
magnificent character; flowing beds of secondary hills softened the
romantic wildness of the picture; gentle slopes, clothed with wood, gave
a rich variety of tints, hardly to be imitated by the pencil; deep
valleys, filled with murmuring streams and verdant meadows, offered all
the luxuriance of cultivation; and herds and flocks gave life and
animation to scenes as grand, as beautiful, and as highly picturesque as
the genius or taste of a Claude could either invent or desire.”

BASILIDEANS, the followers of Basilides of Alexandria, a gnostic leader
of the early part of the second century. See GNOSTICS.

BASTARD, one born out of wedlock. A bastard among the Greeks was
despised, and exposed to public scorn, on account of his spurious
origin. In Persia the son of a concubine is never placed on a footing
with the legitimate offspring; any attempt made by parental fondness to
do so would be resented by the relations of the legitimate wife, and
outrage the feelings of a whole tribe. The Jewish father bestowed as
little attention on the education of his natural children as the Greek:
he seems to have resigned them, in a great measure, to their own
inclinations; he neither checked their passions, nor corrected their
faults, nor stored their minds with useful knowledge. This is evidently
implied in these words of the Apostle: “If ye endure chastening, God
dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father
chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are
partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons,” Heb. xii, 7, 8. To
restrain the licentious desires of the heart, Jehovah by an express law
fixed a stigma upon the bastard, which was not to be removed till the
tenth generation; and to show that the precept was on no account to be
violated, or suffered to fall into disuse, it is emphatically repeated,
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to
his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the
Lord,” Deut. xxiii, 2.

BASTINADO, the punishment of beating with sticks. It is also called
_tympanum_, [a drum,] because the patient was beaten like a drum.
Upwards of a hundred blows were often inflicted, and sometimes the
beating was unto death. St. Paul, Heb. xi, 35, says that some of the
saints were _tortured_, τυμπανίζω, suffered the tympanum, that is, were
stretched on an instrument of torture, and beaten to death.

BAT, עטלף, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Isaiah ii, 20; Baruch vi, 22. The
Jewish legislator, having enumerated the animals legally unclean, as
well beasts as birds, closes his catalogue with a creature whose
equivocal properties seem to exclude it from both those classes: it is
too much a bird to be properly a mouse, and too much a mouse to be
properly a bird. The bat is therefore well described in Deut. xiv, 18,
19, as the passage should be read, “Moreover the _othelaph_, and _every
creeping thing that flieth_, is unclean to you: they shall not be
eaten.” This character is very descriptive, and places this creature at
the head of a class of which he is a clear and well-known instance. It
has feet or claws growing out of its pinions, and contradicts the
general order of nature, by creeping with the instruments of its flight.
The Hebrew name of the bat is from עטל _darkness_, and עמ _to fly_, as
if it described “the flier in darkness.” So the Greeks called the
creature νυκτερὶς, from νὺξ, _night_; and the Latins, _vespertilio_,
from _vesper_, “evening.” It is prophesied, Isaiah ii, 20, “In that day
shall they cast away their idols to the moles and to the bats;” that is,
they shall carry them into the dark caverns, old ruins, or desolate
places, to which they shall fly for refuge, and so shall give them up,
and relinquish them to the filthy animals that frequent such places, and
have taken possession of them as their proper habitation.

BATH, a measure of capacity for things liquid, being the same with the
ephah, Ezek. xlv, 11, and containing ten homers, or seven gallons and
four pints.

BATH-KOL, בח־קול, _daughter of the voice_. By this name the Jewish
writers distinguish what they called a revelation from God, after verbal
prophecy had ceased in Israel; that is, after the prophets Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their traditions and customs
are founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend that God revealed them to
their elders, not by prophecy, but by the _daughter of the voice_. The
Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of divination,
invented by the Jews, like the _Sortes Virgilianæ_ [divination by the
works of Virgil] among the Heathen. For, as with them, the words first
opened upon in the works of that poet, was the oracle whereby they
prognosticated those future events which they desired to be informed of;
so with the Jews when they appealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which
they should hear drop from any one’s mouth were taken as the desired
oracle. With some it is probable that Bath-Kol, _the daughter of the
voice_, was only an elegant personification of _tradition_. Others,
however, more bold, said that it was a voice from heaven, sometimes
attended by a clap of thunder.

BATTLE. See ARMIES.

BAXTERIANISM, a modification of the Calvinistic doctrine of election
advocated by the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of “Universal
Redemption,” and in his “_Methodus Theologiæ_.” The real author of the
scheme, at least in a systematized form, was Camero, who taught divinity
at Saumur, and it was unfolded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus,
whom Curcellæus refuted. Baxter says, in his preface to his “Saint’s
Rest,” “The middle way which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus,
Davenant, with all the divines of Britain and Bremen in the synod of
Dort, go, I think is nearest the truth of any that I know who have
written on these points.” Baxter first differs from the majority of
Calvinists, though not from all, in his statement of the doctrine of
satisfaction:--

“Christ’s sufferings were not a _fulfilling_ of the _law’s threatening_;
(though he bore its _curse materially_;) but a satisfaction for our _not
fulfilling_ the _precept_, and to prevent _God’s fulfilling_ the
_threatening_ on us. Christ paid not, therefore, the _idem_, but the
_tantundem_, or _æquivalens_; not the _very debt_ which we owed and the
law required, but the _value_: (else it were not _strictly
satisfaction_, which is _redditio æquivalentis_: [the rendering of an
equivalent:]) and (it being improperly called the _paying of a debt_,
but properly _a suffering for the guilty_) the _idem_ is nothing but
_supplicium delinquentis_. [The punishment of the guilty individual.] In
_criminals_, _dum alius solvet simul aliud solvitur_. [When another
suffers, it is another thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth no
_vicarius pœnæ_; [substitute in punishment;] though the _law maker_
may admit it, as he is _above law_; else there were no place for
_pardon_, if the _proper debt_ be paid and the _law not relaxed_, but
_fulfilled_. Christ did neither _obey_ nor _suffer_ in any man’s
_stead_, by a _strict, proper representation_ of his _person_ in point
of law; so as that the _law_ should take it, as done or suffered by the
_party himself_. But only as a _third person_, as a _mediator_, he
voluntarily bore what else the sinner should have borne. To assert the
contrary (especially as to particular persons considered in actual sin)
is to overthrow all Scripture theology, and to introduce all
Antinomianism; to overthrow all possibility of pardon, and assert
justification before we sinned or were born, and to make _ourselves_ to
have satisfied God. Therefore, we must not say that _Christ died nostro
loco_, [in our stead,] so as to _personate us_, or _represent our
persons_ in _law sense_; but only to bear what else we must have borne.”

This system explicitly asserts, that Christ made a satisfaction by his
death equally for the sins of every man; and thus Baxter essentially
differs both from the higher Calvinists, and, also, from the
Sublapsarians, who, though they may allow that the reprobate derive some
benefits from Christ’s death, so that there is a vague sense in which he
may be said to have died for all men, yet they, of course, deny to such
the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction or atonement which Baxter contends
for:--

“Neither the law, whose curse Christ bore, nor God, as the legislator to
be satisfied, did distinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or as
believers and unbelievers, _de presenti vel de futuro_; [with regard to
the present or the future;] and to impose upon Christ, or require from
him satisfaction for the sins of one sort more than of another, but for
mankind in general. God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, now dealeth
with no man upon the mere rigorous terms of the first law; (_obey
perfectly and live, else thou shalt die_;) but giveth to all much mercy,
which, according to the tenor of that violated law, they could not
receive, and calleth them to repentance, in order to their receiving
farther mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at
last according to the mere law of works, but as they have obeyed or not
obeyed his conditions or terms of grace. It was not the _sins_ of the
_elect only_, but of all _mankind fallen_, which lay upon Christ
satisfying. And to assert the contrary, injuriously diminisheth the
honour of his sufferings; and hath other desperate ill consequences.”

The benefits derived to all men _equally_, from the satisfaction of
Christ, he thus states:--

“All mankind, _immediately_ upon Christ’s satisfaction, are redeemed and
delivered from that legal necessity of perishing which they were under,
(not by remitting sin or punishment directly to them, but by giving up
God’s _jus puniendi_ [right of punishing] into the hands of the
Redeemer; nor by giving any right directly to them, but _per meram
resultantiam_ [by mere consequence] this happy change is made for them
in their relation, upon the said remitting of God’s right and advantage
of justice against them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as their
owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a
tendency to their recovery. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath
freely, without any prerequisite condition on man’s part, enacted a law
of grace of universal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he
giveth, as a deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his following
benefits which he bestoweth; (as benefactor and legislator;) and this to
all alike, without excluding any; upon condition they believe and accept
the offer. By this law, testament, or covenant, _all men are
conditionally_ pardoned, justified, and reconciled to God already, and
no man absolutely; nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of
any, till men’s performance or non-performance of the condition makes a
difference. In the new law Christ hath truly _given himself_ with a
_conditional pardon_, _justification_, and _conditional right to
salvation_, to all men in the _world, without exception_.”

But the peculiarity of Baxter’s scheme will be seen from the following
farther extracts:--

“Though Christ _died equally for all men_, in the aforesaid _law sense_,
as he satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving himself to _all
alike_ in the _conditional covenant_; yet he _never properly intended or
purposed the actual justifying and saving of all_, nor of any but those
that come to be justified and saved; he did not, therefore, die for all,
nor for any that perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, _much
less did he die for all alike, as to this intent_. Christ hath given
_faith_ to none by his law or testament, though he hath revealed, that
to some he will, as benefactor and _Dominus Absolutus_, [absolute Lord,]
give that grace which shall infallibly produce it; and God hath given
some to Christ that he might prevail with them accordingly; yet this is
no giving _it to the person_, nor hath he in himself ever the more title
to it, nor can any lay claim to it as their due. It belongeth not to
Christ as _satisfier_, nor yet as _legislator_, to make wicked refusers
to become willing, and receive him and the benefits which he offers;
therefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed, though he cure
not their unbelief. Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and so is
all the good which we do enjoy,) but not _directly_, as it is
_satisfaction_ to _justice_; but only _remotely_, as it proceedeth from
that _jus dominii_ [right of dominion] which Christ has received to send
the Spirit in what measure and TO WHOM HE WILL, and to succeed it
accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the farther
ends of his death in the certain gathering and saving of THE ELECT.”

Thus the whole theory amounts to this, that, although a _conditional
salvation_ has been purchased by Christ for all men, and is offered to
them, and all legal difficulties are removed out of the way of their
pardon as sinners by the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased for
any man the gift of FAITH, _or the power of performing the condition of
salvation required_; but gives this to some, and does not give it to
others, by virtue of that _absolute dominion_ over men which he has
purchased for himself, so that, as the Calvinists refer the decree of
election to the sovereignty of the _Father_, Baxter refers it to the
sovereignty of the _Son_; one makes the decree of reprobation to issue
from the Creator and Judge, the other, from the Redeemer himself.

If, however, any one expects to find something in the form of system in
Baxter’s opinions on the five disputed points, he will be much
disappointed. The parties to whom he refers as the authors of this
supposed “middle way,” differ as much among themselves as Baxter
occasionally does from himself. Bishop Davenant and Dr. S. Ward differed
from Amyraut, Martinius, and others of that school, on the topic of
_baptismal regeneration_; and, as the subjects of baptism, according to
the sentiments of the two former, are invested with invisible grace, and
are regenerated in virtue of the ordinance when canonically performed,
such divines far more easily disposed of their baptized converts in the
ranks of strict predestination, than the others could who did not hold
those sentiments. But they exhibited much ingenuity in not suffering it
to “intrench upon the question of perseverance.” Their friend Bishop
Bedell, however, maintained, that “reprobates coming to years of
discretion, after baptism, shall be condemned for original sin; for
their absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and
expectative; which doth truly interest them in all the promises of God,
but under the condition of repenting, believing and obeying, which they
never perform, and therefore never attain the promise.” Bishop Overal
has also been claimed as a patron of this diversified “middle system;”
but it will be evident to every one who peruses his productions, that
his chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of the English church
as identical with those of St. Augustine, yet basing them upon _the
antecedent will of God_ and _conditional decrees_. After all the refined
distinctions which Baxter employed to render the theory of _common_ and
_special_ grace plausible and popular, the real meaning of the inventors
was frequently elicited when such a question as this was asked, “Have
any men in the world grace sufficient to repent and believe savingly who
do not?” After asserting that he knows nothing about the matter, the
reply of Baxter is, “If we may conjecture upon probabilities, it seemeth
most likely that there is such a sufficient grace, or power, to repent
and believe savingly, in some that use it not, but perish.” “This,” says
one of Baxter’s apologists, “seems to me very inexplicable!” and in the
same light it will be viewed by all who recollect that this “sufficient
grace or power” is that “portion of special grace which never fails to
accomplish its design,--the salvation of the individual on whom it is
bestowed!” Baxter’s celebrated “Aphorisms of Justification,” published
in 1649, afforded employment to himself and his theological critics till
near the close of his life; and in the many modifications, concessions,
and alterations which were extorted from him by men of different
religious tenets, he sometimes incautiously proved himself to be more
Calvinistic than Calvin, and at others more Arminian than Arminius. The
following observations, from “ORME’S _Life of Baxter_,” are on the whole
just and instructive:--

“Thus did Baxter, at a very early period of his life, launch into the
ocean of controversy, on some of the most interesting subjects that can
engage the human mind. The manner in which he began to treat them was
little favourable to arriving at correct and satisfactory conclusions.
Possessed of a mind uncommonly penetrating, he yet seems not to have had
the faculty of compressing within narrow limits his own views, or the
accounts he was disposed to give of the views of others. All this arose,
not from any indisposition to be explicit, but from the peculiar
character of his mind. He is perpetually distinguishing things into
physical and moral, real and nominal, material and formal. However
important these distinctions are, they often render his writings
tiresome to the reader, and his reasonings more frequently perplexing
than satisfactory. Baxter is generally understood to have pursued a
middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism. That he tried to hold
and adjust the balance between the two parties, and that he was most
anxious to reconcile them, are very certain. But it seems scarcely less
evident, that he was much more a Calvinist than he was an Arminian.
While this seems to me very apparent, it must be acknowledged, that if
certain views which have often been given of Calvinism are necessary to
constitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter was no believer in that creed.

“While satisfied that among Baxter’s sentiments, no important or vital
error will be found, yet in the style and method in which he too
generally advocated or defended them, there is much to censure. The
wrangling and disputatious manner in which he presented many of his
views, was calculated to gender an unsanctified state of mind in persons
who either abetted or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic and
metaphysical style of arguing is unbefitting the simplicity of the
Gospel, and cannot fail to injure it wherever such is employed. It not
only savours too much of the spirit of the schools, and the philosophy
of this world; but places the truths of revelation on a level with the
rudiments of human science. I am not sure whether certain effects which
began early in the last century to appear among the Presbyterian part of
the Nonconformists, may not be traced, in some degree, to the
speculative and argumentative writings of Baxter. His influence over
this class of his brethren was evidently very great. He contributed more
than any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbidding aspect which the
Presbyterians presented during the civil wars and the commonwealth. This
was well, but he did not stop here. He was inimical to all the existing
systems of doctrine and discipline then contended for, or ever before
known in the world; while he did not present any precisely defined
system as his own. He opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminianism; he
would not allow himself to be considered an Episcopalian, in the
ordinary acceptation of the word; he denied that he was a Presbyterian,
and scorned to be thought an Independent. He held something in common
with them all, and yet he was somewhat different from all. He contended
for a system more general, and more liberal, than was then approved;
and, as we have stated, wished to place a variety of theological truths
on grounds belonging rather to philosophy or metaphysics, than to
revelation.

“On himself, this species of latitudinarianism produced little injurious
effect, but I fear it had a baneful influence on others. The rejection
of all human authority and influence in religion, requires to be
balanced by a very strong sense of the divine authority, to prevent its
generating a state of mind more characterized by pride of intellect, and
independence of spirit, than by the humility and diffidence which are
essential features in the Christian character. It is a singular fact,
that the Presbyterians, though at first more rigid in their doctrinal
views, and more exclusive in their spirit and system of church
government, than the Independents, became before the death of Baxter the
more liberal party. High views began to be ascribed by them to their now
moderate brethren; and, to avoid the charge of Antinomianism, which
Baxter was too ready to prefer against such as differed from some of his
views, the Presbyterians seem gradually to have sunk into a state of
low, moderate orthodoxy, in which there was little of the warmth or
vitality of evangelical religion.

“In farther illustration of the influence now adverted to, it must be
remarked, that the first stage in that process of deterioration which
took place among the Presbyterian Dissenters, was generally
characterized by the term Baxterianism; a word to which it is difficult
to attach a definite meaning. It denotes no separate sect or party, but
rather a system of opinions on doctrinal points, verging toward
Arminianism, and which ultimately passed to Arianism and Socinianism.
Even during Baxter’s own life, while the Presbyterians taxed the
Independents with Antinomianism, the latter retorted the charge of
Socinianism, or at least of a tendency toward it, in some of the
opinions maintained both by Baxter and others of that party. To whatever
cause it is to be attributed, it is a melancholy fact, that the
declension which began even at this early period in the Presbyterian
body, went on slowly, but surely, till, from the most fervid orthodoxy,
it finally arrived at the frigid zone of Unitarianism.

“I wish not to be understood as stating that Baxter either held any
opinions of this description, or was conscious of a tendency in his
sentiments toward such a fearful consummation; but, that there was an
injurious tendency in his manner of discussing certain important
subjects. It was subtle, and full of logomachy; it tended to unsettle,
rather than to fix and determine; it gendered strife, rather than godly
edifying. It is not possible to study such books as his ‘_Methodus_,’
and his ‘Catholic Theology,’ without experiencing that we are brought
into a different region from Apostolic Christianity; a region of fierce
debate and altercation about words, and names, and opinions; in which
all that can be said for error is largely dwelt upon, as well as what
can be said for truth. The ambiguities of language, the diversities of
sects, the uncertainties of human perception and argument are urged,
till the force of revealed truth is considerably weakened, and
confidence in our own judgment of its meaning greatly impaired.
Erroneous language is maintained to be capable of sound meaning, and the
most Scriptural phrases to be susceptible of unscriptural
interpretation, till truth and error almost change places, and the mind
is bewildered, confounded, and paralyzed. Into this mode of discussing
such subjects, was this most excellent man led, partly by the natural
constitution of his mind, which has often been adverted to; partly by
his ardent desire of putting an end to the divisions of the Christian
world, and producing universal concord and harmony. He failed where
success was impossible, however plausible might have been the means
which he employed. He understood the causes of difference and contention
better than their remedies; hence the measures which he used frequently
aggravated instead of curing the disease. While a portion of evil,
however, probably resulted from Baxter’s mode of conducting controversy,
and no great light was thrown by him on some of the dark and difficult
subjects which he so keenly discussed, I have no doubt he contributed
considerably to produce a more moderate spirit toward each other,
between Calvinists and Arminians, than had long prevailed. Though he
satisfied neither party, he must have convinced both, that great
difficulties exist on the subjects in debate, if pursued beyond a
certain length; that allowance ought to be made by each, for the
weakness or prejudices of the other; and that genuine religion is
compatible with some diversity of opinion respecting one or all of the
five points.” A similar effect as that which Mr. Orme ascribes to
Baxter’s writings on the English Presbyterians, followed also, on the
continent among the reformed churches. It was the same middle system
with its philosophical subtleties, which Camero and Amyraut taught
abroad, and which produced in them those effects that have been falsely
ascribed, both in England and abroad, to Arminianism. See AMYRAUT and
CAMERON.

BAY-TREE. אזרח. It is mentioned only in Psalm xxxvii, 35, 36: “I have
seen the ungodly in great power, and flourishing like a green bay-tree.
Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not. Yea, I sought him, but he could
not be found.” Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Jerom, and some others say
that the original may mean only _a native tree_; a tree growing in its
native soil, not having suffered by transplantation. Such a tree spreads
itself luxuriantly. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it _cedars_; but
the high Dutch of Luther’s Bible, the old Saxon, the French, the
Spanish, the Italian of Diodati, and the version of Ainsworth, make it
the laurel.

BDELLIUM, בדלה, occurs Gen. ii, 12, and Num. xi, 7. Interpreters seem at
a loss to know what to do with this word, and have rendered it
variously. Many suppose it a mineral production. The Septuagint
translates in the first place, ἀνθράκα, _a carbuncle_, and in the
second, κρύϛαλλον, _a crystal_. The rabbins are followed by Reland in
calling it a crystal; but some, instead of _bedolah_, read _berolah_,
changing the ב into ר, which are not always easily distinguished, and
are often mistaken by transcribers; and so render it the _beryl_, which,
say they, is the prime kind of crystal. The _bedoleh_, in Genesis, is
undoubtedly some precious stone; and its colour, mentioned in Numbers,
where the manna is spoken of as of the colour of _bdellium_, is
explained by a reference to Exod. xvi, 14, 31, where it is likened to
hoar frost, which being like little fragments of ice, may confirm the
opinion that the bdellium is the beryl, perhaps that pellucid kind,
called by Dr. Hill the _ellipomocrostyla_, or beryl crystal.

BEAN, פול, occurs 2 Sam. xvii, 28, and Ezek. iv, 9. A common legume.
Those most usually cultivated in Syria are the white horse-bean, _faba
rotunda oblonga_, and the kidney-bean, _phaseolis minimus, fructu viridi
ovato_, called by the natives _masch_. The Arabic _ban_, the name of the
coffee berry, corresponds with our bean, and is probably its etymon.

BEAR. That bears were common in Palestine appears from several passages
of the Old Testament. Their strength, rapacity, and fierceness, furnish
many expressive metaphors to the Hebrew poets. The Hebrew name of this
animal is taken from his _growling_; so Varro deduces his Latin name
_ursus_ by an onomatopæia from the noise which he makes: “_ursi Lucana
origo, vel unde illi, nostri ab ipsius voce_:” [the origin of the term
_ursus_ (bear) is Lucanian, (whence also the bears themselves,) from the
noise made by the animal.] David had to defend his flock against bears
as well as lions, 1 Sam. xvii, 34. And Dr. Shaw gives us to understand
that these rugged animals are not peculiar to the bleak regions of the
north, being found in Barbary; and Thevenot informs us that they inhabit
the wilderness adjoining the Holy Land, and that he saw one near the
northern extremities of the Red Sea. The ferocity of the bear,
especially when hungry or robbed of its whelps, has been mentioned by
many authors. The Scripture alludes in three places to this furious
disposition. The first is, 2 Sam. xvii, 8, “They be mighty men, and they
be chafed in their minds as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field.”
The second, Prov. xvii, 12, “Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man
rather than a fool in his folly.” And the third, Hosea xiii, 8, “I will
meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the
caul of their heart.”

BEARD. The Hebrews wore their beards, but had, doubtless, in common with
other Asiatic nations, several fashions in this, as in all other parts
of dress. Moses forbids them, Lev. xix, 27, “to cut off entirely the
angle, or extremity of their beard;” that is, to avoid the manner of the
Egyptians, who left only a little tuft of beard at the extremity of
their chins. The Jews, in some places, at this day suffer a little
fillet of hair to grow from below the ears to the chin: where, as well
as upon their lower lips, their beards are long. When they mourned, they
entirely shaved the hair of their heads and beards, and neglected to
trim their beards, to regulate them into neat order, or to remove what
grew on their upper lips and cheeks, Jer. xli, 5; xlviii, 37. In times
of grief and affliction, they plucked away the hair of their heads and
beards, a mode of expression common to other nations under great
calamities. The king of the Ammonites, designing to insult David in the
person of his ambassadors, cut away half of their beards, and half of
their clothes; that is, he cut off all their beard on one side of their
faces, 2 Sam. x, 4, 5; 1 Chron. xix, 5. To avoid ridicule, David did not
wish them to appear at his court till their beards were grown again.
When a leper was cured of his leprosy, he washed himself in a bath, and
shaved off all the hair of his body; after which, he returned into the
camp, or city; seven days afterward, he washed himself and his clothes
again, shaved off all his hair, and offered the sacrifices appointed for
his purification, Lev. xiv, 9. The Levites, at their consecration, were
purified by bathing, and washing their bodies and clothes; after which,
they shaved off all the hair of their bodies, and then offered the
sacrifices appointed for their consecration, Num. viii, 7.

Nothing has been more fluctuating in the different ages of the world and
countries than the fashion of wearing the beard. Some have cultivated
one part and some another; some have endeavoured to extirpate it
entirely, while others have almost idolized it; the revolutions of
countries have scarcely been more famous than the revolutions of beards.
It is a great mark of infamy among the Arabs to cut off the beard. Many
people would prefer death to this kind of treatment. As they would think
it a grievous punishment to lose it, they carry things so far as to beg
for the sake of it: “By your beard, by the life of your beard, God
preserve your blessed beard.” When they would express their value for
any thing, they say, “It is worth more than a man’s beard.” And hence we
may easily learn the magnitude of the offence of the Ammonites in their
treatment of David’s ambassadors, as above mentioned; and also the force
of the emblem used Ezek. v, 1–5, where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are
compared to the hair of his head and beard. Though they had been dear to
God as the hair of an eastern beard to its owner, they should be taken
away and consumed, one part by pestilence and famine, another by the
sword, another by the calamities incident on exile.

BEASTS. When this word is used in opposition to man, as Psalm xxxvi, 5,
any brute creature is signified; when to creeping things, as Lev. xi, 2,
7; xxix, 30, four-footed animals, from the size of the hare and upward,
are intended; and when to wild creatures, as Gen. i, 25, cattle, or tame
animals, are spoken of. In Isaiah xiii, 21, several wild animals are
mentioned as dwelling among the ruins of Babylon: “Wild beasts of the
desert,” ציים, those of the dry wilderness, as the root of the word
implies, “shall dwell there. Their houses shall be full of doleful
creatures,” אהים, _marsh animals_. “Owls shall dwell there,” ostriches,
“and satyrs,” שעירים, _shaggy ones_, “shall dance there. And the wild
beasts of the islands,” איים, _oases of the desert_, “shall cry in their
desolate houses, and dragons,” תנים, _crocodiles_, or amphibious
animals, “shall be in their desolate places.” St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv, 32,
speaks of fighting with beasts, &c: by which he does not mean his having
been exposed in the amphitheatre to fight as a gladiator, as some have
conjectured, but that he had to contend at Ephesus with the fierce
uproar of Demetrius and his associates. Ignatius uses the same figure in
his Epistle to the Romans: “From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild
beasts, both by sea and land, both night and day, being bound to ten
leopards;” that is, to a band of soldiers. So Lucian, in like manner,
says, “For I am not to fight with ordinary wild beasts, but with men,
insolent and hard to be convinced.” In Rev. iv, v, vi, mention is made
of four beasts, or rather, as the word ζῶα signifies, _living
creatures_, as in Ezek. i; and so the word might have been less harshly
translated. Wild beasts are used in Scripture as emblems of tyrannical
and persecuting powers. The most illustrious conquerors of antiquity
also have not a more honourable emblem.

BED. Mattresses, or thick cotton quilts folded, were used for sleeping
upon. These were laid upon the duan, or divan, a part of the room
elevated above the level of the rest, covered with a carpet in winter,
and a fine mat in summer. (See _Accubation_ and _Banquets_.) A divan
cushion serves for a pillow and bolster. They do not keep their beds
made; the mattresses are rolled up, carried away, and placed in a
cupboard till they are wanted at night. And hence the propriety of our
Lord’s address to the paralytic, “Arise, take up thy bed,” or mattress,
“and walk,” Matt. ix, 6. The duan on which these mattresses are placed,
is at the end of the chamber, and has an ascent of several steps. Hence
Hezekiah is said to turn his face to the wall when he prayed, that is,
from his attendants. In the day the duan was used as a seat, and the
place of honour was the corner, Amos iii, 12.

BEELZEBUB, Matt. x, 25. See BAALZEBUB.

BEERSHEBA, or the well of the oath; so named from a well which Abraham
dug in this place, and the covenant which he here made with Abimelech,
king of Gerar, Gen. xx, 31. Here also he planted a grove, as it would
appear, for the purpose of retirement for religious worship. In process
of time, a considerable town was built on the same spot, which retained
the same name. Beersheba was given by Joshua to the tribe of Judah, and
afterward transferred to Simeon, Joshua xv, 28. It was situated twenty
miles south of Hebron, in the extreme south of the land of Israel, as
Dan was on the north. The two places are frequently thus mentioned in
Scripture, as “from Dan to Beersheba,” to denote the whole length of the
country.

דבורה BEE, דבורה, occurs Deut. i, 44; Judges xiv, 8; Psalm cviii, 12;
Isa. vii, 18. A well known, small, industrious insect; whose form,
propagation, economy, and singular instinct and ingenuity, have
attracted the attention of the most inquisitive and laborious inquirers
into nature. Bees were very numerous in the east. _Serid, or Seriad_,
means “the land of the hive;” and Canaan was celebrated as “a land
flowing with milk and honey.” The wild bees formed their comb in the
crevices of the rocks, and in the hollows of decayed trees. The passage
in Isa. vii, 8, which mentions the “hissing for the bee,” is supposed to
involve an allusion to the practice of calling out the bees from their
hives, by a hissing or whistling sound, to their labour in the fields,
and summoning them again to return when the heavens begin to lower, or
the shadows of evening to fall. In this manner Jehovah threatens to
rouse the enemies of Judah, and lead them to the prey. However widely
scattered, or far remote from the scene of action, they should hear his
voice, and with as much promptitude as the bee that has been taught to
recognise the signal of its owner and obey his call, they should
assemble their forces; and although weak and insignificant as a swarm of
bees, in the estimation of a proud and infatuated people, they should
come, with irresistible might, and take possession of the rich and
beautiful region which had been abandoned by its terrified inhabitants.

The bee is represented by the ancients as a vexatious and even a
formidable enemy; and the experience of every person who turns his
attention to the temper and habits of this insect attests the truth of
their assertion. The allusion, therefore, of Moses to their fierce
hostility, Deut. i, 44, is both just and beautiful: “The Amorites, which
dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you as bees do,
and destroyed you in Seir even unto Hormah.” The Amorites, it appears,
were the most bitter adversaries to Israel of all the nations of Canaan.
Like bees that are easily irritated, that attack with great fury and
increasing numbers the person that dares to molest their hive, and
persecute him in his flight to a considerable distance, the incensed
Amorites had collected their hostile bands, and chased the Israelites
from their territory. The Psalmist also complains that his enemies
compassed him about like bees; fiercely attacking him on every side.
From these allusions it would however appear, that the bees of the east
were of a more quarrelsome temper than ours, which exist chiefly in a
domesticated state.

BEETLE. חרגל. It occurs only Lev. xi, 22. A species of locust is thought
to be there spoken of. The word still remains in the Arabic, and is
derived from an original, alluding to the vast number of their swarms.
Golius explains it of the locust without wings. The Egyptians paid a
superstitious worship to the beetle. Mr. Molyneaux, in the
“Philosophical Transactions,” says, “It is more than probable that this
destructive beetle we are speaking of was that very kind of scarabæus,
which the idolatrous Egyptians of old had in such high veneration as to
pay divine worship unto it, and so frequently engrave its image upon
their obelisks, &c, as we see at this day. For nothing can be supposed
more natural than to imagine a nation, addicted to polytheism, as the
Egyptians were, in a country frequently suffering great mischief and
scarcity from swarms of devouring insects, should, from a strange sense
and fear of evil to come, (the common principle of superstition and
idolatry,) give sacred worship to the visible authors of these their
sufferings, in hopes to render them more propitious for the future. See
FLY and LOCUST.

BEHEMOTH. בהמות. This term has greatly tried the ingenuity of the
critics. By some, among whom are Bythner and Reiske, it is regarded in
Job xl, 16, as a plural noun for beasts in general: the peculiar name of
the animal immediately described not being mentioned, as unnecessary, on
account of the description itself being so easily applied at the time.
In this sense it is translated in various passages in the Psalms. Thus,
l, 10, in which it is usually rendered cattle, as the plural of בהמת it
means unquestionably a _beast_ or _brute_, in the general signification
of these words: “For every beast of the field is mine, and the cattle,”
_behemoth_, “upon a thousand hills.” So again, Isa. lxxiii, 22: “So
foolish was I, and ignorant; I was as a beast,” _behemoth_, “before
thee.” It is also used in the same sense in chap. xxxv, 11, of the book
of Job: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts,” _behemoth_, “of the
earth.” The greater number of critics, however, have understood the word
behemoth, in the singular number, as the peculiar name of the quadruped
described, Job xl, of whatever kind or nature it may be; although they
have materially differed upon this last point, some regarding it as the
hippopotamus, or river horse, and others as the elephant. The evidence
in favour of the hippopotamus appears, however, to predominate. The
hippopotamus is nearly as large as the rhinoceros. The male has been
found seventeen feet in length, fifteen in circumference, and seven in
height. The head is enormously large, and the jaws extend upwards two
feet, and are armed with four cutting teeth, each of which is twelve
inches in length. The body is of a lightish colour, thinly covered with
hair. The legs are three feet long. Though amphibious, the hoofs, which
are quadrifid, are not connected by membranes. The hide is so thick and
tough as to resist the edge of a sword or sabre. Although an inhabitant
of the waters, the hippopotamus is well known to breathe air like land
animals. On land, indeed, he finds the chief part of his food. It has
been pretended that he devours vast quantities of fish; but it appears
with the fullest evidence, both from the relations of many travellers,
and from the structure of the stomach, in specimens that have been
dissected, that he is nourished solely, or almost solely, on vegetable
food. Though he feeds upon aquatic plants, yet he very often leaves the
waters, and commits wide devastations through all the cultivated fields
adjacent to the river. Unless when accidentally provoked, or wounded, he
is never offensive; but when he is assaulted or hurt, his fury against
the assailants is terrible. He will attack a boat, break it in pieces
with his teeth; or, where the river is not too deep, he will raise it on
his back and overset it. If he be irritated when on shore, he will
immediately betake himself to the water; and there, in his native
element, shows all his strength and resolution.

BEHMENISTS, a name given to those mystics who adopted the explication of
the mysteries of nature and grace, as given by Jacob Behmen. This writer
was born in the year 1575, at Old Siedenburg, near Gorlitz, in Upper
Lusatia. He was a shoemaker by trade, and is described as having been
thoughtful and religious from his youth up, taking peculiar pleasure in
frequenting the public worship. At length, seriously considering within
himself that speech of our Saviour, “Your heavenly Father will give the
Holy Spirit to them that ask him,” he was thereby awakened to desire
that promised Comforter; and, continuing in that earnestness, he was at
last, to use his own expression, “surrounded with a divine light for
seven days, and stood in the highest contemplation and kingdom of joys!”
After this, about the year 1600, he was again surrounded with a divine
light and replenished with the heavenly knowledge; insomuch as, going
abroad into the fields, and viewing the herbs and grass, by his inward
light, he saw into their essences, uses, and properties, which were
discovered to him by their lineaments, figures, and signatures. In the
year 1610, he had a third special illumination, wherein still farther
mysteries were revealed to him; but it was not till the year 1612 that
Behmen committed these revelations to writing. His first treatise is
entitled, “Aurora,” which was seized by the senate of Gorlitz before it
was completed. His next production is called, “The Three Principles,” by
which he means the dark world, or hell; the light world, or heaven; and
the external, or visible world, which we inhabit. In this work he more
fully illustrates the subjects treated of in the former, and supplies
what is wanting in that work, showing, 1. How all things came from a
working will of the holy, triune, incomprehensible God, manifesting
himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, through an outward,
perceptible, working, triune power of fire, light, and spirit, in the
kingdom of heaven. 2. How and what angels and men were in their
creation; that they are in and from God, his real offspring; that their
life begun in and from this divine fire, which is the Father of Light,
generating a birth of light in their souls; from both which proceeds the
Holy Spirit, or breath of divine love, in the triune creature, as it
does in the triune Creator. 3. How some angels, and all men, are fallen
from God, and their first state of a divine triune life in him; what
they are in their fallen state, and the difference between the fall of
angels and that of man. 4. How the earth, stars, and elements were
created in consequence of the fall of angels. 5. Whence there is good
and evil in all this temporal world; and what is meant by the curse that
dwells in it. 6. Of the kingdom of Christ, how it is set in opposition
to the kingdom of hell. 7. How man, through faith in Christ, is able to
overcome the kingdom of hell, and thereby obtain eternal salvation. 8.
How and why sin and misery shall only reign for a time, until God shall,
in a supernatural way, make fallen man rise to the glory of angels, and
this material system shake off its curse, and enter into an everlasting
union with that heaven from whence it fell.

The next year, Behmen produced his “Three-fold Life of Man,” according
to the three principles above mentioned. In this work he treats more
largely of the state of man in this world: that he has, 1. That immortal
spark of life, which is common to angels and devils. 2. That divine life
of the light and Spirit of God, which makes the essential difference
between an angel and a devil; and, 3. The life of this external and
visible world. The first and last are common to all men; but the second
only to a true Christian, or child of God. Behmen wrote several other
treatises; but these are the basis of all his other writings. His
conceptions are often clothed under allegorical symbols; and, in his
later works, he frequently adopted chemical and Latin phrases, which he
borrowed from conversation with learned men. But as to the matter
contained in his writings, he disclaims having borrowed it either from
men or books. He died in the year 1624; and his last words were, “Now I
go hence into paradise!” Behmen’s principles were adopted by Mr. Law,
who clothed them in a more modern dress, and in a style less obscure.
The essential obscurity of the subjects indeed he could not remedy. If
they were understood by the author himself, he is probably the only one
who ever made that attainment.

BEL, or BELUS, a name by which many Heathens, and particularly the
Babylonians, called their chief idol. But whether under this appellation
they worshipped Nimrod, their first Baal, or lord, or Pul, king of
Assyria, or some other monarch, or the sun, or all in one, is uncertain.
It is, however, probable, that Bel is the same as the Phenician Baal,
and that the worship of the same deity passed over to the Carthagenians,
who were a colony of Phenicians. Hence the names Hannibal, Asdrubal, &c,
compounded with Bel or Baal, according to the custom of the east, where
great men added the names of the gods to their own. Bel had a temple
erected to him in the city of Babylon, on the very uppermost range of
the famous tower of Babel, wherein were many statues of this pretended
deity; and one, among the rest, of massy gold, forty feet high. The
whole furniture of this magnificent temple was of the same metal, and
valued at eight hundred talents of gold. This temple, with its riches,
was in being till the time of Xerxes, who, returning from his
unfortunate expedition into Greece, demolished it, and carried off the
immense wealth which it contained. It was, probably, the statue of this
god which Nebuchadnezzar, being returned to Babylon after the end of the
Jewish war, set up and dedicated in the plain of Dura; the story of
which is related at large, Dan. iii. See BABEL.

BEL AND THE DRAGON, an apocryphal and uncanonical book. It was always
rejected by the Jewish church, and is extant neither in the Hebrew, nor
in the Chaldee languages; nor is there any proof that it ever was so,
although the council of Trent allowed it to be part of the canonical
book of Daniel, in which it stands in the Latin Vulgate. There are two
Greek texts of this fragment, that of the Septuagint, and that found in
Theodotion’s Greek version of Daniel. The Latin and Arabic versions are
from the text of Theodotion. Daniel probably, by detecting the mercenary
contrivances of the idolatrous priests of Babylon, and by opening the
eyes of the people to the follies of superstition, might furnish some
foundation for the story; but the whole is evidently charged with
fiction, though introduced with a pious intent. St. Jerom gives it no
better title than, “The fable of Bel and the Dragon.” Selden thinks that
this history ought rather to be considered as a poem or fiction, than a
true account: as to the dragon, he observes, that serpents, _dracones_,
made a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion, as appears
from Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr, and others.
See SERPENT.

BELIAL. The phrase, “sons of Belial,” signifies _wicked, worthless men_.
It was given to the inhabitants of Gibeah, who abused the Levite’s wife,
Judges xix, 22; and to Hophni and Phineas, the wicked and profane sons
of Eli, 1 Samuel ii, 12. In later times the name Belial denoted the
devil: “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” 2 Cor. vi, 15; for as the
word literally imports “one who will do no one good,” the positive sense
of a doer of evil was applied to Satan, who is the author of evil, and,
eminently, “the Evil One.”

BELLS. Moses ordered that the lower part of the blue robe, which the
high priest wore in religious ceremonies, should be adorned with
pomegranates and bells, intermixed alternately, at equal distances. The
pomegranates were of wool, and in colour, blue purple, and crimson; the
bells were of gold. Moses adds, “And it shall be upon Aaron to minister;
and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before
the Lord, and when he cometh out; that he die not.” Some of the Hebrews
believe that these little bells are round; others, that they were such
as were commonly in use. The ancient kings of Persia are said to have
had the hem of their robes adorned like that of the Jewish high priest,
with pomegranates and golden bells. The Arabian ladies, who are about
the king’s person, have little gold bells fastened to their legs, their
neck, and elbows, which, when they dance, make a very agreeable harmony.
The Arabian women of rank, generally, wear on their legs large hollow
gold rings, containing small flints, that sound like little bells when
they walk; or they are large circles, with little rings hung all round,
which produce the same effect. These, when they walk, give notice that
the mistress of the house is passing, that so the servants of the family
may behave themselves respectfully, and strangers may retire, to avoid
seeing the person who advances. It was, in all probability, with some
such design of giving notice that the high priest was passing, that he
also wore little bells at the hem of his robe. Their sound intimated
also when he was about to enter the sanctuary, and served to keep up the
attention of the people. A reverential respect for the Divine Inhabitant
was also indicated. The palace of kings was not to be entered without
due notice, by striking some sonorous body, much less the sanctuary of
God; and the high priest did, by the sound of his bells at the bottom of
his robe, ask leave to enter. “And his sound shall be heard when he
goeth into the holy place before the Lord, and when he cometh out; that
he die not.”

Bells were a part of the martial furniture of horses employed in war.
The Jewish warrior adorned his charger with these ornaments; and the
prophet foretels that these in future times should be consecrated to the
service of God: “In that day shall there be upon the bells of the
horses, Holiness unto the Lord.” Chardin observes that something like
this is seen in several places of the east; in Persia, and in Turkey,
the reins of their bridles are of silk, of the thickness of a finger, on
which are wrought the name of God, or other inscriptions. A horse which
had not been trained was by the Greeks called, “one that had never heard
the noise of bells.”

BELLY is used in Scripture for gluttony, Titus i, 12; Philip iii, 16;
Rom. xvi, 18. For the heart, or the secrets of the mind, Prov. xx, 27,
30; xxii, 18. The “belly of hell” signifies the grave, or some imminent
danger, or deep distress, Jonah ii, 2; Ecclus. ii, 5.

BELSHAZZAR, the last king of Babylon, and, according to Hales and
others, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v, 18. During the period
that the Jews were in captivity at Babylon, a variety of singular events
concurred to prove that the sins which brought desolation on their
country, and subjected them for a period of seventy years to the
Babylonish yoke, had not dissolved that covenant relation which, as the
God of Abraham, Jehovah had entered into with them; and that any act of
indignity perpetrated against an afflicted people, or any insult cast
upon the service of their temple, would be regarded as an affront to the
Majesty of heaven, and not suffered to pass with impunity, though the
perpetrators were the princes and potentates of the earth. Belshazzar
was a remarkable instance of this. He had an opportunity of seeing, in
the case of his ancestor, how hateful pride is, even in royalty itself;
how instantly God can blast the dignity of the brightest crown, and
reduce him that wears it to a level with the beasts of the field; and
consequently how much the prosperity of kings and the stability of their
thrones depend upon acknowledging that “the Most High ruleth in the
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” But all these
awful lessons were lost upon Belshazzar.

The only circumstances of his reign, recorded, are the visions of the
Prophet Daniel, in the first and third years, Dan. vii, 1; viii, 1; and
his sacrilegious feast and violent death, Dan. v, 1–30. Isaiah, who
represents the Babylonian dynasty as “the scourge of Palestine,” styles
Nebuchadnezzar “a serpent,” Evil Merodach “a cockatrice,” and Belshazzar
“a fiery flying serpent,” the worst of all, Isaiah xiv, 4–29. And
Xenophon confirms this prophetic character by two atrocious instances of
cruelty and barbarity, exercised by Belshazzar upon some of his chief
and most deserving nobles. He slew the only son of Gobryas, in a
transport of rage, because at a hunting match he hit with his spear a
bear, and afterward a lion, when the king had missed both; and in a fit
of jealousy, he brutally castrated Gadatus, because one of his
concubines had commended him as a handsome man. His last and most
heinous offence was the profanation of the sacred vessels belonging to
the temple of Jerusalem, which his wise grandfather, and even his
foolish father Evil Merodach, had respected. Having made a great feast
for a thousand of his lords, he ordered those vessels to be brought
during the banquet, that he, his princes, his wives, and his concubines,
might drink out of them, which they did; and to aggravate sacrilege by
apostasy and rebellion, and ingratitude against the Supreme Author of
all their enjoyments, “they praised the gods of gold, silver, brass,
iron, and stone, but the God in whose hand was their breath, and whose
were all their ways, they praised or glorified not.” For these
complicated crimes his doom was denounced in the midst of the
entertainment; a divine hand appeared, which wrote on the plaister of
the wall, opposite to the king, and full in his view, a mysterious
inscription. This tremendous apparition struck Belshazzar with the
greatest terror and agony: “his countenance was changed, and his
thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and
his knees smote against each other.” This is one of the liveliest and
finest amplifications of dismay to be found throughout the sacred
classics, and infinitely exceeds, both in accuracy and force, the most
admired of the Heathen; such as “_et corde et genibus tremit_,” of
Horace, and “_tarda trementi genua labant_,” of Virgil.

Unable himself to decypher the writing, Belshazzar cried aloud to bring
in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, promising that
whosoever should read the writing, and explain to him its meaning,
should be clothed with scarlet, have a chain of gold about his neck, and
be the third ruler in his kingdom. But the writing was too difficult for
the Magi; at which the king was still more greatly troubled. In this
crisis, and at the instance of the queen mother, the Prophet Daniel was
sent for, to whom honours were promised, on condition of his explaining
the writing. Daniel refused the honours held out to him; but having with
great faithfulness pointedly reproved the monarch for his ingratitude to
God who had conferred on him such dignity, and particularly for his
profanation of the vessels which were consecrated to his service, he
proceeded to the interpretation of the words which had been written, and
still stood visible on the wall. They were, _Mene, Tekel, Upharsin_.
“This is the interpretation of the thing, _Mene_, ‘God hath numbered thy
kingdom and finished it;’ _Tekel_, ‘thou art weighed in the balances and
art found wanting;’ _Peres_, ‘thy kingdom is divided, and given to the
Medes and Persians.’” In that very night, in the midst of their mirth
and revelling, the city was taken by surprise, Belshazzar himself put to
death, and the kingdom transferred to Darius the Mede. If the character
of the hand-writing was known to the Magi of Babylon, the meaning could
not be conjectured. Perhaps, however, the character was that of the
ancient Hebrew, or what we now call the Samaritan; and in that case it
would be familiar to Daniel, though rude and unintelligible to the
Chaldeans. But even if Daniel could read the words, the import of this
solemn graphic message to the proud and impious monarch could only have
been made known to the prophet by God. All the ideas the three words
convey, are _numbering_, _weighing_, and _dividing_. It was only for the
power which sent the omen to unfold, not in equivocal terms, like the
responses of Heathen oracles, but in explicit language, the decision of
the righteous Judge, the termination of his long suffering, and the
instant visitation of judgment. See BABYLON.

BELUS, a river of Palestine. On leaving Acre, and turning toward the
south-east, the traveller crosses the river Belus, near its mouth, where
the stream is shallow enough to be easily forded on horseback. This
river rises out of a lake, computed to be about six miles distant,
toward the south-east, called by the ancients _Palus Cendovia_. Of the
sand of this river, according to Pliny, glass was first made; and ships
from Italy continued to convey it to the glass houses of Venice and
Genoa, so late as the middle of the seventeenth century.

BENEDICTION, in a general sense, the act of blessing in the name of God,
or of giving praise to God, or returning thanks for his favours. Hence
benediction is the act of saying grace before or after meals. Neither
the ancient Jews, nor Christians, ever ate without a short prayer. The
Jews are obliged to rehearse a hundred benedictions every day; of which,
eighty are to be spoken in the morning. Rabbi Nehemiah Baruch, in 1688,
published a discourse on the manner wherein the sacerdotal benediction
is to be pronounced. In the synagogue of Ferrara, it is rather sung than
spoken. Among the ancient Jews, as well as Christians, benedictions were
attended with the imposition of hands; and Christians, in process of
time, added the sign of the cross, which was made with the same hand,
elevated or extended. Hence, in the Romish church, benediction was used
to denote the sign of the cross, made by a bishop or prelate, from an
idea that it conferred some grace on the people. The custom of receiving
benediction by bowing the head before the bishops, is very ancient; and
was so universal, that emperors themselves did not decline this mark of
submission. Under the name benediction the Hebrews also frequently
understood the presents which friends made to one another; in all
probability because they were generally attended with blessings and
prayers, both from those who gave and those who received them. The
solemn blessing pronounced by the Jewish high priest upon the people, is
recorded Num. vi, 22, &c: “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord
make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord
lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” The great
Christian benediction is, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love
of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you
always.” See BLESSING.

BENHADAD, the son of Tibrimon, king of Syria, came to the assistance of
Asa, king of Judah, against Baasha, king of Israel, obliging the latter
to return home and succour his own country, and to abandon Ramah, which
he had undertaken to fortify, 1 Kings xv, 18. This Benhadad is thought
by some to have been the same person with Hadad the Edomite, who
rebelled against Solomon toward the end of that prince’s reign, 1 Kings
xi, 25.

2. BENHADAD, king of Syria, son of the preceding, made war upon Ahab,
king of Israel, but was defeated. In the following year, however, he
came with a most powerful army to Aphek, where Ahab again engaged him,
killed a hundred thousand of his men, and the remainder endeavouring to
take refuge in Aphek, the walls of the city fell upon them, and killed
twenty-seven thousand more. Thus completely defeated, Benhadad submitted
to beg his life of the king of Israel, who not only granted his request,
but gave him his liberty, and restored him to his crown upon certain
conditions, 1 Kings xx. Twelve years afterward, A. M. 3115, Benhadad
declared war against Jehoram, the son and successor of Ahab, 2 Kings vi,
8; but his designs were made known to Jehoram by the Prophet Elisha, and
they were accordingly frustrated. Suspecting some treachery in this
affair, Benhadad was informed that all his projects were revealed to his
enemy by Elisha, and getting intelligence that the latter was at Dothan,
he sent a detachment of his best troops to invest the city and apprehend
the prophet; but they were struck with blindness at Elisha’s prayer, so
that they were unable to distinguish him, when he was in the midst of
them and held a conversation with them. He then led them into the city
of Samaria, and having conducted them safely there, he prayed to God
again to open their eyes, and induced Jehoram to dismiss them without
violence. Generous as this conduct was, it produced no salutary effect
on the infatuated Benhadad; for about four years afterward, he laid
close siege to Samaria, and reduced the city to such distress that the
head of an ass, which the Israelites considered to be an unclean animal,
was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, about 2_l._ 9_s._ sterling; and
the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung, or rather three quarters of a
pint of chick pease, as Bochart understands the word, for five pieces of
silver. In fact, such was the pressure of the famine at this time in
Samaria, that mothers were constrained to eat their own children.
Jehoram, hearing of these calamities, attributed them to Elisha, and
sent orders to have him put to death; but before his messengers could
reach the prophet’s house, he came thither himself. Elisha predicted
that the next day, about the same hour, a measure of fine flour would be
sold at the gate of Samaria for a shekel, which, however incredible at
the moment, proved to be the case; for in the night, a general panic,
supernaturally induced, pervaded the Syrian camp; they imagined that
Jehoram had procured an army of Egyptians to come to his assistance,
and, abandoning their horses, tents, and provisions, they all took to
flight. Four lepers, whose disease did not permit them to live within
the city, and being ready to perish with hunger, ventured into the
Syrian camp; and finding it deserted, and at the same time abounding
with all sorts of provisions, communicated the information to Jehoram.
The king immediately rose, though in the middle of the night; but
reflecting that probably it was only a stratagem of Benhadad to draw his
people out of the town, he first sent parties to reconnoitre. They,
however, speedily returned, and informed him that the enemy was fled,
and that the roads were every where strewed with arms and garments,
which the Syrians had abandoned to facilitate their flight. As soon as
the news was confirmed, the Samaritans went out, pillaged the Syrian
camp, and brought in such quantities of provisions, that a measure of
fine flour was, at the time specified by Elisha, sold at the gate of
Samaria for a shekel, 2 Kings vii.

The following year, A. M. 3120, Benhadad fell sick, and sent Hazael, one
of his officers, with forty camels, loaded with valuable presents, to
the Prophet Elisha, to interrogate him, whether or not he should recover
of his indisposition. Elisha fixed his eyes steadfastly on Hazael, and
then burst into tears: “Go,” said he, “and tell Benhadad, Thou mayest
certainly recover; though the Lord hath showed me that he shall
assuredly die.” He at the same time apprised Hazael that he himself
would reign in Syria, and do infinite mischief to Israel. Hazael on this
returned and told Benhadad that his health should be restored. But on
the next day he took a thick cloth, which, having dipped in water, he
spread over the king’s face and stifled him. He then took possession of
the kingdom of Syria, according to the prediction of Elisha, 2 Kings
viii.

3. BENHADAD, the son of Hazael, mentioned in the preceding article,
succeeded his father as king of Syria, 2 Kings xiii, 24. During his
reign, Jehoash, king of Israel, recovered from him all that his father
Hazael had taken from Jehoahaz his predecessor. He defeated him in three
several engagements, and compelled him to surrender all the country
beyond Jordan, 2 Kings xiii, 25.

BENI KHAIBIR, sons of Keber, the descendants of the Rechabites, to whom
it was promised, Jer. xxxv, 19, “Thus saith the Lord, Jonadab, the son
of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” They were
first brought into notice in modern times by Mr. Samuel Brett, who wrote
a narrative of the proceedings of the great council of the Jews in
Hungary, A. D. 1650. He says of the sect of the Rechabites, “that they
observe their old rules and customs, and neither sow, nor plant, nor
build houses; but live in tents, and often remove from one place to
another with their whole property and families.” They are also mentioned
in Neibuhr’s travels. Mr. Wolff, a converted Jew, gives the following
account in a late journal. He inquired of the rabbins at Jerusalem,
relative to these wandering Jews, and received the following
information: “Rabbi Mose Secot is quite certain that the Beni Khaibir
are descendants of the Rechabites; at this present moment they drink no
wine, and have neither vineyard, nor field, nor seed; but dwell, like
Arabs, in tents, and are wandering nomades. They receive and observe the
law of Moses by tradition, for they are not in possession of the written
law.” Mr. Wolff afterward himself visited this people, who have
remained, amidst all the changes of nations, a most remarkable monument
of the exact fulfilment of a minute, and apparently at first sight an
unimportant, prophecy. So true is it, that not one jot or tittle of the
word of God shall pass away! See RECHABITES.

BENJAMIN, the youngest son of Jacob and Rachel, who was born, A. M.
2272. Jacob, being on his journey from Mesopotamia, as he was proceeding
southward with Rachel in the company, Gen. xxxv, 16, 17, &c, the pains
of child-bearing came upon her, about a quarter of a league from
Bethlehem, and she died after the delivery of a son, whom, with her last
breath, she named Benoni, that is, “the son of my sorrow;” but soon
afterward Jacob changed his name, and called him Benjamin, that is, “the
son of my right hand.” See JOSEPH.

BEREA, a city of Macedonia, where St. Paul preached the Gospel with
great success, and where his hearers were careful to compare what they
heard with the scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts, xvii, 10; for
which they are commended, and held out to us as an example of subjecting
every doctrine to the sole test of the word of God.

BERNICE, the daughter of Agrippa, surnamed the Great, king of the Jews,
and sister to young Agrippa, also king of the Jews. This lady was first
betrothed to Mark, the son of Alexander Lysimachus, albarach of
Alexandria; afterward she married Herod, king of Chalcis, her own uncle
by the father’s side. After the death of Herod, which happened A. D. 48,
she was married to Polemon, king of Pontus, but did not long continue
with him. She returned to her brother Agrippa, and with him heard the
discourse which Paul delivered before Festus, Acts xxv.

BERYL, תרשיש, a pellucid gem of a bluish green colour, whence it is
called by the lapidaries, _aqua marina_. Its Hebrew name is a word also
for the same reason given to the sea, Psalm xlviii, 7. It is found in
the East Indies, Peru, Siberia, and Tartary. It has a brilliant
appearance, and is generally transparent. It was the tenth stone
belonging to the high priest’s pectoral, Exod. xxviii, 10, 20; Rev. xxi,
20.

BETHABARA, or BETHBARAH, signifies in the Hebrew a place of passage,
because of its ford over the river Jordan, on the east bank of which
river it stood over against Jericho, Joshua ii, 7; iii, 15, 16. To this
place Gideon sent a party to secure the passage of the river, previous
to his attack on the Midianites, Judges vii, 24. Here John commenced his
baptizing, and here Christ himself was baptized, John i, 28. To this
place, also, Jesus retired, when the Jews sought to take him at the
feast of dedication; and many who resorted there to him believed on him,
John x, 39–42.

BETHANY, a considerable place, situated on the ascent of the mount of
Olives, about two miles from Jerusalem, John xi, 18; Matt. xxi, 17;
xxvi, 6, &c. Here it was that Martha and Mary lived, with their brother
Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead; and it was here that Mary
poured the perfume on our Saviour’s head. Bethany at present is but a
very small village. One of our modern travellers tells us, that, at the
entrance into it, there is an old ruin, called the castle of Lazarus,
supposed to have been the mansion house where he and his sisters
resided. At the bottom of a descent, not far from the castle, you see
his sepulchre, which the Turks hold in great veneration, and use it for
an oratory, or place for prayer. Here going down by twenty-five steps,
you come at first into a small square room, and from thence creep into
another that is smaller, about a yard and a half deep, in which the body
is said to have been laid. About a bow-shot from hence you pass by the
place which they say was Mary Magdalene’s house; and thence descending a
steep hill, you come to the fountain of the Apostles, which is so called
because, as the tradition goes, these holy persons were wont to refresh
themselves there between Jerusalem and Jericho,--as it is very probable
they might, because the fountain is close to the road side, and is
inviting to the thirsty traveller. Bethany is now a poor village, but
pleasantly situated, says Dr. Richardson, on the shady side of the mount
of Olives, and abounds in trees and long grass.

BETHAVEN, the same with Bethel. This city, upon the revolt of the ten
tribes, belonged to the kingdom of Israel, and was therefore one of the
cities in which Jeroboam set up his golden calves. Whence the prophet in
derision calls it, “Bethaven,” _the house of vanity_ or _idols_, Hosea
iv, 15, instead of “Bethel,” _the house of God_, the name which Jacob
formerly gave it, when he had the vision of the mysterious ladder,
reaching from earth to heaven, Gen. xxviii, 19.

BETHEL, a city which lay to the west of Ai, about eight miles to the
north of Jerusalem, in the confines of the tribe of Ephraim and
Benjamin. Here Jacob slept and had his vision. The name of this city had
formerly been Luz, which signifies _an almond_, and was probably so
called from the number of almond trees which grew in those parts. See
JACOB.

BETHESDA. This word signifies _the house of mercy_, and was the name of
a pool, or public bath, at Jerusalem, which had five porticos, piazzas,
or covered walks around it. This bath was called Bethesda, because, as
some observe, the erecting of baths was an act of great kindness to the
common people, whose infirmities in hot countries required frequent
bathing; but the generality of expositors think it had this name rather
from the great goodness of God manifested to his people, in bestowing
healing virtues upon its waters. The account of the evangelist is, “Now
there was at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a pool, which is called in
the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a
multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the
moving of the water; for an angel went down at a certain season into the
pool: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in
was made whole of whatsoever disease he had,” John v, 2–4. The
genuineness of the fourth verse has been disputed, because it is wanting
in some ancient MSS, and is written in the margin of another as a
scholion; but even were the spuriousness of this verse allowed, for
which, however, the evidence is by no means satisfactory, the
supernatural character of the account, as it is indicated by the other
parts of the narrative, remains unaffected. The _agitation_ of the
water; its _suddenly_ healing virtue as to all diseases; and the
_limitation_ to the first that should go in, are all miraculous
circumstances. Commentators have however resorted to various hypotheses
to account for the whole without divine agency. Dr. Hammond says, “The
sacrifices were exceedingly numerous at the passover, κατὰ καιρὸν, (once
a year, Chrysostom,) when the pool being warm from the immediate washing
of the blood and entrails, and thus adapted to the cure of the blind,
the withered, the lame, and perhaps the paralytic, was yet farther
troubled, and the congelations and grosser parts stirred up by an
officer or messenger, ἄγγελος, to give it the full effect.” To this
hypothesis Whitby acutely replies, 1. How could this natural virtue be
adapted to, and cure, all kinds of diseases? 2. How could the virtue
only extend to the cure of one man, several probably entering at the
same instant? 3. How unlikely is it, if natural, to take place only at
one certain time, at the passover? for there was a multitude of
sacrifices slain at other of the feasts. 4. Lastly, and decisively,
Lightfoot shows that there was a laver in the temple for washing the
entrails; therefore they were not washed in this pool at all.

Others, however, suppose that the blood of the victims was conveyed from
the temple to this pool by pipes; and Kuinoel thinks that it cannot be
denied that the blood of animals recently slaughtered may impart a
medicinal property to water; and he refers to Richter’s “_Dissertat. de
Balneo Animali_,” and Michaelis _in loc._ But he admits that it cannot
be proved whether the pool was situated out of the city at the sheep
gate, or in the city, and in the vicinity of the temple; nor that the
blood of the victims was ever conveyed thither by canals. Kuinoel justly
observes, that though in Josephus no mention is made of the baths here
described, yet this silence ought not to induce us to question the truth
of this transaction; since the historian omits to record many other
circumstances which cannot be doubted; as, for instance, the census of
Augustus, and the murder of the infants. This critic also supposes that
St. John only acts the part of an historian, and gives the account as it
was current among the Jews, without vouching for its truth, or
interposing his own judgment. Mede follows in the track of absurdly
attempting to account for the phenomenon on natural principles:--“I
think the water of this pool acquired a medicinal property from the mud
at its bottom, which was heavy with metallic salts,--sulphur perhaps, or
alum, or nitre. Now this would, from the water being perturbed from the
bottom by some natural cause, perhaps subterranean heat, or storms, rise
upward and be mingled with it, and so impart a sanative property to
those who bathed in it before the metallic particles had subsided to the
bottom. That it should have done so, κατὰ καιρὸν, is not strange, since
Bartholin has, by many examples, shown, that it is usual with many
medicinal baths, to exert a singular force and sanative power at stated
times, and at periodical, but uncertain, intervals.” Doddridge combines
the common hypothesis with that of Mede; namely, that the water had at
all times more or less of a medicinal property; but at some period, not
far distant from that in which the transaction here recorded took place,
it was endued with a miraculous power; an extraordinary commotion being
probably observed in the water, and Providence so ordering it, that the
next person who accidentally bathed here, being under some great
disorder, found an immediate and unexpected cure: the like phenomenon in
some other desperate case, was probably observed on a second commotion:
and these commotions and cures might happen periodically.

All those hypotheses which exclude miracle in this case are very
unsatisfactory, nor is there any reason whatever to resort to them; for,
when rightly viewed, there appears a mercy and a wisdom in this miracle
which must strike every one who attentively considers the account,
unless he be a determined unbeliever in miraculous interposition. For,
1. The miracle occurred κατὰ καιρὸν, from time to time, that is,
occasionally, perhaps frequently. 2. Though but one at a time was
healed, yet, as this might often occur, a singularly gracious provision
was made for the relief of the sick inhabitants of Jerusalem in
desperate cases. 3. The angel probably acted invisibly, but the
commotion in the waters was so strong and peculiar as to mark a
supernatural agent. 4. There is great probability in what Doddridge,
following Tertullian, supposes, that the waters obtained their healing
property not long before the ministry of Christ, and lost it after his
rejection and crucifixion by the Jews. In this case a connection was
established between the healing virtue of the pool and the presence of
Christ on earth, indicating HIM to be the source of this benefit, and
the true agent in conferring it; and thus it became, afterward at least,
a confirmation of his mission. 5. The whole might also be emblematical,
“intended,” says Macknight, “to show that Ezekiel’s vision of waters
issuing out of the sanctuary was about to be fulfilled, of which waters
it is said, They shall be healed, and every thing shall live where the
river cometh.” It cannot be objected that this was not an age of
miracles; and if miracles be allowed, we see in this particular
supernatural visitation obvious reasons of fitness, as well as a divine
compassion. If however the ends to be accomplished by so public and
notable a miraculous interposition were less obvious, still we must
admit the fact, or either force absurd interpretations upon the text, or
make the evangelist carelessly give his sanction to an instance of
vulgar credulity and superstition.

Maundrell and Chateaubriand both describe a bason or reservoir, near St.
Stephen’s gate, and bounding the temple on the north, as the identical
pool of Bethesda; which, if it really be what it is represented to be,
is all that now remains of the primitive architecture of the Jews at
Jerusalem. The latter says, “It is a reservoir, a hundred and fifty feet
long and forty wide. The sides are walled, and these walls are composed
of a bed of large stones joined together by iron cramps; a wall of mixed
materials runs up on these large stones; a layer of flints is stuck upon
the surface of this wall; and a coating is laid over these flints. The
four beds are perpendicular with the bottom, and not horizontal: the
coating was on the side next to the water; and the large stones rested,
as they still do, against the ground. This pool is now dry, and half
filled up. Here grow some pomegranate trees, and a species of wild
tamarind of a bluish colour: the western angle is quite full of nopals.
On the west side may also be seen two arches, which probably led to an
aqueduct that carried the water into the interior of the temple.”

BETH-HORON. About twelve miles from Jerusalem, lies the Arab village of
Bethoor, where Dr. E. D. Clarke was by accident compelled to pass a
night. It is noticed by no other traveller; and yet, there is the
highest probability that this is the Beth-horon of the Scriptures. St.
Jerom associates it with Rama, in the remark that they were in his time,
together with other noble cities built by Solomon, only poor villages.
Beth-horon stood on the confines of Ephraim and Benjamin; which,
according to the learned traveller, exactly answers to the situation of
Bethoor. He supposes it, from its situation on a hill, to be Beth-horon
the upper, the Beth-horon superior of Eusebius, of which frequent notice
occurs in the apocryphal writings. Josephus mentions that Cestius, the
Roman general, marched upon Jerusalem by way of Lydda and Beth-horon.

BETHLEHEM, a city in the tribe of Judah, Judges xvii, 7; and likewise
called Ephrath, Gen. xlviii, 7; or Ephratah, Micah v, 2; and the
inhabitants of it, Ephrathites, Ruth i, 2; 1 Sam. xvii, 12. Here David
was born, and spent his early years as a shepherd. And here also the
scene of the beautiful narrative of Ruth is supposed to be laid. But its
highest honour is, that here our divine Lord condescended to be born of
woman:--“And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is
to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from
everlasting.” Travellers describe the first view of Bethlehem as
imposing. The town appears covering the ridge of a hill on the southern
side of a deep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west. The
most conspicuous object is the monastery erected over the supposed “Cave
of the Nativity;” its walls and battlements have the air of a large
fortress. From this same point, the Dead Sea is seen below on the left,
seemingly very near, “but,” says Sandys, “not so found by the traveller;
for these high, declining mountains are not to be directly descended.”
The road winds round the top of a valley which tradition has fixed on as
the scene of the angelic vision which announced the birth of our Lord to
the shepherds; but different spots have been selected, the Romish
authorities not being agreed on this head. Bethlehem (called in the New
Testament Bethlehem Ephrata and Bethlehem of Judea, to distinguish it
from Bethlehem of Zabulon) is situated on a rising ground, about two
hours’ distance, or not quite six miles from Jerusalem. Here the
traveller meets with a repetition of the same puerilities and disgusting
mummery which he has witnessed at the church of the sepulchre. “The
stable,” to use the words of Pococke, “in which our Lord was born, is a
_grotto_ cut out of the rock, according to the eastern custom.” It is
astonishing to find so intelligent a writer as Dr. E. D. Clarke gravely
citing St. Jerom, who wrote in the fifth century, as an authority for
the truth of the absurd legend by which the cave of the nativity is
supposed to be identified. The ancient tombs and excavations are
occasionally used by the Arabs as places of shelter; but the Gospel
narrative affords no countenance to the notion that the Virgin took
refuge in any cave of this description. On the contrary, it was
evidently a manger belonging to the inn or khan: in other words, the
upper rooms being wholly occupied, the holy family were compelled to
take up their abode in the court allotted to the mules and horses, or
other animals. But the New Testament was not the guide which was
followed by the mother of Constantine, to whom the original church owed
its foundation. The present edifice is represented by Chateaubriand as
of undoubtedly high antiquity; yet Doubdan, an old traveller, says that
the monastery was destroyed in the year 1263 by the Moslems; and in its
present state, at all events, it cannot lay claim to a higher date. The
convent is divided among the Greek, Roman, and Armenian Christians, to
each of whom separate parts are assigned as places of worship and
habitations for the monks; but, on certain days, all may perform their
devotions at the altars erected over the consecrated spots. The church
is built in the form of a cross; the nave being adorned with forty-eight
Corinthian columns in four rows, each column being two feet six inches
in diameter, and eighteen feet high, including the base and the capital.
The nave, which is in possession of the Armenians, is separated from the
three other branches of the cross by a wall, so that the unity of the
edifice is destroyed. The top of the cross is occupied by the choir,
which belongs to the Greeks. Here is an altar dedicated to the wise men
of the east, at the foot of which is a marble star, corresponding, as
the monks say, to the point of the heavens where the miraculous meteor
became stationary, and directly over the spot where the Saviour was born
in the subterranean church below! A flight of fifteen steps, and a long
narrow passage, conduct to the sacred crypt or grotto of the nativity,
which is thirty-seven feet six inches long, by eleven feet three inches
in breadth, and nine feet high. It is lined and floored with marble, and
provided on each side with five oratories, “answering precisely to the
ten cribs or stalls for horses that the stable in which our Saviour was
born contained!” The precise spot of the birth is marked by a glory in
the floor, composed of marble and jasper encircled with silver, around
which are inscribed the words, _Hìc de Virgine Mariâ Jesus Christus
natus est_. [Here Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.] Over it is
a marble table or altar, which rests against the side of the rock, here
cut into an arcade. The _manger_ is at the distance of seven paces from
the altar; it is in a low recess hewn out of the rock, to which you
descend by two steps, and consists of a block of marble, raised about a
foot and a half above the floor, and hollowed out in the form of a
manger. Before it is the altar of the Magi. The chapel is illuminated by
thirty-two lamps, presented by different princes of Christendom.
Chateaubriand has described the scene in his usual florid and
imaginative style: “Nothing can be more pleasing, or better calculated
to excite devotional sentiments, than this subterraneous church. It is
adorned with pictures of the Italian and Spanish schools, which
represent the mysteries of the place. The usual ornaments of the manger
are of blue satin, embroidered with silver. Incense is continually
burning before the cradle of our Saviour. I have heard an organ, touched
by no ordinary hand, play, during mass, the sweetest and most tender
tunes of the best Italian composers. These concerts charm the Christian
Arab, who, leaving his camels to feed, repairs, like the shepherds of
old, to Bethlehem, to adore the King of kings in the manger. I have seen
this inhabitant of the desert communicate at the altar of the Magi, with
a fervour, a piety, a devotion, unknown among the Christians of the
west. The continual arrival of caravans from all the nations of
Christendom; the public prayers; the prostrations; nay, even the
richness of the presents sent here by the Christian princes, altogether
produce feelings in the soul, which it is much easier to conceive than
to describe.”

Such are the illusions which the Roman superstition casts over this
extraordinary scene! In another subterraneous chapel, tradition places
the sepulchre of the Innocents. From this, the pilgrim is conducted to
the grotto of St. Jerom, where they show the tomb of that father, who
passed great part of his life in this place; and who, in the grotto
shown as his oratory, is said to have translated that version of the
Bible which has been adopted by the church of Rome, and is called the
Vulgate. He died at the advanced age of ninety-one, A. D. 422. The
village of Bethlehem contains about three hundred inhabitants, the
greater part of whom gain their livelihood by making beads, carving
mother-of-pearl shells with sacred subjects, and manufacturing small
tables and crucifixes, all which are eagerly purchased by the pilgrims.

Bethlehem has been visited by many modern travellers. The following
notice of it by Dr. E. D. Clarke will be read with interest: “After
travelling for about an hour from the time of our leaving Jerusalem, we
came in view of Bethlehem, and halted to enjoy the interesting sight.
The town appeared covering the ridge of a hill on the southern side of a
deep and extensive valley, and reaching from east to west; the most
conspicuous object being the monastery, erected over the cave of the
nativity, in the suburbs, and upon the eastern side. The battlements and
walls of this building seemed like those of a vast fortress. The Dead
Sea below, upon our left, appeared so near to us that we thought we
could have rode thither in a very short space of time. Still nearer
stood a mountain upon its western shore, resembling in its form the cone
of Vesuvius near Naples, and having also a crater upon its top which was
plainly discernible. The distance, however, is much greater than it
appears to be; the magnitude of the objects beheld in this fine prospect
causing them to appear less remote than they really are. The atmosphere
was remarkably clear and serene; but we saw none of those clouds of
smoke, which, by some writers, are said to exhale from the surface of
the lake, nor from any neighbouring mountain. Every thing about it was
in the highest degree grand and awful. Bethlehem is six miles from
Jerusalem. Josephus describes the interval between the two cities as
equal only to twenty stadia; and in the passage referred to, he makes an
allusion to a celebrated well, which, both from the account given by him
of its situation, and more especially from the text of the sacred
Scriptures, 2 Sam. xxiii, 15, seems to have contained the identical
fountain, of whose pure and delicious water we were now drinking.
Considered merely in point of interest, the narrative is not likely to
be surpassed by any circumstance of Pagan history. David, being a native
of Bethlehem, calls to mind, during the sultry days of harvest, verse
13, a well near the gate of the town, the delicious waters of which he
had often tasted; and expresses an earnest desire to assuage his thirst
by drinking of that limpid spring. ‘And David longed, and said, O that
one would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which
is by the gate!’ The exclamation is overheard by ‘three of the mighty
men whom David had,’ namely, Adino, Eleazar, and Shamnah, verses 8, 9,
11. These men sallied forth, and having fought their way through the
garrison of the Philistines at Bethlehem, verse 14, ‘drew water from the
well that was by the gate,’ on the other side of the town, and brought
it to David. Coming into his presence, they present to him the
surprising testimony of their valour and affection. The aged monarch
receives from their hands a pledge they had so dearly earned, but
refuses to drink of water every drop of which had been purchased with
blood, 2 Sam. xxiii, 17. He returns thanks to the Almighty, who had
vouchsafed the deliverance of his warriors from the jeopardy they had
encountered; and pouring out the water as a libation on the ground,
makes an offering of it to the Lord. The well still retains its pristine
renown; and many an expatriated Bethlehemite has made it the theme of
his longing and regret.”

BETHPHAGE, so called from its producing figs, a small village situated
in Mount Olivet, and, as it seems, somewhat nearer Jerusalem than
Bethany. Jesus being come from Bethany to Bethphage, commanded his
disciples to seek out an ass for him that he might ride, in his
triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi, 1, &c. The distance
between Bethphage and Jerusalem is about fifteen furlongs.

BETHSAIDA, a city whose name in Hebrew imports a place of fishing or of
hunting, and for both of these exercises it was well situated. As it
belonged to the tribe of Naphtali, it was in a country remarkable for
plenty of deer; and as it lay on the north end of the lake Gennesareth,
just where the river Jordan runs into it, it became the residence of
fishermen. Three of the Apostles, Philip, Andrew, and Peter, were born
in this city. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, though it
frequently occurs in the New: the reason is, that it was but a village,
as Josephus tells us, till Philip the tetrarch enlarged it, making it a
magnificent city, and gave it the name of Julias, out of respect to
Julia, the daughter of Augustus Cæsar.

The evangelists speak of Bethsaida; and yet it then possessed that name
no longer: it was enlarged and beautified nearly at the same time as
Cæsarea, and called Julias. Thus was it called in the days of our Lord,
and so would the sacred historians have been accustomed to call it. But
if they knew nothing of this, what shall we say of their age? In other
respects they evince the most accurate knowledge of the circumstances of
the time. The solution is, that, though Philip had exalted it to the
rank of a city, to which he gave the name of Julias, yet, not long
afterward, this Julia, in whose honour the city received its name, was
banished from the country by her own father. The deeply wounded honour
of Augustus was even anxious that the world might forget that she was
his daughter. Tiberius, whose wife she had been, consigned the
unfortunate princess, after the death of Augustus, to the most abject
poverty, under which she sank without assistance. Thus adulation must
under two reigns have suppressed a name, from which otherwise the city
might have wished to derive benefit to itself; and for some time it was
called by its ancient name Bethsaida instead of Julias. At a later
period this name again came into circulation, and appears in the
catalogue of Jewish cities by Pliny. By such incidents, which are so
easily overlooked, and the knowledge of which is afterward lost, do
those who are really acquainted with an age disclose their authenticity.
“But it is strange,” some one will say, “that John reckons this
Bethsaida, or Julias, where he was born, in Galilee, John xii, 21.
Should he not know to what province his birthplace belonged?” Philip
only governed the eastern districts by the sea of Tiberias; but Galilee
was the portion of his brother Antipas. Bethsaida or Julias could
therefore not have been built by Philip, as the case is; or it did not
belong to Galilee, as John alleges. In fact, such an error were
sufficient to prove that this Gospel was not written by John. Julias,
however, was situated in Gaulonitis, which district was, for deep
political reasons, divided from Galilee; but the ordinary language of
the time asserted its own opinion, and still reckoned the Gaulonitish
province in Galilee. When, therefore, John does the same, he proves,
that the peculiarity of those days was not unknown to him; for he
expresses himself after the ordinary manner of the period. Thus Josephus
informs us of Judas the Gaulonite from Gamala, and also calls him in the
following chapters, the Galilean; and then in another work he applies
the same expression to him; from whence we may be convinced that the
custom of those days paid respect to a more ancient division of the
country, and bade defiance, in the present case, to the then existing
political geography. Is it possible that historians who, as it is
evident from such examples, discover throughout so nice a knowledge of
geographical arrangements and local and even temporary circumstances,
should have written at a time when the theatre of events was unknown to
them, when not only their native country was destroyed, but their nation
scattered, and the national existence of the Jews extinguished and
extirpated? On the contrary, all this is in proof that they wrote at the
very period which they profess, and it also proves the usual antiquity
assigned to the Gospels.

BETHSHAN, a city belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh, on the west of
Jordan, and not far from the river. It was a considerable city in the
time of Eusebius and St. Jerom, and was then, as it had been for several
ages before, called Scythopolis, or the city of the Scythians, from some
remarkable occurrence when the Scythians made an irruption into Syria.
It is said to be six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, 2 Macc. xii, 29.
After the battle of Mount Gilboa, the Philistines took the body of Saul,
and hung it against the wall of Bethshan, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10. Bethshan is
now called Bysan, and is described by Burckhardt as situated on rising
ground on the west of the Ghor, or valley of Jordan.

BETHSHEMESH, a city of the tribe of Judah, belonging to the priests,
Joshua xxi, 16. The Philistines having sent back the ark of the Lord, it
was brought to Bethshemesh, 1 Sam. vi, 12, where some of the people out
of curiosity having looked into it, the Lord destroyed seventy of the
principal men belonging to the city, and fifty thousand of the common
people, verse 19. It is here to be observed that it was solemnly
enjoined, Num. iv, 20, that not only the common people but that even the
Levites themselves should not dare to look into the ark, upon pain of
death. “It is a fearful thing,” says Bishop Hall, “to use the holy
ordinances of God with an irreverent boldness; fear and trembling become
us in our access to the majesty of the Almighty.”

BETHUEL, the son of Nahor and Milcah. He was Abraham’s nephew, and
father to Laban and Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, Genesis xxii, 20, 23.

BETROTHMENT, a mutual promise or compact between two parties for a
future marriage. The word imports as much as giving one’s troth; that
is, true faith, or promise. Among the ancient Jews, the betrothing was
performed either by a writing, or by a piece of silver given to the
bride. After the marriage was contracted, the young people had the
liberty of seeing each other, which was not allowed them before. If,
after the betrothment, the bride should trespass against that fidelity
she owed to her bridegroom she was treated as an adulteress. See
MARRIAGE.

BEZER, or Bozra, or Bostra, a city beyond Jordan, given by Moses to
Reuben: this town was designed by Joshua to be a city of refuge; it was
given to the Levites of Gershom’s family, Deut. iv, 43. When Scripture
mentions Bezer, it adds, “in the wilderness,” because it lay in Arabia
Deserta, and the eastern part of Edom, encompassed with deserts.
Eusebius places Bozra twenty-four miles from Adraa, or Edrai. This city
is sometimes said to belong to Reuben, sometimes to Moab, and sometimes
again to Edom; because, as it was a frontier town to these three
provinces, it was occasionally in the hands of one party, and then was
taken by another. The bishops of Bostra subscribed the decrees of
several councils.

BIBLE, _the book_, by way of eminence so called, as containing the
sacred Scriptures, that is, the inspired writings of the Old and New
Testament; or the whole collection of those which are received among
Christians as of divine authority. The word Bible comes from the Greek
Βίϐλος, or Βιϐλίον, and is used to denote any book; but is emphatically
applied to the book of inspired Scripture, which is “the book” as being
superior in excellence to all other books. Βιβλίον again comes from
Βίϐλος, the Egyptian reed, from which the ancient paper was procured.
The word Bible seems to be used in the particular sense just given by
Chrysostom: “I therefore exhort all of you to procure to yourselves
Bibles, Βιϐλια. If you have nothing else, take care to have the New
Testament, particularly the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels, for
your constant instructers.” And Jerome says, “that the Scriptures being
all written by one Spirit, are _one book_.” Augustine also informs us,
“that some called all the canonical Scriptures _one book_, on account of
their wonderful harmony and unity of design throughout.” It is not
improbable that this mode of speaking gradually introduced the general
use of the word Bible for the whole collection of the Scriptures, or the
books of the Old and New Testament. By the Jews the Bible, that is, the
Old Testament, is called _Mikra_, that is, “lecture, or reading.” By
Christians the Bible, comprehending the Old and New Testament, is
usually denominated “Scripture;” sometimes also the “Sacred Canon,”
which signifies the rule of faith and practice. These, and similar
appellations, are derived from the divine original and authority of the
Bible. As it contains an authentic and connected history of the divine
dispensations with regard to mankind; as it was given by divine
inspiration; as its chief subject is religion; and as the doctrines it
teaches, and the duties it inculcates, pertain to the conduct of men, as
rational, moral, and accountable beings, and conduce by a divine
constitution and promise, to their present and future happiness; the
Bible deserves to be held in the highest estimation, and amply justifies
the sentiments of veneration with which it has been regarded, and the
peculiar and honourable appellations by which it has been denominated.

2. The list of the books contained in the Bible constitutes what is
called the canon of Scripture. Those books that are contained in the
catalogue to which the name of canon has been appropriated, are called
canonical, by way of contradistinction from others called
deutero-canonical, apocryphal, pseudo-apocryphal, &c, which either are
not acknowledged as divine books, or are rejected as heretical and
spurious. (See _Apocrypha_.) The first canon or catalogue of the sacred
books was made by the Jews; but the original author of it is not
satisfactorily ascertained. It is certain, however, that the five books
of Moses, called the Pentateuch, were collected into one body within a
short time after his death; since Deuteronomy, which is, as it were, the
abridgment and recapitulation of the other four, was laid in the
tabernacle near the ark, according to the order which he gave to the
Levites, Deut. xxxi, 24. Hence the first canon of the sacred writings
consisted of the five books of Moses: for a farther account of which see
_Pentateuch_. It does not appear that any other books were added to
these, till the division of the ten tribes, as the Samaritans
acknowledged no others. However, after the time of Moses, several
prophets, and other writers divinely inspired, composed either the
history of their own times, or prophetical books and divine writings, or
psalms appropriated to the praise of God. But these books do not seem to
have been collected into one body, or comprised under one and the same
canon, before the Babylonish captivity. This was not done till after
their return from the captivity, about which time the Jews had a certain
number of books digested into a canon, which comprehended none of those
books that were written since the time of Nehemiah. The book of
Ecclesiasticus affords sufficient evidence that the canon of the sacred
books was completed when that tract was composed; for that author, in
chapter xlix, having mentioned among the famous men and sacred writers,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, adds the twelve minor prophets who follow
those three in the Jewish canon; and from this circumstance we may infer
that the prophecies of these twelve were already collected and digested
into one body. It is farther evident, that in the time of our Saviour
the canon of the Holy Scriptures was drawn up, since he cites the law of
Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are the three kinds of books
of which that canon is composed, and which he often styles, “the
Scriptures,” or, “the Holy Scripture,” Matt. xxi, 42; xxii, 29; xxvi,
54; John v, 39; and by him therefore the Jewish canon, as it existed in
his day, was fully authenticated, by whomsoever or at what time it had
been formed.

3. The person who compiled this canon is generally allowed to be Ezra.
According to the invariable tradition of Jews and Christians, the honour
is ascribed to him of having collected together and perfected a complete
edition of the Holy Scriptures. The original of the Pentateuch had been
carefully preserved in the side of the ark, and had been probably
introduced with the ark into the temple at Jerusalem. After having been
concealed in the dangerous days of the idolatrous kings of Judah, and
particularly in the impious reigns of Manasseh and Amon, it was found in
the days of Josiah, the succeeding prince, by Hilkiah the priest, in the
temple. Prideaux thinks, that during the preceding reigns the book of
the law was so destroyed and lost, that, beside this copy of it, there
was then no other to be obtained. To this purpose he adds, that the
surprise manifested by Hilkiah, on the discovery of it, and the grief
expressed by Josiah when he heard it read, plainly show that neither of
them had seen it before. On the other hand, Dr. Kennicott, with better
reason, supposes, that long before this time there were several copies
of the law in Israel, during the separation of the ten tribes, and that
there were some copies of it also among the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin, particularly in the hands of the prophets, priests, and
Levites; and that by the instruction and authority of these MSS, the
various services in the temple were regulated, during the reigns of the
good kings of Judah. He adds, that the surprise expressed by Josiah and
the people, at his reading the copy found by Hilkiah, may be accounted
for by adverting to the history of the preceding reigns, and by
recollecting how idolatrous a king Manasseh had been for fifty-five
years, and that he wanted neither power nor inclination to destroy the
copies of the law, if they had not been secreted by the servants of God.
The law, after being so long concealed, would be unknown almost to all
the Jews; and thus the solemn reading of it by Josiah would awaken his
own and the people’s earnest attention; more especially, as the copy
produced was probably the original written by Moses. From this time
copies of the law were extensively multiplied among the people; and
though, within a few years, the autograph, or original copy of the law,
was burnt with the city and temple by the Babylonians, yet many copies
of the law and the prophets, and of all the other sacred writings, were
circulated in the hands of private persons, who carried them with them
into their captivity. It is certain that Daniel had a copy of the Holy
Scriptures with him at Babylon; for he quotes the law, and mentions the
prophecies of Jeremiah, Dan. ix, 2, 11, 13. It appears also, from the
sixth chap. of Ezra, and from the ninth chap. of Nehemiah, that copies
of the law were dispersed among the people. The whole which Ezra did may
be comprised in the following particulars: He collected as many copies
of the sacred writings as he could find, and compared them together,
and, out of them all, formed one complete copy, adjusted the various
readings, and corrected the errors of transcribers. He likewise made
additions in several parts of the different books, which appeared to be
necessary for the illustration, correction, and completion of them. To
this class of additions we may refer the last chapter of Deuteronomy,
which, as it gives an account of the death and burial of Moses, and of
the succession of Joshua after him, could not have been written by Moses
himself. Under the same head have also been included some other
interpolations in the Bible, which create difficulties that can only be
solved by allowing them; as in Gen. xii, 6; xxii, 14; xxxvi, 3; Exodus
xvi, 35; Deut. ii, 12; iii, 11, 14; Prov. xxv, 1. The interpolations in
these passages are ascribed by Prideaux to Ezra; and others which were
afterward added, he attributes to Simon the Just. Ezra also changed the
old names of several places that were become obsolete, putting instead
of them the new names by which they were at that time called; instances
of which occur in Genesis xiv, 4, where Dan is substituted for Laish,
and in several places in Genesis, and also in Numbers, where Hebron is
put for Kirjath Arba, &c. He likewise wrote out the whole in the Chaldee
character, changing for it the old Hebrew character, which has since
that time been retained only by the Samaritans, and among whom it is
preserved even to this day. The canon of the whole Hebrew Bible seems,
says Kennicott, to have been closed by Malachi, the latest of the Jewish
prophets, about fifty years after Ezra had collected together all the
sacred books which had been composed before and during his time.
Prideaux supposes the canon was completed by Simon the Just, about one
hundred and fifty years after Malachi: but, as his opinion is founded
merely on a few proper names at the end of the two genealogies, 1 Chron.
iii, 19; Nehem. xii, 22, which few names might very easily be added by a
transcriber afterward, it is more probable, as Kennicott thinks, that
the canon was finished by the last of the prophets, about four hundred
years before Christ.

4. It is an inquiry of considerable importance, in its relation to the
subject of this article, what books were contained in the canon of the
Jews. The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine
books, viz. the Pentateuch or five books of Moses, called Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the books of Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of
Solomon, the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah with his Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. But, among the
ancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according to the
letters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reckoning
Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamentations, and
the twelve minor prophets, (so called from the comparative brevity of
their compositions,) respectively as one book. Josephus says, “We have
not thousands of books, discordant, and contradicting each other: but we
have only _twenty-two_, which comprehend the history of all former ages,
and are justly regarded as divine. _Five_ of them proceed from Moses;
they include as well the _laws_, as an account of the creation of man,
extending to the time of his (Moses) death. This period comprehends
nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to that of
Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the _prophets_, who
succeeded Moses, committed to writing, in thirteen books, what was done
in their days. The remaining four books contain _hymns_ to God, (the
Psalms,) and instructions of life for man.” The threefold division of
the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, mentioned
by Josephus, was expressly recognised before his time by Jesus Christ,
as well as by the subsequent writers of the New Testament. We have
therefore sufficient evidence that the Old Testament existed at that
time; and if it be only allowed that Jesus Christ was a teacher of a
fearless and irreproachable character, it must be acknowledged that we
draw a fair conclusion, when we assert that the Scriptures were not
corrupted in his time: for, when he accused the Pharisees of making the
law of no effect by their traditions, and, when he enjoined his hearers
to search the Scriptures, he could not have failed to mention the
corruptions or forgeries of Scripture, if any had existed in that age.
About fifty years before the time of Christ were written the Targums of
Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel on the Prophets;
(according to the Jewish classification of the books of the Old
Testament;) which are evidence of the genuineness of those books at that
time. We have, however, unquestionable testimony of the genuineness of
the Old Testament, in the _fact_ that its canon was fixed some centuries
before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus the son of Sirach, author of the
book of Ecclesiasticus, makes evident references to the prophecies of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and mentions these prophets by name: he
speaks also of the twelve minor prophets. It likewise appears from the
prologue to that book, that the law and the prophets, and other ancient
books, were extant at the same period. The book of Ecclesiasticus,
according to the best chronologers, was written in the Syro-Chaldaic
dialect A. M. 3772, that is, two hundred and thirty-two years before the
Christian æra, and was translated by the grandson of Jesus into Greek,
for the use of the Alexandrian Jews. The prologue was added by the
translator; but this circumstance does not diminish the evidence for the
antiquity of the Old Testament: for he informs us, that the law and the
prophets, and the other books of their fathers, were studied by his
grandfather; a sufficient proof that they were extant in his time. Fifty
years, indeed, before the age of the author of Ecclesiasticus, or two
hundred and eighty-two years before the Christian æra, the Greek version
of the Old Testament, usually called the Septuagint, was executed at
Alexandria, the books of which are the same as in our Bibles; whence it
is evident that we still have those identical books, which the most
ancient Jews attested to be genuine. The Christian fathers too, Origen,
Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, and Jerom, speaking
of the books that are allowed by the Jews as sacred and canonical, agree
in saying that they are the same in number with the letters in the
Hebrew alphabet, that is, twenty-two, and reckon particularly those
books which we have already mentioned. Nothing can be more satisfactory
and conclusive than all the parts of the evidence for the authenticity
and integrity of the canon of the Old Testament scriptures. The Jews, to
whom they were first committed, never varied respecting them; while they
were fully recognised by our Lord and his Apostles; and, consequently,
their authenticity is established by express revelation. And that we now
possess them as thus delivered and authenticated, we have the concurrent
testimony of the whole succession of the most distinguished early
Christian writers, as well as of the Jews to this day, who, in every
age, and in all countries, the most remote from one another, have
constantly been in the habit of reading them in their synagogues.

5. The five books of the law are divided into fifty-four sections, which
division is attributed to Ezra, and was intended for the use of their
synagogues, and for the better instruction of the people in the law of
God. For, one of these sections was read every Sabbath in their
synagogues. They ended the last section with the last words of
Deuteronomy on the Sabbath of the feast of the tabernacles, and then
began anew with the first section from the beginning of Genesis the next
Sabbath after, and so went round in this circle every year. The number
of these sections was fifty-four, because in their intercalated years (a
month being then added) there were fifty-four Sabbaths. On other years
they reduced them to the number of the Sabbaths which were in those
years, by joining two short ones several times into one. For they held
themselves obliged to have the whole law thus read over in their
synagogues every year. Till the time of the persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes, they read only the law; but being then prohibited from
reading it any more, they substituted in the room of the fifty-four
sections of the law, fifty-four sections out of the prophets, the
reading of which they ever after continued. Thus, when the reading of
the law was restored by the Maccabees, the section which was read every
Sabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and the section
out of the prophets for their second lesson; and this practice was
continued to the times of the Apostles, Acts xiii, 15, 27. These
sections were divided into verses, called by the Jews _pesukim_, and
they are marked out in the Hebrew Bible by two great points at the end
of them, called from hence, _soph-pasuk_, that is, the end of the verse.
This division, if not made by Ezra, is very ancient; for when the
Chaldee came into use in the room of the Hebrew language, after the
return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, the law was read to
the people first in the Hebrew language, and then rendered by an
interpreter into the Chaldee language; and this was done period by
period. The division of the Holy Scriptures into chapters is of a much
later date. The Psalms, indeed, appear to have been always divided as
they are at present, Acts xiii, 33; but as to the rest of the Bible, the
present division into chapters was unknown to the ancients.

6. From the time when the Old Testament was completed by Malachi, the
last of the prophets, till the publication of the New Testament, about
four hundred and sixty years elapsed. During the life of Jesus Christ,
and for some time after his ascension, nothing on the subject of his
mission was committed to writing. The period of his remaining upon earth
may be regarded as an intermediate state between the old and new
dispensations. His personal ministry was confined to the land of Judea;
and, by means of his miracles and discourses, together with those of his
disciples, the attention of men, in that country, was sufficiently
directed to his doctrine. They were also in possession of the Old
Testament scriptures; which, at that season, it was of the greatest
importance they should consult, in order to compare the ancient
predictions with what was then taking place. Immediately after the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples, in the most public manner,
and in the place where he had been crucified, proclaimed that event, and
the whole of the doctrine which he had commanded them to preach. In this
service they continued personally to labour for a considerable time,
first among their countrymen the Jews, and then among the other nations.
During the period between the resurrection and the publication of the
New Testament, the churches possessed miraculous gifts, and the prophets
were enabled to explain the predictions of the Old Testament, and to
show their fulfilment. After their doctrine had every where attracted
attention, and, in spite of the most violent opposition, had forced its
way through the civilized world; and when churches or societies of
Christians were collected, not only in Judea, but in the most celebrated
cities of Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, the scriptures of the New
Testament were written by the Apostles, and other inspired men, and
intrusted to the keeping of these churches.

The whole of the New Testament was not written at once, but in different
parts, and on various occasions. Six of the Apostles, and two inspired
disciples who accompanied them in their journeys, were employed in this
work. The histories which it contains of the life of Christ, known by
the name of the Gospels, were composed by four of his contemporaries,
two of whom had been constant attendants on his public ministry. The
first of these was published within a few years after his death, in that
very country where he had lived, and among the people who had seen him
and observed his conduct. The history called the Acts of the Apostles,
which contains an account of their proceedings, and of the progress of
the Gospel, from Jerusalem, among the Gentile nations, was published
about the year 64, being thirty years after our Lord’s crucifixion, by
one who, though not an Apostle, declares that he had “perfect
understanding of all things, from the very first,” and who had written
one of the Gospels. This book, commencing with a detail of proceedings,
from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, carries down the evangelical
history till the arrival of Paul as a prisoner at Rome. The Epistles,
addressed to churches in particular places, to believers scattered up
and down in different countries, or to individuals, in all twenty-one in
number, were separately written, by five of the Apostles, from
seventeen, to twenty, thirty, and thirty-five years after the death of
Christ. Four of these writers had accompanied the Lord Jesus during his
life, and had been “eye witnesses of his majesty.” The fifth was the
Apostle Paul, who, as he expresses it, was “one born out of due time,”
but who had likewise seen Jesus Christ, and had been empowered by him to
work miracles, which were “the signs of an Apostle.” One of these five
also wrote the book of Revelation, about the year A. D. 96, addressed to
seven churches in Asia, containing Epistles to these churches from Jesus
Christ himself, with various instructions for the immediate use of all
Christians, together with a prophetical view of the kingdom of God till
the end of time. These several pieces, which compose the scriptures of
the New Testament, were received by the churches with the highest
veneration; and, as the instructions they contain, though partially
addressed, were equally intended for all, they were immediately copied,
and handed about from one church to another, till each was in possession
of the whole. The volume of the New Testament was thus completed before
the death of the last of the Apostles, most of whom had sealed their
testimony with their blood. From the manner in which these scriptures
were at first circulated, some of their parts were necessarily longer in
reaching certain places than others. These, of course, could not be so
soon received into the canon as the rest. Owing to this circumstance,
and to that of a few of the books being addressed to individual
believers, or to their not having the names of their writers affixed, or
the designation of Apostle added, a doubt for a time existed among some
respecting the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of
James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of
John, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation. These, however,
though not universally, were generally acknowledged; while all the other
books of the New Testament were without dispute received from the
beginning. This discrimination proves the scrupulous care of the first
churches on this highly important subject.

At length these books, which had not at first been admitted, were, like
the rest, universally received, not by the votes of a council, as is
sometimes asserted, but after deliberate and free inquiry by many
separate churches, under the superintending providence of God, in
different parts of the world. It is at the same time a certain fact,
that no other books beside those which at present compose the volume of
the New Testament, were admitted by the churches. Several apocryphal
writings were published under the name of Jesus Christ and his Apostles,
which are mentioned by the writers of the first four centuries, most of
which have perished, though some are still extant. Few or none of them
were composed before the second century, and several of them were forged
as late as the third century. But they were not acknowledged as
authentic by the first Christians; and were rejected by those who have
noticed them, as spurious and heretical. Histories, too, as might have
been expected, were written of the life of Christ; and one forgery was
attempted, of a letter said to have been written by Jesus himself to
Abgarus, king of Edessa; but of the first, none were received as of any
authority, and the last was universally rejected. “Beside our Gospels,
and the Acts of the Apostles,” says Paley, “no Christian history
claiming to be written by an Apostle, or Apostolical man, is quoted
within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now
extant or known, or, if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and
rejection.” This agreement of Christians respecting the Scriptures, when
we consider their many differences in other respects, is the more
remarkable, since it took place without any public authority being
interposed. “We have no knowledge” says the above author, “of any
interference of authority in the question before the council of
Laodicea, in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather
declared than regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking,
the judgment of some neighbouring churches, the council itself
consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the
adjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended
farther.” But the fact, that no public authority was interposed, does
not require to be supported by the above reasoning. The churches at the
beginning, being widely separated from each other, necessarily judged
for themselves in this matter, and the decree of the council was founded
on the coincidence of their judgment. In delivering this part of his
written revelation, God proceeded as he had done in the publication of
the Old Testament scriptures. For a considerable time, his will was
declared to mankind through the medium of oral tradition. At length he
saw meet, in his wisdom, to give it a more permanent form. But this did
not take place till a nation, separated from all others, was provided
for its reception. In the same manner, when Jesus Christ set up his
kingdom in the world, of which the nation of Israel was a type, he first
made known his will by means of verbal communication, through his
servants whom he commissioned and sent out for that purpose; and when,
through their means, he had prepared his subjects and collected them
into churches, to be the depositaries of his word, he caused it to be
delivered to them in writing. His kingdom was not to consist of any
particular nation, like that of Israel, but of all those individuals, in
every part of the world, who should believe in his name. It was to be
ruled, not by means of human authority, or compulsion of any kind, but
solely by his authority. These sacred writings were thus intrusted to a
people prepared for their reception,--a nation among the nations, but
singularly distinct from all the rest, who guarded and preserved them
with the same inviolable attachment as the Old Testament scriptures had
experienced from the Jews.

7. Respecting the lateness of the time when the scriptures of the New
Testament were written, no objection can be offered, since they were
published before that generation passed away which had witnessed the
transactions they record. The dates of these writings fall within the
period of the lives of many who were in full manhood when the Lord Jesus
was upon earth; and the facts detailed in the histories, and referred to
in the Epistles, being of the most public nature, were still open to
full investigation. It must also be recollected, that the Apostles and
disciples, during the whole intermediate period, were publicly
proclaiming to the world the same things which were afterward recorded
in their writings. Thus were the Scriptures, as we now possess them,
delivered to the first churches. By the concurrent testimony of all
antiquity, both of friends and foes, they were received by Christians of
different sects, and were constantly appealed to on all hands, in the
controversies that arose among them. Commentaries upon them were written
at a very early period, and translations made into different languages.
Formal catalogues of them were published, and they were attacked by the
adversaries of Christianity, who not only did not question, but
expressly admitted, the facts they contained, and that they were the
genuine productions of the persons whose names they bore. In this manner
the Scriptures were also secured from the danger of being in any respect
altered or vitiated. “The books of Scripture,” says Augustine, “could
not have been corrupted. If such an attempt had been made by any one,
his design would have been prevented and defeated. His alterations would
have been immediately detected by many and more ancient copies.” The
difficulty of succeeding in such an attempt is apparent hence, that the
Scriptures were early translated into divers languages, and copies of
them were numerous. The alterations which any one attempted to make
would have been soon perceived; just even as now, in fact, lesser faults
in some copies are amended by comparing ancient copies or those of the
original. “If any one,” continues Augustine, “should charge you with
having interpolated some texts alleged by you as favourable to your
cause, what would you say? Would you not immediately answer that it is
impossible for you to do such a thing in books read by all Christians;
and that if any such attempt had been made--by you, it would have been
presently discerned and defeated by comparing the ancient copies? Well,
then, for the same reason that the Scriptures cannot be corrupted by
you, neither could they be corrupted by any other people.” Accordingly,
the uniformity of the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures that are
extant, which are incomparably more numerous than those of any ancient
author, and which are dispersed through so many countries, and in so
great a variety of languages, is truly astonishing. It demonstrates both
the veneration in which the Scriptures have been always held, and the
singular care that has been taken in transcribing them. The number of
various readings, that by the most minute and laborious investigation
and collations of manuscripts have been discovered in them, are said to
amount to one hundred and fifty thousand; though at first sight they may
seem calculated to diminish confidence in the sacred text, yet in no
degree whatever do they affect its credit and integrity. They consist
almost wholly in palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and
verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of a letter or
article, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, or the
transposition of a word or two in a sentence. Taken altogether, they
neither change nor affect a single doctrine or duty announced or
enjoined in the word of God. When, therefore, we consider the great
antiquity of the sacred books, the almost infinite number of copies, of
versions, and of editions, which have been made of them in all
languages, in languages which have not any analogy one with another,
among nations differing so much in their customs and their religious
opinions,--when we consider these things, it is truly astonishing, and
can only be ascribed to the watchful providence of God over his own
word, that, among the various readings, nothing truly essential can be
discerned, which relates to either precept or doctrine, or which breaks
that connection, that unity which subsists in all the various parts of
divine revelation, and which demonstrates the whole to be the work of
one and the same Spirit.

8. Having considered the appellations by which the Bible is
distinguished, the books of which it consists, the time and manner in
which they were collected, it may not be improper to subjoin a few
observations on the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, on
their high original and divine authority, and on their great importance
and utility.

It should here be considered, that the genuineness of the Scriptures
proves the truth of the principal facts contained in them; to which
purpose we may observe that it is very rare to meet with any genuine
writings of the historical kind, in which the principal facts are not
true, unless it be in instances where both the motives which engaged the
author to falsify, and the circumstances which gave some plausibility to
the fiction, are apparent; neither of which can be alleged in the
present case with any colour of reason. As this is rare in general, it
is more rare when the writer treats of things that happened in his own
time, and under his own cognizance and direction, and communicates his
history to persons under the same circumstances; all which may be said
of the writers of the Scripture history. Beside, the great importance of
the facts mentioned in the Scriptures makes it more improbable, that the
several authors should either have attempted to falsify, or have
succeeded in such an attempt. The same observation may be applied to the
great number of particular circumstances of time, place, persons, &c,
mentioned in the Scriptures, and to the harmony of the books with
themselves, and with each other. These are arguments both for the
genuineness of the books, and truth of the facts distinctly considered,
and also arguments for deducing the truth from the genuineness.
Moreover, if the books of the Old and New Testaments were written by the
persons to whom they have been ascribed, that is, if they be genuine,
the moral characters of these writers afford the strongest assurance,
that the facts asserted by them are true. The sufferings which several
of the writers underwent both in life and in death, in attestation of
the facts delivered by them, furnish a particular argument in favour of
these facts. Again, the arguments here alleged for proving the truth of
the Scripture history from the genuineness of the books, are as
conclusive in respect of the miraculous facts, as of the common ones. It
may also be observed, that if we allow the genuineness of the books to
be a sufficient evidence of the common facts which they record, the
miraculous facts must also be allowed from their close connection with
the others. It is necessary to admit both or neither. We cannot conceive
that Moses should have delivered the Israelites from their slavery in
Egypt, or conducted them through the wilderness for forty years, at all
in such manner as the common history represents, unless we suppose the
miraculous facts intermixed with it to be true also. In like manner, the
fame of Christ’s miracles, the multitudes which followed him, the
adherence of his disciples, the jealousy and hatred of the chief
priests, scribes, and Pharisees, with many other facts of a common
nature, are impossible to be accounted for, unless we allow that he did
really work miracles. And the same observations hold, in general, of the
other parts of the Scripture history. We might urge that a particular
argument in favour of the miraculous part of the Scripture history, may
be deduced from the reluctance of mankind to receive miraculous facts;
which would put the writers and readers very much upon their guard, and
would operate as a strong check upon the publication of a miraculous
history at or near the time when the miracles were said to be performed;
and thus it would serve as a strong confirmation of such a history, if
its genuineness be previously granted.

9. In connection with the preceding proposition we may observe, that the
genuineness of the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Porphyry in
effect acknowledges the truth of this proposition, in its reference to
the book of Daniel, by being unable to devise a method of invalidating
its divine authority implied in the accomplishment of the prophecies
which it contains, without asserting that they were written after the
event, or that they were forgeries. Many of the other books of the Old
and New Testaments have unquestionable evidences of the divine
foreknowledge, if they be allowed genuine; such are those supplied by
Moses’s prophecy concerning the captivity of the Israelites, or of a
state not yet erected; Isaiah’s concerning Cyrus; Jeremiah’s concerning
the duration of the Babylonish captivity; Christ’s concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity that was to follow; St.
John’s concerning the great corruption of the Christian church; and
Daniel’s concerning the fourth empire in its declension; which last was
extant in the time of Porphyry, at least; that is, before the events
which it represents. The truth of the proposition might also be argued
from the sublimity and excellence of the doctrines contained in the
Scriptures; in no respect suiting the supposed authors, or the ages in
which they lived, their education or occupation; so that, if they were
the real authors, we are under the necessity of admitting the divine
assistance. The converse of this proposition, namely, that the divine
authority of the Scriptures infers their genuineness, will be readily
and universally acknowledged. Moreover, the truth of the principal facts
contained in the Scriptures proves their divine authority. Such is the
frame of the human mind, that the Scripture history, allowed to be true,
must convince us that Christ, the Prophets, and the Apostles, were
endued with a power greater than human, and acted by the authority of a
Being of the highest wisdom and goodness. By such mode of reasoning it
is shown that the genuineness of the Scriptures, the truth of the
principal facts contained in them, and their divine authority, appear to
be so connected with each other, that, any one being established upon
independent principles, the other two may be inferred from it. On the
subject of the inspiration of the Scriptures, see INSPIRATION.

10. Another argument in favour of the genuineness of the books of the
Old and New Testaments, and of the truth of the principal facts
contained in them, may be deduced from the manner in which they have
been transmitted down from one age to another; resembling that in which
all other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to
posterity. As the works of the Greek and Roman writers were considered
by these nations as having been transmitted to them by their ancestors
in a continued succession from the times when the respective authors
lived, so have the books of the Old Testament been accounted by the
Jews, and those of the New by the Christians; and it is an additional
evidence in the last case, that the primitive Christians were not a
distinct nation, but a great multitude of people dispersed through all
the nations of the Roman empire, and even extending itself beyond the
bounds of that empire. As the Greeks and Romans always believed the
principal facts of their historical books, so the Jews and Christians
did more, and never seem to have doubted of the truth of any part of
theirs. In short--whatever can be said of the traditional authority due
to the Greek and Roman writers--something analogous to this, and for the
most part of greater weight, may be urged for the Jewish and Christian.
Now, as all sober minded persons admit the books usually ascribed to the
Greek and Roman historians, philosophers, &c, to be genuine, and the
principal facts related or alluded to in them to be true, and that one
chief evidence for this is the general traditionary one here recited,
they ought, therefore, to pay the same regard to the books of the Old
and New Testaments, since there are the same, or even greater, reasons
for it. Beside, these traditionary evidences are sufficient; and we thus
obtain a real argument, as well as one _ad hominem_, for receiving books
thus handed down to us. For it is not conceivable, that whole nations
should either be imposed upon themselves, or concur to deceive others by
forgeries of books or of facts. These books and facts must therefore, in
general, be genuine and true; and it is a strong additional evidence of
this, that all nations must be jealous of forgeries for the same reasons
as we are.

11. We may proceed to state farther, that the great importance of the
histories, precepts, promises, threatenings, and prophecies contained in
the Scriptures, is in evidence both of their genuineness, and of the
truth of the principal facts mentioned in them. The history of the
creation, fall, deluge, longevity of the patriarchs, dispersion of
mankind, calling of Abraham, descent of Jacob with his family into
Egypt, and the precepts of abstaining from blood, and of circumcision,
were of such concern, either to mankind in general, or to the Israelites
in particular, and some of them of so extraordinary a nature, as that it
could not be a matter of indifference to the people among whom the
account given of them in Genesis was first published, whether they
received them or not. On the supposition that this account was first
published among the Israelites by Moses, and then confirmed by clear,
universal, uninterrupted tradition, it will be easy to conceive how it
should be handed down from age to age among the Jews, and received by
them as indubitable. But, supposing the account to be false, or that
there were no such vestiges and evidences of these histories and
precepts, it will be difficult to conceive how this could have happened,
let the time of publication be what it may. If early, the people would
reject at once the account, for want of a clear tradition; if late, it
would be natural to inquire how the author was informed of things never
known before to others. As to other cosmogonies and theogonies current
among Pagans, which are evident fictions, they furnish no just objection
against the Mosaic history, because they were generally regarded merely
as amusing fictions; and yet they concealed in figures, or expressed in
plain words, some truths which agree with the book of Genesis, and
afford a strong presumptive evidence in favour of this book. With
respect to the law of Moses, this was extremely burdensome, expensive,
and severe, particularly in its reference to the crime of idolatry, to
which mankind were then extravagantly prone; and it was absurd,
according to human judgment, in the instances of prohibiting their
furnishing themselves with horses for war, and of commanding all the
males of the whole nation to appear at Jerusalem three times a year.
Nevertheless, it claims a divine authority, and appeals to facts of the
most notorious kind, and to customs and ceremonies of the most peculiar
nature, as the memorials of these facts. Can we then conceive that any
nation, with such motives to reject, and such opportunities of
detecting, the forgery of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy, should yet receive them, and submit to this heavy yoke?
That the Jews did submit to the law of Moses in these circumstances, is
evident from the books of the Old and New Testaments, if we allow them
the least truth and genuineness, or even from profane writers, and from
the present observance of it by the Jews scattered through all the
kingdoms of the world. Should it be said that other nations have
ascribed divine authority to their lawgivers, and submitted to very
severe laws, it may be alleged in reply to this, that the pretences of
lawgivers among the Pagans to inspiration, and the submission of the
people, may be accounted for from their peculiar circumstances at the
time, without recurring to real inspiration; and more especially if we
admit the patriarchal revelations related by Moses, and his own divine
legation, as Heathen lawgivers copied after these, and hence we derive a
strong argument in their favour. Beside, no instance occurs among the
Pagans of a body of laws framed at once and remaining invariable;
whereas the body politic of the Israelites assumed a complete form at
once, and has preserved it, with little variation, to the present time,
and under many external disadvantages; thus supplying us with an
instance altogether without parallel, and showing the high opinion which
they entertained of the great importance of their law. In short, of all
the fictions or forgeries that can happen among any people, the most
improbable is that of the Jewish body of civil laws, and seems to be
utterly impossible.

12. If we farther examine the history contained in the books of Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and
extending from the death of Moses to the reëstablishment of the Jews
after the Babylonish captivity by Ezra and Nehemiah, we shall find a
variety of important facts, most of which must be supposed to leave such
vestiges of themselves, either external and visible, or internal in the
minds and memories of the people, as would verify them if true, or cause
them to be rejected if false. The conquest of the land of Canaan, the
division of it, and the appointment of cities for the priests and
Levites by Joshua; the frequent slaveries of the Israelites to the
neighbouring kings, and their deliverance by the judges; the creation of
a kingdom by Samuel; the translation of this kingdom from Saul’s family
to David, with his conquests; the glory of Solomon’s kingdom; the
building of the temple; the division of the kingdom; the idolatrous
worship set up at Dan and Bethel; the captivity of the Israelites by the
kings of Assyria; the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar; the
destruction of their temple; their return under Cyrus, rebuilding the
temple under Darius Hystaspes, and reëstablishment under Artaxerxes
Longimanus, by Ezra and Nehemiah:--these events are some of them the
most glorious, and some of them the most reproachful, that can happen to
any people. How can we reconcile forgeries of such opposite kinds, and
especially as they are interwoven together by various complicated and
necessary connections, which do not admit of separation? The facts,
indeed, are of such importance, notoriety, and permanency in their
effects, that no particular persons among the Israelites could first
project the design of feigning them, that their own people would not
concur with such a design, and that neighbouring nations would not
permit the fiction to pass. Nothing but the invincible evidence of the
facts here alleged, could induce a jealous multitude among the
Israelites or neighbouring nations to acquiesce. This must be
acknowledged upon the supposition that the several books were published
in or near the times when the facts that are recorded in them happened.
But suppose all these historical books forged by Ezra; the hypothesis is
evidently impossible. Things so important and notorious, so honourable
and so reproachful to the people for whose sake they were forged, would
have been rejected with the utmost indignation, unless there were the
strongest and most genuine traces of these things already among the
people. They must therefore, in part at least, be true. If it be said
that additions were made by Ezra, these additions must have been either
of important or trivial matters. On the first supposition, the
difficulty already stated recurs; and if the important facts are true,
what possible motive could have induced Ezra to make additions of no
importance? Beside, if any ancient writings were extant, Ezra must
either copy after them, which destroys the present supposition, or
differ from and oppose them, which would betray him. If there were no
such ancient writings, the people would be led to inquire with regard to
matters of importance, for what reason Ezra was so particular in things
of which there was neither any memory, nor account in writing. Should it
be said that the people did not regard what Ezra had thus forged, this
reduces the subject in question to matters of small or of no importance.
Beside, why should Ezra write if no one would read or regard? Farther:
Ezra must have had, like other men, friends, enemies, and rivals; and
some, or all of these, would have been a check upon him, and a security
against him, in matters of importance. If we suppose these books,
instead of having been forged at once, to have been forged successively,
at the interval of one, two, or three centuries after the facts related,
we shall involve ourselves in the same or similar difficulties. Upon the
whole, then, we may conclude, that the forgery of the annals of the
Israelites appears to be impossible, as well as that of the body of
their civil laws. It is needless to examine the books of Esther, Job,
the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; and we might proceed
to the Prophecies; but this will be resumed under the article
_Prophecy_. For the subjects comprehended in the books of the New
Testament. See GOSPEL:GOSPEL, and #CHRISTIANITY.

13. We shall here subjoin some general evidences in attestation of the
truth of the books of Scripture. That Jews and Christians have thought
their sacred books very highly important, most genuine, and true,
appears from the persecutions and sufferings which they have undergone
on account of their attachment to them, and because they would not be
prevailed upon to surrender them. The preservation of the law of Moses,
probably the first book written in any language, whilst many others of a
later date have been lost, shows the great regard that has been paid to
it; and from this circumstance we may infer that this and the other
books of the Old Testament have been preserved on account of their
importance, or from some other cause, equally evincing their genuineness
and truth. The great value set upon these books appears also from the
many early translations and paraphrases of them; and these translations
and paraphrases serve to correct errors that are unavoidable in the
lapse of time, and to secure their integrity and purity. The hesitation
and difficulty with which some few books of the New Testament were
received into the canon, show the great care and concern of the
primitive Christians about the canon, and the high importance of the
books admitted into it; and afford a strong evidence of their
genuineness and truth. The same observation is in a degree applicable to
the Jewish canon. Moreover, the religious hatred and animosity which
subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, and between several of the
ancient sects among the Christians, convince us of what importance they
all thought their sacred books, and disposed them to watch over one
another with a jealous eye. Farther: the genuineness of the books of the
Old and New Testaments may be evinced from the language, style, and
manner of writing used in them. The Hebrew language, in which the Old
Testament was written, being the language of an ancient people, who had
little intercourse with their neighbours, would not change so fast as
modern languages have done, since different nations have been variously
blended with one another by the extension of trade, arts, and sciences;
and yet some changes must have occurred in the interval that elapsed
between the time of Moses and that of Malachi. The biblical Hebrew
corresponds so exactly to this criterion, as to afford a considerable
argument in favour of the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament.
Beside, these books have too great a diversity of style to be the work
of either one Jew, or of any set of contemporary Jews. If they be
forgeries, there must have been a succession of impostors in different
ages, who concurred in the same iniquitous design. Again: the Hebrew
language ceased to be spoken, as a living language, soon after the time
of the Babylonish captivity; and it would be difficult or impossible to
forge any thing in it after it became a dead language. Hence it appears,
that all the books of the Old Testament must at least be nearly as
ancient as the Babylonish captivity; and as they could not all be
written in the same age, some must be much more ancient, and this would
reduce us to the necessity of supposing a succession of conspiring
impostors. Moreover, there is, as we have already observed, a simplicity
of style, and an unaffected manner of writing, in all the books of the
Old Testament, which is a strong evidence of their genuineness. The
style of the New Testament, in particular, is not only simple and
unaffected, but is Greek influenced by the Hebrew idiom, and exactly
answers to the circumstances of time, places, and persons. To which we
may add, that the narrations and precepts of both the Old and New
Testament are delivered without hesitation; the writers teaching as
having authority: and this circumstance is peculiar to those who unite,
with a clear knowledge of what they deliver, a perfect integrity of
heart. But a farther argument for the genuineness and truth of the
Scriptures is supplied by the very great number of particular
circumstances of time, place, persons, &c, mentioned in them. It is
needless to recount these; but they are incompatible with forged and
false accounts, that do not abound in such particularities, and the want
of which furnishes a suspicion to their discredit. Compare, in this
respect, Manetho’s account of the dynasties of Egypt, Ctesias’s of the
Assyrian kings, and those which the technical chronologers have given of
the ancient kingdoms of Greece, which are defective in such particulars,
with the history by Thucydides of the Peloponnesian war, and with
Cæsar’s of the war in Gaul, and the difference will be sufficiently
apparent. Dr. Paley’s admirable treatise, entitled, “_Horæ Paulinæ_,”
affords very valuable illustrations of this argument as it respects the
genuineness of the books of the New Testament. The agreement of the
Scriptures with history, natural and civil, is a farther proof of their
genuineness and truth. The history of the fall agrees in an eminent
manner both with the obvious facts of labour, sorrow, pain, and death,
with what we see and feel every day, and with all our philosophical
inquiries into the frame of the human mind, the nature of social life,
and the origin of evil. Natural history bears a strong testimony to
Moses’s account of the deluge. Civil history affords many evidences
which corroborate the same account. (See _Deluge_.) The Mosaic account
of the confusion of languages, of the dispersion of Noah’s sons, and of
the state of religion in the ancient postdiluvian world, is not only
rendered probable, but is in a very high degree established, by many
collateral arguments. See CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES, and DIVISION OF THE
EARTH.

14. The agreement of the books of the Old and New Testaments with
themselves and with each other, affords another argument both of their
genuineness and truth. The laws of the Israelites are contained in the
Pentateuch, and referred to, in a great variety of ways, direct and
indirect, in the historical books, in the Psalms, and in the Prophecies.
The historical facts also in the preceding books are often referred to
in those that succeed, and in the Psalms and Prophecies. In like manner,
the Gospels have the greatest harmony with each other, and the Epistles
of St. Paul with the Acts of the Apostles; and, indeed, there is
scarcely any book of either the Old or New Testament, which may not be
shown to refer to many of the rest, in one way or other. For the
illustration of this argument, let us suppose that no more remained of
the Roman writers than Livy, Tully, and Horace; would they not, by their
references to the same facts and customs, by the sameness of style in
the same writer, and difference in the different ones, and numberless
other such like circumstances of critical consideration, prove
themselves, and one another to be genuine, and the principal facts
related, or alluded to, to be true? Whoever will apply this reasoning to
the present case will perceive, that the numberless minute, direct, and
indirect agreements and coincidences, that present themselves to all
diligent readers of the Scriptures, prove their truth and genuineness
beyond all contradiction.

The harmony and agreement of the several writers of the Old and New
Testament appear the more remarkable, when it is considered that their
various parts were penned by several hands in very different conditions
of life, from the throne and sceptre down to the lowest degree, and in
very distant ages, through a long interval of time; which would
naturally have led a spirit of imposture to have varied its schemes, and
to have adapted them to different stations in the world, and to the
different vicissitudes of every age. David wrote about four hundred
years after Moses, and Isaiah about two hundred and fifty after David,
and Matthew more than seven hundred years after Isaiah; and yet these
authors, with all the other Prophets and Apostles, write in perfect
harmony, confirming the authority of their predecessors, labouring to
reduce the people to the observance of their instructions, and loudly
exclaiming against the neglect and contempt of them, and denouncing the
severest judgments against such as continued disobedient. Consequently,
as the writers of the Holy Scriptures, though they all claim a divine
authority, yet write in perfect connection and harmony, mutually
confirming the doctrine and testimony of each other, and concurring to
establish the very same religious truths and principles, it is a strong
proof that they all derived their instructions from the same fountain,
the wisdom of God, and were indeed under the direction and illumination
of the same Spirit. This leads us to add, that the unity of design,
which appears in the dispensations recorded in the Scriptures, is an
argument not only of their truth and genuineness, but also of their
divine authority. In order to perceive the force of this argument, it is
only necessary to inquire what this design is, and how it is pursued by
the series of events and divine interpositions recorded in the
Scriptures. (See _Dispensation_.) It should also be considered, that the
historical evidences in favour of the genuineness, truth, and divine
authority of the Scriptures, do not become less from age to age; but, on
the contrary, it may rather be presumed that they increase. Since the
three great concurring events of printing, the reformation of religion
in these western parts, and the restoration of letters, so many more
evidences and coincidences have been discovered in favour of the Jewish
and Christian histories, as may serve, in some measure, to supply the
want of those that have been lost in the preceding times; and as this
accumulation of evidences is likely to continue, there is great reason
to hope that it will at length become irresistible to all and silence
even every gainsayer.

15. The moral characters of the Prophets, and the Apostles, prove the
truth and divine authority of the Scriptures. The characters of the
persons who are said in the Scriptures to have had divine
communications, and a divine mission, are so much superior to the
characters that occur in common life, that we can scarcely account for
the more eminent individuals, and much less so for so large a succession
of them, continued through so many ages, without allowing the divine
communications and assistance which they allege. Notwithstanding
considerable imperfections that pertained to many of these eminent
persons, and the occasional offences chargeable upon one or two of them,
yet the impartial reader should consider whether the Prophets, Apostles,
&c, were not so much superior, not only to mankind at an average, but
even to the best men among the Greeks and Romans, as is not fairly to be
accounted for by the mere powers of human nature. If this statement
should not be conceded, their characters, however, are too good to allow
the supposition of an impious fraud and imposture, which must have been
the case if they had not divine authority. Beside, it should be
recollected, that the undisguised and impartial manner in which the
imperfections and faults of the eminent persons mentioned in Scripture
are related, furnishes a remarkable additional evidence for the truth of
those parts of the Scripture history in which such relations occur,
beside such evidences as extend to the whole.

16. The excellence of the doctrine contained in the Scriptures is an
additional evidence of their authority. This argument has great force
independently of all other considerations. Suppose, for instance, that
the author of the Gospel, which goes under the name of St. Matthew, was
not known, and that it was unsupported by the writers of the primitive
times; yet such are the unaffected simplicity of the narrations, the
purity of the doctrine, and the sincere piety and goodness of the
sentiments, that it carries its own authority with it. The same
observation is applicable in general to all the books of the Old and New
Testaments; so that if there was no other book in the world beside the
Bible, a man could not reasonably doubt of the truth of revealed
religion. If all other arguments were set aside, we may conclude from
this single consideration, that the authors of the books of the Old and
New Testaments, whoever they were, cannot have made a false claim to
divine authority. The Scriptures contain doctrines concerning God,
providence, a future state, the duty of man, &c, far more pure and
sublime than can in any way be accounted for from the natural powers of
men, so circumstanced as the sacred writers were. Let the reader
consider whether it can be reasonably supposed, that Jewish shepherds,
fishermen, &c, should, both before and after the rise of the Heathen
philosophy, so far exceed men of the greatest abilities and
accomplishments in other nations, by any other means than divine
communications. Indeed, no writers, from the invention of letters to the
present times, are equal to the penmen of the books of the Old and New
Testaments in true excellence, utility and dignity; and this is surely
such an internal criterion of their divine authority, as ought not to be
resisted.

17. The many and great advantages which have accrued to the world from
the patriarchal, Judaical, and Christian revelations, confirm the whole.
These advantages relate partly to the knowledge, and partly to the
practice, of religion. The internal worth and excellence of the
Scriptures, as containing the best principles of knowledge, holiness,
consolation, and hope, and their consequent utility and importance in a
moral and practical view, fully and directly demonstrate their divine
original. For an enlarged view of this branch of evidence see
CHRISTIANITY.

BIBLISTS, or BIBLICI, a term applied to certain doctors in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, who expounded the sacred writings in their
public schools, and endeavoured to establish their doctrines by the
authority of Scripture, in opposition to uncertain traditions, or the
speculations of the schools. Upon the same principle, the Pietists of
the seventeenth century formed what they called Biblical colleges, for
expounding the Scriptures.

BIER. See BURIAL.

BILDAD, the Shuhite, one of Job’s friends, thought by some to have
descended from Shuah, the son of Abraham, by Keturah, Job ii, 11; viii,
xviii, xxv.

BILHAH, Rachel’s handmaid, given by her to Jacob her husband, as a
concubinary wife, that, through her she might have a son, Gen. xxx, 3,
4, &c. See BARRENNESS.

BIND. To bind and loose are taken for condemning and absolving: “And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 19. By
binding and loosing, in the language of the Jews, is understood,
likewise, permitting and forbidding; or declaring any thing in a
judicial manner to be permitted or forbidden; and on the promotion of
their doctors, they put the keys into their hands with these words,
“Receive the power of binding and loosing.” So our Lord says, “I am not
come to destroy,” to unloose or dissolve, “the law, but to fulfil,” that
is, to confirm and establish it, Matt. v, 17. See KEYS.

BIRD, צפור, a common name for all birds, but is sometimes used for the
sparrow in particular.

Birds are distinguished by the Jewish legislator into clean and unclean.
Such as fed upon grain and seeds were allowed for food, and such as
devoured flesh and carrion were prohibited.

Moses, to inspire the Israelites with sentiments of tenderness toward
the brute creation, commands them, if they find a bird’s nest, not to
take the dam with the young, but to suffer the old one to fly away, and
to take the young only, Deut. xxii, 6. This is one of those merciful
constitutions in the law of Moses which respect the animal creation, and
tended to humanize the heart of that people, to excite in them a sense
of the divine providence extending itself to all creatures, and to teach
them to exercise their dominion over them with gentleness. Beside, the
young never knew the sweets of liberty; the dam did: they might be taken
and used for any lawful purpose; but the dam must not be brought into a
state of captivity. The poet Phocylides has a maxim, in his admonitory
poem, very similar to that in the sacred texts:--

          Μηδέ τις ὄρνιθας καλιῆς ἅμα ϖάντας ἑλέσθω,
          Μητερα δ’ ἐκπρολίπης, ἵν’ ἔχῃς ϖάλι τῆσδε νεοττούς.

          Nor from a nest take all the birds away,
          The mother spare, she’ll breed a future day.

It appears that the ancients hunted birds. Baruch, iii, 17, speaking of
the kings of Babylon, says, “They had their pastime with the fowls of
the air;” and Daniel, iii, 38, tells Nebuchadnezzar that God had made
the fowls of the air subject to him.

Birds were offered in sacrifice on many occasions. In the sacrifices for
sin, he who had not a lamb, or a kid, “might offer two turtles, or two
young pigeons; one for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering.
These he presented to the priest, who offered that first which was for
the sin-offering, and wrung off the head from the neck, but did not
divide it asunder: the other he was to offer for a burnt-offering,” Lev.
v, 7, 8. When a man who had been smitten with a leprosy was healed, he
came to the entrance of the camp of Israel, and the priest went out to
inspect him, whether he were entirely cured, Lev. xiv, 5, 6. After this
inspection, the leprous person came to the door of the tabernacle, and
offered two living sparrows, or two birds; (pure birds, those of which
it was lawful to eat;) he made a wisp with branches of cedar and hyssop,
tied together with a thread, or scarlet ribbon; he filled an earthen pot
with running water, that the blood of the bird might be mingled with it;
then the priest, dipping the bunch of hyssop and cedar into the water,
sprinkled with it the leper who was healed; after which he let loose the
living bird, to fly where it would. In Palestine dead bodies were
sometimes left exposed to birds of prey, as appears from Scripture; but,
generally, they were buried in the evening: even criminals were taken
down from the gallows.

BIRTHRIGHT, or PRIMOGENITURE, the right of the first-born or eldest son.
The birthright, or right of primogeniture, had many privileges annexed
to it. The first-born was consecrated to the Lord, Exod. xxii, 29; had a
double portion of the estate allotted him, Deut. xxi, 17; had a dignity
and authority over his brethren, Gen. xlix, 3; succeeded in the
government of the family or kingdom, 2 Chron. xxi, 3; and, as some with
good reason suppose, in ancient times to the priesthood or chief
government in matters ecclesiastical. Jacob, having bought Esau’s
birthright, acquired a title to the particular blessing of his dying
father; and, accordingly, he had consigned to him the privilege of the
covenant which God made with Abraham, that from his loins the Messiah
should spring: a prerogative which descended to his posterity. Reuben
forfeited the blessings of his birthright, as we see by the express
declaration of his father Jacob, in his benediction of his children,
Gen. xlix, 1, &c, for the crime of incest with his father’s concubine,
on account of which his tribe continued all along in obscurity; while
the priesthood was conferred on Levi, the government on Judah, and the
double portion on Joseph, to descend to their respective tribes. And
this preëminence of the first-born took place from the beginning, and as
much belonged to Cain, before his forfeiture of it, as it did to Reuben
before his. See Genesis iv, 7; xlix, 3. Thus the patriarchs, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, offered sacrifices, and were priests as well as kings
in their respective families, Gen. xii, 7, 8; xiii, 18; xvii, 7; xxvi,
25; xxxi, 54; xxxv, 7. Job, in Arabia, acted in the same capacity, Job,
i, 5; and it is highly probable that, among the ancient Heathen nations
in general, the first-born were entitled not only to the civil
authority, but also to the priesthood. This seems to have been the case
in Egypt, in the time of Moses: and hence Jehovah’s destroying their
first-born, as it was the last miracle wrought in that country before
the Exodus, so was it the most dreadful, and most effectual in
prevailing on Pharaoh and the Egyptians to dismiss the Israelites.

BISHOP, פקיד, ἐπίσκοπος, signifies _an overseer_, or one who has the
inspection and direction of any thing. Nehemiah speaks of the overseer
of the Levites at Jerusalem, Neh. xi, 22. The most common acceptation of
the word _bishop_ is that in Acts xx, 28, and in St. Paul’s Epistles,
Philip, i, 1, where it signifies the pastor of a church. St. Peter calls
Jesus Christ “the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,” 1 Peter ii, 25; and
St. Paul describes the qualities requisite in a bishop, 1 Tim. iii, 2;
Titus 1, 2, &c. It is not improbable that the overseers of Christ’s
church are in the New Testament called ἐπισκόποι, from the following
passage in Isaiah: “I will also make thy officers peace, and thine
_overseers_” (ἐπισκόπȣς,) “righteousness,” Isa. lx, 17. The word, as
used by the Apostolic writers, when referring to the pastors of
Christian churches, is evidently of the same import as _presbyter_ or
_elder_; for the terms, as they occur in the New Testament, appear to be
synonymous, and are used indifferently. Thus the same persons that are
called ἐπισκόποι, _bishops_ are also called ϖρεσβύτεροι, _elders_.
Hence, when St. Paul came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the
presbyters of the church, and thus addressed them: “Take heed unto
yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made
you” (the presbyters) “ἐπισκόπȣς, bishops,” or overseers, Acts xx, 17.
“Here,” says Dr. Campbell, “there can be no question that the same
persons are denominated presbyters and bishops.” Nor is this the only
passage in which we find the terms used convertibly. In Titus i, 5, it
is said, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders” (Greek,
ϖρεσβυτέρȣς) “in every city;” and then it follows in verse 7, “For a
bishop” (ἐπίσκοπον) “must be blameless.” In like manner, the Apostle
Peter, 1 Peter v, 1: “The elders” (ϖρεσβυτέρȣς) “which are among you I
exhort; feed the flock of God which is among you, _taking the oversight
thereof_; ἐπισκοποῦντες, that is, discharging the office of bishops.”
See EPISCOPACY.

BITHYNIA, a country of Asia Minor, stretching along the shore of the
Pontus Euxinus, or Black Sea, from Mysia to Paphlagonia; having Phrygia
and Galatia on the south. In it are the two cities of Nicæa, or Nice,
and Chalcedon: both celebrated in ecclesiastical history, on account of
the general councils held in them, and called after their names. The
former city is at present called Is-Nick, and the latter Kadi-Keni.
Within this country, also, are the celebrated mountains of Olympus. St.
Peter addressed his first Epistle to the Hebrew Christians who were
scattered through this and the neighbouring countries.

BITTER HERBS. מרורים. Exod. xii, 8, and Num. ix, 11. The Jews were
commanded to eat their passover with a salad of bitter herbs; but
whether one particular plant was intended, or any kind of bitter herbs,
has been made a question. By the Septuagint it is rendered επι ϖικριδων;
by Jerom, “_cum lactucis agrestibus_;” and by the Gr. Venet., επι
ϖικρισιν. Dr. Geddes remarks, that “it is highly probable that the
succory or wild lettuce is meant.” The Mischna in _Pesachim_, cap. 2,
reckons five species of these bitter herbs: 1. Chazareth, taken for
lettuce: 2. Ulsin, supposed to be endive or succory: 3. Tamca, probably
tansy: 4. Charubbinim, which Bochart thought might be the nettle, but
Scheuchzer shows to be the camomile: 5. Meror, the sow-thistle, or
dent-de-lion, or wild lettuce. Mr. Forskal says, “the Jews in Sana and
in Egypt eat the lettuce with the paschal lamb.” He also remarks, that
_moru_ is centaury, of which the young stems are eaten in February and
March.

BITTERN. קפוד. Isa. xiv, 23; xxxiv, 11; and Zephaniah ii, 14.
Interpreters have rendered this word variously: an _owl_, an _osprey_, a
_tortoise_, a _porcupine_, and even an _otter_. “How unhappy,” says Mr.
Harmer, “that a word which occurs but three times in the Hebrew Bible
should be translated by three different words, and that one of them
should be _otter_!” Isaiah, prophesying the destruction of Babylon, says
that “the Lord will make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of
water;” and Zephaniah, ii, 14, prophesying against Nineveh, says that
“the cormorant and bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it: their
voice shall sing in the windows.” The Arabic version reads
“_al-houbara_.” According to Dr. Shaw, the _houbara_ is “of the bigness
of a capon, but of a longer body. It feeds on little shrubs and insects,
like the _graab el Sahara_; frequenting, in like manner, the confines of
the desert.” Golius interprets it _the bustard_; and Dr. Russel says
that the Arabic name of the bustard is “houbry.”

BITTERNESS, _waters of_. See ADULTERY.

BLASPHEMY, βλασφημία, properly denotes _calumny_, _detraction_,
_reproachful_ or _abusive language_, against whomsoever it be vented.
That βλασφημία and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr.
Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the
following passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; Mark xv, 29; Luke
xxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 13; x, 30; Eph.
iv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9, 10; Acts vi,
11, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 10, 11; in the much greater part of which the English
translators, sensible that they could admit no such application, have
not used the words _blaspheme_ or _blasphemy_, but _rail_, _revile_,
_speak evil_, &c. In one of the passages quoted, a reproachful charge
brought even against the devil is called κρισις βλασφημίας, Jude 9; and
rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word βλασφημία
is _maledicentia_, in the largest acceptation; comprehending all sorts
of verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and calumny. And let it be
observed, that when such abuse is mentioned as uttered against God,
there is properly no change made in the signification of the word: the
change is only in the application; that is, in the reference to a
different object. The idea conveyed in the explanation now given is
always included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this
manner every term is understood that is applicable to both God and man.
Thus the meaning of the word _disobey_ is the same, whether we speak of
disobeying God or of disobeying man. The same may be said of _believe_,
_honour_, _fear_, &c. As, therefore, the sense of the term is the same,
though differently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of
detraction in the one case, is essential also in the other. But it is
essential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one
man against another, that there be in the injurious person the will or
disposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to
character, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him who
entertains it to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however
erroneously, to exalt it, is never construed by any into the crime of
defamation. Now, as blasphemy is in its essence the same crime, but
immensely aggravated by being committed against an object infinitely
superior to man, what is fundamental to the very existence of the crime
will be found in this, as in every other species which comes under the
general name. There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not
an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate
the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The blasphemer
is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the
crime, it is as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional.
He must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavours to inspire
others with the same irreverence toward the Deity, or perhaps,
abhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself. And though, for the
honour of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this
enormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled, that the habitual
profanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing, is but
too manifest an approach toward it. There is not an entire coincidence:
the latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the
defect of what is good in principle and disposition; the former from the
acquisition of what is evil in the extreme: but there is a close
connection between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the
other. To accustom one’s self to treat the Sovereign of the universe
with irreverent familiarity, is the first step; malignly to arraign his
attributes, and revile his providence, is the last. The first divine law
published against it, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord” (or
_Jehovah_, as it is in the Hebrew) “shall be put to death,” Lev. xxiv,
16, when considered along with the incident that occasioned it, suggests
a very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations
vented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man
there mentioned be interpreted,--whether as committed against the true
God, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his
Egyptian father worshipped,--the law in the words now quoted is
sufficiently explicit; and the circumstances of the story plainly show,
that the words which he had used were derogatory from the Godhead, and
shocking to the hearers. And if we add to this the only other memorable
instance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us
to conclude that it is solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen
men’s reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to
prevent their placing confidence in him, which is called in Scripture
_blasphemy_, when the word is employed to denote a sin committed
directly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh, when
he said, “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,” (the word is
_Jehovah_,) “saying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. Hath any of the
gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of
Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods
of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva? Have they delivered Samaria out of my
hand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have
delivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver
Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33–35.

2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular,
which our Lord denominates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Matt.
xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 10. But without entering
minutely into the discussion of this question, it may suffice here to
observe, that this blasphemy is certainly not of the constructive kind,
but direct, manifest, and malignant. First, it is mentioned as
comprehended under the same genus with abuse against men, and
contradistinguished only by the object. Secondly, it is farther
explained by being called _speaking against_ in both cases: ὃς ἂν ἐίπη
λόγον κατὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρωπȣ,--ὃς δ’ ἂν ἐίπη κατὰ τοῦ ϖνεύματος τοῦ
ἁγίς. “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man.”--“Whosoever
speaketh against the Holy Ghost.” The expressions are the same, in
effect, in all the Evangelists who mention it, and imply such an
opposition as is both intentional and malevolent. This cannot have been
the case of all who disbelieved the mission of Jesus, and even decried
his miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterward
converted by the Apostles. But it was the wretched case of some who,
instigated by worldly ambition and avarice, slandered what they knew to
be the cause of God; and, against conviction, reviled his work as the
operation of evil spirits. This view of the sin against the Holy Ghost
is confirmed by the circumstances under which our Lord spoke.

If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer
than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees’ imputing the miracles
wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost to the power of the devil; for
our Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, and upon this the
Pharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle. This led our Saviour
to discourse on the sin of blasphemy. The Pharisees were the persons
charged with the crime: the sin itself manifestly consisted in ascribing
what was done by the finger of God to the agency of the devil; and the
reason, therefore, why our Lord pronounced it unpardonable, is plain;
because, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, they resisted the
strongest means of conviction, and that wilfully and malignantly; and,
giving way to their passions, opprobriously treated that Holy Spirit
whom they ought to have adored. From all which it will probably follow,
that no person can now be guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; but
there may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it. This appears
from the case of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
to whom “no more sacrifice for sins” is said to remain; whose defection,
however, is not represented so much as a direct sin against the Holy
Ghost as against Christ, whom the apostate Jews blasphemed in the
synagogues. It implied, however, a high offence against the Holy Spirit
also, with whose gifts they had, probably, been endowed, and their
conduct must be considered, if not the same sin as that committed by the
Pharisees, yet as a _consenting_ with it, and thus as placing them in
nearly, if not altogether, the same desperate condition. Even apostasy
in the present day, although a most aggravated and perilous offence,
cannot be committed with circumstances of equal aggravation to those
which were found in the case of the persons mentioned by St. Paul; and
it may be laid down as certain, for the relief of those who may be
tempted to think that they have committed the unpardonable sin, that
their horror of it, and the trouble which the very apprehension causes
them, are the sure proofs that they are mistaken. But although there may
be now fearful approaches to the unpardonable offence, it is to be
remembered that there may be many dangerous and fatal sins against the
Holy Ghost, which are not _the_ sin against him, which has no
forgiveness.

BLEMISH, whatever renders a person or thing imperfect or uncomely. The
Jewish law required the priests to be free from blemishes of person,
Lev. xxi, 17–23; xxii, 20–24. Scandalous professors are blemishes to the
church of God, 2 Peter ii, 13; Jude 12, and therefore ought to be put
away from it, in the exercise of a godly discipline.

BLESS, BLESSING. There are three points of view in which the acts of
blessing may be considered. The first is, when men are said to bless
God, as in Psalm ciii, 1, 2. We are then not to suppose that the divine
Being, who is over all, and, in himself, blessed for evermore, is
capable of receiving any augmentation of his happiness, from all the
creatures which he has made: such a supposition, as it would imply
something of imperfection in the divine nature, must ever be rejected
with abhorrence; and, therefore, when the creatures bless the adorable
Creator, they only ascribe to him that praise and dominion, and honour,
and glory, and blessing, which it is equally the duty and joy of his
creatures to render. But when God is said to bless his people, Gen. i,
22; Eph. i, 3; the meaning is, that he confers benefits upon them,
either temporal or spiritual, and so communicates to them some portion
of that blessedness which, in infinite fulness, dwells in himself, James
i, 17; Psalm civ, 24, 28; Luke xi, 9–13. In the third place men are said
to bless their fellow creatures. From the time that God entered into
covenant with Abraham, and promised extraordinary blessings to his
posterity, it appears to have been customary for the father of each
family, in the direct line, or line of promise, previous to his death,
to call his children around him, and to inform them, according to the
knowledge which it pleased God then to give him, how, and in what
manner, the divine blessing conferred upon Abraham was to descend among
them. Upon these occasions, the patriarchs enjoyed a divine
illumination; and under its influence, their benediction was deemed a
prophetic oracle, foretelling events with the utmost certainty, and
extending to the remotest period of time. Thus Jacob blessed his sons,
Gen. xlix; and Moses, the children of Israel, Deut. xxxiii. When
Melchizedeck blessed Abraham, the act of benediction included in it not
merely the pronouncing solemn good wishes, but also a petitionary
address to God that he would be pleased to ratify the benediction by his
concurrence with what was prayed for. Thus Moses instructed Aaron, and
his descendants, to bless the congregation, “In this wise shall ye bless
the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, and keep
thee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee; the Lord lift up his
countenance upon thee, and give thee peace,” Num. iv, 23. David says, “I
will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord,”
Psalm cxvi, 13. This phrase appears to be taken from the practice of the
Jews in their thank-offerings, in which a feast was made of the
remainder of their sacrifices, and the offerers, together with the
priests, did eat and drink before the Lord; when, among other rites, the
master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed
God for it, and for the mercies which were then acknowledged, and gave
it to all the guests, every one of whom drank in his turn. To this
custom it is supposed our blessed Lord alludes in the institution of the
cup, which also is called, 1 Cor. x, 16, “the cup of blessing.” At the
family feasts also, and especially that of the passover, both wine and
bread were in this solemn and religious manner distributed, and God was
blessed, and his mercies acknowledged. They blessed God for their
present refreshment, for their deliverance out of Egypt, for the
covenant of circumcision, and for the law given by Moses; and prayed
that God would be merciful to his people Israel, that he would send the
Prophet Elijah, and that he would render them worthy of the kingdom of
the Messiah. See also 1 Chron. xvi, 2, 3. In the Mosaic law, the manner
of blessing is appointed by the lifting up of hands. Our Lord lifted up
his hands, and blessed his disciples. It is probable that this action
was constantly used on such occasions. The palm of the hand held up was
precatory; and the palm turned outward or downward was benedictory. See
BENEDICTION and LORD’S SUPPER.

BLINDFOLDING. This is the treatment which Christ received from his
enemies. It refers to a sport which was common among children, called
μυΐνδα, in which it was the manner first to blindfold, then to strike,
and to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had
named the right man who had struck him. It was used in reproach of our
blessed Lord as a Prophet, or divine instructer, and to expose him to
ridicule, Luke xxii, 63, 64.

BLINDNESS is often used in Scripture to express ignorance or want of
discernment in divine things, as well as the being destitute of natural
sight. See Isa. xlii, 18, 19; vi, 10; Matt. xv, 14. “Blindness of heart”
is the want of understanding arising from the influence of vicious
passions. “Hardness of heart” is stubbornness of will, and destitution
of moral feeling. Moses says, “Thou shalt not put a stumbling block
before the blind,” Lev. xix, 14, which may be understood literally; or
figuratively, as if Moses recommended that charity and instruction
should be shown to them who want light and counsel, or to those who are
in danger of going wrong through their ignorance. Moses says also,
“Cursed be he who maketh the blind to wander out of his way,” Deut.
xxvii, 18, which may also be taken in the same manner. An ignorant or
erring teacher is compared by our Lord to a blind man leading a blind
man;--a strong representation of the presumption of him that professes
to teach the way of salvation without due qualifications, and of the
danger of that implicit faith which is often placed by the people in the
authority of man, to the neglect of the Holy Scriptures.

BLOOD. Beside its proper sense, the fluid of the veins of men and
animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will require
the blood of a man,” he will punish murder in what manner soever
committed. “His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed
to us. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth;” the murder committed
on him crieth for vengeance. “The avenger of blood;” he who is to avenge
the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means
relationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in
opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are
also opposed to the glorified body: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil
spirits: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible
enemies composed of flesh and blood, “but against principalities and
powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape:
“Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix,
11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge
between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the
life of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or
voluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8.
In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of
Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood
has “purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “We are justified by his
blood,” Rom. v, 9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7,
&c. See ATONEMENT.

That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the
earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves
particular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone,
or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was
suffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the
carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those
comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all
things,” it was added, “but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its
blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the
children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood
still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the
following words, “Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of
the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut
him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,”
Lev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this
particular point, it is added: “Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that
sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the
children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which
hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even
pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, for it is the life of
all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof; therefore I said
unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of
flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off,” verses 12–14. This restraint, than which nothing
can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon
believing Gentiles, as “a burden” which “it seemed necessary to the Holy
Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no
_moral_ reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly
appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the
physical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is
deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be
pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury,
than many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the
remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for
those nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other
aliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was,
no doubt, a _sacrificial_ one. When animals were granted to Noah for
food, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was reënacted among
the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation
which at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: “I have
given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this
“additional reason,” as it has been called, it has been argued, that the
doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was, then, for the
first time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition
would have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless
the same reason be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind,
which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external
reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to
suppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given
them the blood for an atonement,” is an “_additional reason_” for the
interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The
whole passage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given of
the prohibition of blood is, that it is “the _life_;” and what follows
respecting “atonement,” is exegetical of this reason;--the life is in
the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by
turning to the original prohibition in Genesis we find that precisely
the same reason is given: “But the flesh with the blood, which is _the
life_ thereof, shall ye not eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the
question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be
understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood
is prohibited because it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” or _life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE
SUBSTITUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The
manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that,
though he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new
doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or
appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating
it, because he had already made this appointment, without reference to
time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood
was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and
we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its
blood, a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the law, not only
was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial
purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the
Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the
blood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the
Egyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah.
The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred
to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.

BOANERGES. This word is neither Hebrew nor Syriac, and some have thought
that the transcribers have not exactly copied it, and that the word was
_benereen_, βενερεὲν, which expresses the sound of the Hebrew of the
phrase, “sons of thunder.” Parkhurst judges the word to be the Galilean
pronunciation of the Hebrew בנירעש expressed in Greek letters. Now, רעש
properly signifies a violent trembling or commotion, and may therefore
be well rendered by βροντὴ, _thunder_, which is a violent commotion in
the air; so, _vice versâ_, any violent commotion is figuratively, and
not unusually, in all languages, called thunder. When our Saviour named
the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges, he perhaps had an eye to that prophecy
of Haggai, “Yet once, and I will shake the heavens and the earth,” ii,
6; which is by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xii, 26, applied to the great
alteration made in the economy of the Jews by the publication of the
Gospel. The name Boanerges, therefore, given to James and John, imports
that they should be eminent instruments in accomplishing the wondrous
change, and should, like an earthquake or thunder, mightily bear down
all opposition, by their inspired preaching and miraculous powers. That
it does not relate to their _mode_ of preaching is certain; for that
clearly appears to have been calmly argumentative, and sweetly
persuasive--the very reverse of what is usually called a thundering
ministry.

BOAR, חזיר. The wild boar is considered as the parent stock of our
domestic hog. He is smaller, but at the same time stronger and more
undaunted, than the hog. In his own defence, he will turn on men or
dogs; and scarcely shuns any denizen of the forests, in the haunts where
he ranges. His colour is always an iron grey, inclining to black. His
snout is longer than that of the common breed, and his ears are
comparatively short. His tusks are very formidable, and all his habits
are fierce and savage. It should seem, from the accounts of ancient
authors, that the ravages of the wild boar were considered as more
formidable than those of other savage animals. The conquest of the
Erymanthian boar was one of the fated labours of Hercules; and the story
of the Calydonian boar is one of the most beautiful in Ovid. The
destructive ravages of these animals are mentioned in Psalm lxxx, 14.
Dr. Pococke observed very large herds of wild boars on the side of
Jordan, where it flows out of the sea of Tiberias; and saw several of
them on the other side lying among the reeds by the sea. The wild boars
of other countries delight in the like moist retreats. These shady
marshes then, it should seem, are called in the Scripture, “woods;” for
it calls these animals, “the wild boars of the woods.”

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, a sect of heretics, according to the church of Rome;
but, in truth, a race of early reformers, who preceded Luther. At first
they were charged with so many heresies, that the great reformer was shy
of them; but, upon receiving from themselves an account of their tenets,
in 1522, he readily acknowledged them as brethren, and received them
into communion. Some time after this, they were driven by persecution
from their native country, and entered into communion with the Swiss
church, as reformed by Zuinglius; and from thence sprang the church of
the United Brethren.

BONDS were of two kinds, public and private; the former were employed to
secure a prisoner in the public jail, after confession or conviction;
the latter when he was delivered to a magistrate, or even to private
persons, to be kept at their houses till he should be tried. The Apostle
Paul was subjected to private bonds by Felix, the Roman governor, who
“commanded a centurion to keep him, and to let him have liberty, and
that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister, or come unto
him,” Acts xxiv, 23. And after he was carried prisoner to Rome, he
“dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that
came in unto him,” xxviii, 30.

BONNET was a covering for the head, worn by the Jewish priests. Josephus
says, that the bonnet worn by the private priests was composed of
several rounds of linen cloth, turned in and sewed together, so as to
appear like a thick linen crown. The whole was entirely covered with
another piece of linen, which came down as low as their forehead, and
concealed the deformity of the seams. See Exodus xxviii, 40. The high
priest’s bonnet was not much different from that which has been
described.

BOOK, a writing composed on some point of knowledge by a person
intelligent therein, for the instruction or amusement of the reader. The
word is formed from the Gothic _boka_, or Saxon _boc_, which comes from
the Northern _buech_, of _buechaus_, a beech or service tree, on the
bark of which our ancestors used to write. Book is distinguished from
pamphlet, or single paper, by its greater length; and from tome or
volume, by its containing the whole writing on the subject. Isidore
makes this distinction between _liber_ and _codex_; that the former
denotes a single book, the latter a collection of several; though,
according to Scipio Maffei, _codex_ signifies a book in the square form;
_liber_, a book in the roll form. The primary distinction between
_liber_ and _codex_ seems to have been derived, as Dr. Heylin has
observed, from the different materials used for writing, among the
ancients: from the innerside of the bark of a tree, used for this
purpose, and called in Latin _liber_, the name of _liber_ applied to a
book was deduced; and from that tablet, formed from the main body of a
tree, called _caudex_, was derived the appellation of _codex_.

2. Several sorts of materials were formerly used in making books: stone
and wood were the first materials employed to engrave such things upon
as men were desirous of having transmitted to posterity. Porphyry makes
mention of some pillars preserved in Crete, on which the ceremonies
observed by the Corybantes in their sacrifices were recorded. The works
of Hesiod were originally written on tables of lead, and deposited in
the temple of the Muses in Bœotia. The laws of Jehovah were written
on tables of stone, and those of Solon on wooden planks. Tables of wood
and ivory were common among the ancients: those of wood, were very
frequently covered with wax, that persons might write on them with more
ease, or blot out what they had written. And the instrument used to
write with was a piece of iron, called a _style_; and hence the word
“style” came to be taken for the composition of the writing. The leaves
of the palm-tree were afterward used instead of wooden planks, and the
finest and thinnest part of the bark of such trees as the lime, ash,
maple, and elm; and especially the _tilio_, or _phillyrea_, and Egyptian
_papyrus_. Hence came the word _liber_, (a book,) which signifies the
inner bark of the trees. And as these barks were rolled up in order to
be removed with greater ease, each roll was called _volumen_, a volume;
a name afterward given to the like rolls of paper or parchment. From the
Egyptian papyrus the word _paper_ is derived. After this, leather was
introduced, especially the skins of goats and sheep. For the king of
Pergamus, in collecting his library, was led to the invention of
parchment made of those skins. The ancients likewise wrote upon linen.
Pliny says, the Parthians, even in his time, wrote upon their clothes;
and Livy speaks of certain books made of linen, _lintei libri_, upon
which the names of magistrates, and the history of the Roman
commonwealth, were written, and preserved in the temple of the goddess
Moneta.

3. The materials generally used by the ancients for their books, were
liable to be easily destroyed by the damp, when hidden in the earth; and
in times of war, devastation, and rapacity, it was necessary to bury in
the earth whatever they wished to preserve from the attacks of fraud and
violence. With this view, Jeremiah ordered the writings, which he
delivered to Baruch, to be put in an earthen vessel, Jer. xxxii. In the
same manner the ancient Egyptians made use of earthen urns, or pots of a
proper shape, for containing whatever they wanted to inter in the earth,
and which, without such care, would have been soon destroyed. We need
not wonder then, that the Prophet Jeremiah should think it necessary to
inclose those writings in an earthen pot, which were to be buried in
Judea, in some place where they might be found without much difficulty
on the return of the Jews from captivity. Accordingly two different
writings, or small rolls of writing, called books in the original
Hebrew, were designed to be inclosed in such an earthen vessel; but
commentators have been much embarrassed in giving any probable account
of the necessity of two writings, one sealed, the other open; or, as the
passage has been commonly understood, the one _sealed up_, the other
left _open_ for any one to read; more especially, as both were to be
alike buried in the earth and concealed from every eye, and both were to
be examined at the return from the captivity. But the word translated
_open_, in reference to the evidence, or book which was open, (1 Sam.
iii, 7, 21; Dan. ii, 19, 30; x, 1,) signifies the revealing of future
events to the minds of men by a divine agency; and it is particularly
used in the book of Esther, viii, 13, to express a book’s making known
the decree of an earthly king. Consequently the _open book_ of Jeremiah
seems to signify, not its being then lying open or unrolled before them,
while the other was sealed up; but the book that had revealed the will
of God, to bring back Israel into their own country, and to cause buying
and selling of houses and lands again to take place among them. This was
a _book of prophecy_, opening and revealing the future return of Israel,
and the other little book, which was ordered to be buried along with it,
was the purchase deed.

4. By adverting to the different modes of writing in eastern countries,
we obtain a satisfactory interpretation of a passage in the book of Job,
xix, 23, 24, and a distinct view of the beautiful gradation which is
lost in our translation: “O that my words were now written! O that they
were printed (written) in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen
and lead in the rock for ever!” In the east there is a mode of writing,
which is designed to fix words in the memory, but the writing is not
intended for duration. Accordingly we are informed by Dr. Shaw, that
children learn to write in Barbary by means of a smooth thin board,
slightly covered with whiting, which may be wiped off or renewed at
pleasure. Job expresses his wish not only that his words were written,
but also written in a book, from which they should not be blotted out,
nay, still farther, graven in a rock, the most permanent mode of
recording them, and especially if the engraved letters were filled with
lead; or the rock was made to receive leaden tablets, the use of which
was known among the ancients. So Pliny, “At first men wrote on the
leaves of palm, and the bark of certain trees, but afterward public
documents were preserved on leaden plates, and those of a private nature
on wax, or linen.”

5. The first books were in the form of blocks and tables, of which we
find frequent mention in Scripture, under the appellation _sepher_,
which the Septuagint render ἀξίνες, that is, _square tables_: of which
form the book of the covenant, book of the law, book, or bill of
divorce, book of curses, &c, appear to have been. As flexible matters
came to be written on, they found it more convenient to make their books
in form of rolls, called by the Greeks κοντάκια, by the Latins
_volumina_, which appear to have been in use among the ancient Jews as
well as the Grecians, Romans, Persians, and even Indians; and of such
did the libraries chiefly consist, till some centuries after Christ. The
form which obtains among us is the square, composed of separate leaves;
which was also known, though little used, among the ancients; having
been invented by Attalus, king of Pergamus, the same who also invented
parchment: but it has now been so long in possession, that the oldest
manuscripts are found in it. Montfaucon assures us, that of all the
ancient Greek manuscripts he has seen, there are but two in the roll
form; the rest being made up much after the manner of the modern books.
The rolls, or volumes, were composed of several sheets, fastened to each
other, and rolled upon a stick, or _umbilicus_; the whole making a kind
of column, or cylinder, which was to be managed by the _umbilicus_, as a
handle; it being reputed a kind of crime to take hold of the roll
itself. The outside of the volume was called _frons_; the ends of the
_umbilicus_ were called _cornua_, “horns;” which were usually carved and
adorned likewise with silver, ivory, or even gold and precious stones.
Whilst the Egyptian papyrus was in common use, its brittle nature made
it proper to roll up what they wrote; and as this had been a customary
practice, many continued it when they used other materials, which might
very safely have been treated in a different manner. To the form of
books belongs the _economy of the inside_, or the order and arrangement
of points and letters into lines and pages, with margins and other
appurtenances. This has undergone many varieties: at first, the letters
were only divided into lines, then into separate words; which, by
degrees, were noted with accents, and distributed by points and stops
into periods, paragraphs, chapters, and other divisions. In some
countries, as among the orientals, the lines began from the right, and
ran to the left; in others, as in northern and western nations, from the
left to the right; others, as the Grecians, followed both directions
alternately, going in the one and returning in the other, called
_boustrophedon_, because it was after the manner of oxen turning when at
plough. In the Chinese books, the lines ran from top to bottom. Again:
the page in some is entire, and uniform; in others, divided into
columns; in others distinguished into texts and notes, either marginal,
or at the bottom: usually it is furnished with signatures and catch
words; also with a register to discover whether the book be complete. To
these are occasionally added the apparatus of summaries, or side notes;
the embellishments of red, gold, or figured initial letters, head
pieces, tail pieces, effigies, schemes, maps, and the like. The end of
the book now denoted by _finis_, was anciently marked with a =<=, called
_coronis_, and the whole frequently washed with an oil drawn from cedar,
or citron chips, strewed between the leaves to preserve it from rotting.
There also occur certain _formulæ_ at the beginning and end of books; as
among the Jews, the word חוק, _esto fortis_, which we find at the end of
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Ezekiel, &c, to exhort the
reader to be courageous, and proceed on to the following book. The
conclusions were also often guarded with imprecations against such as
should falsify them; of which we have an instance in the Apocalypse. The
Mohammedans, for the like reason, place the name of God at the beginning
of all their books, which cannot fail to procure them protection, on
account of the infinite regard which they pay to that name, wherever
found. For the like reason it is, that divers of the laws of the ancient
emperors begin with the formula, _In nomine Dei_. [In the name of God.]
At the end of each book the Jews also added the number of verses
contained in it, and at the end of the Pentateuch the number of
sections; that, it might be transmitted to posterity entire. The
Masorites and Mohammedan doctors have gone farther; so as to number the
several words and letters in each book, chapter, verse, &c, of the Old
Testament and the Alcoran. The scarcity and high price of books in
former ages, ought to render us the more grateful for the discovery of
the great art of printing, as especially by that means the Holy Bible,
“the word of truth and Gospel of our salvation,” is made familiar to all
classes.

The universal ignorance that prevailed in Europe, from the seventh to
the eleventh century, may be ascribed to the scarcity of books during
that period, and the difficulty of rendering them more common,
concurring with other causes arising from the state of government and
manners. The Romans wrote their books either on parchment, or on paper
made of the Egyptian papyrus. The latter, being the cheapest, was of
course the most commonly used. But after the Saracens conquered Egypt,
in the seventh century, the communication between that country and the
people settled in Italy, or in other parts of Europe, was almost
entirely broken off, and the papyrus was no longer in use among them.
They were obliged on that account to write all their books upon
parchment; and as the price of that was high, books became extremely
rare and of great value. We may judge of the scarcity of materials for
writing them from one circumstance. There still remain several
manuscripts of the eighth, ninth, and following centuries, written on
parchment, from which some former writing had been erased, in order to
substitute a new composition in its place. Thus, it is probable, several
of the works of the ancients perished. A book of Livy or of Tacitus
might be erased, to make room for the legendary tale of a saint, or the
superstitious prayers of a missal. Nay, worse instances are recorded, of
obliterating copies of the Holy Scriptures to make room for the
lucubrations of some of the more modern fathers of the church.
Manuscripts thus defaced, the vellum or parchment of which is occupied
with some other writings, are called “palimpsests,” _codices rescripti_
or _palimpsesti_, from ϖαλίμψηϛος, “that which has been twice scraped.”
As this want of materials for writing will serve to account for the loss
of many of the works of the ancients, and for the small number of MSS.
previous to the eleventh century, many facts prove the scarcity of books
at this period. Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever; and
even monasteries of note had only one missal. In 1299, John de
Pontissara, bishop of Winchester, borrows of his cathedral convent of
St. Swithin, at Winchester, “_bibliam bene glossatam_,” that is, the
Bible, with marginal annotations, in two folio volumes; but gives a bond
for the return of it, drawn up with great solemnity. For the bequest of
this Bible to the convent, and one hundred marks, the monks founded a
daily mass for the soul of the donor. If any person gave a book to a
religious house, he believed that so valuable a donation merited eternal
salvation, and he offered it on the altar with great ceremony. The prior
and convent of Rochester declare, that they will every year pronounce
the irrevocable sentence of damnation on him who shall purloin or
conceal a Latin translation of Aristotle’s Poetics, or even obliterate
the title. Sometimes a book was given to a monastery, on condition that
the donor should have the use of it for his life; and sometimes to a
private person, with the reservation that he who receives it should pray
for the soul of his benefactor. In the year 1225, Roger de Insula, dean
of York, gave several Latin Bibles to the university of Oxford, on
condition that the students who perused them should deposit a cautionary
pledge. The library of that university, before the year 1300, consisted
only of a few tracts, chained or kept in chests, in the choir of St.
Mary’s church. The price of books became so high, that persons of a
moderate could not afford to purchase them. In the year 1174, Walter,
prior of St. Swithin’s at Winchester, purchased of the monks of
Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, Bede’s homilies, and St. Austin’s psalter
for twelve measures of barley and a pall, on which was embroidered in
silver the history of St. Birinus converting a Saxon king. About the
year 1400, a copy of John of Meun’s “Roman de la Rose” was sold before
the palace gate at Paris for forty crowns, or 33_l._ 6_s._ 6_d._ The
countess of Anjou paid, for a copy of the homilies of Haimon, bishop of
Halberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and the same
quantity of rye and millet. Even so late as the year 1471, when Louis
XI. of France borrowed the works of Rhasis, the Arabian physician, from
the faculty of medicine at Paris, he not only deposited by way of pledge
a considerable quantity of plate, but he was obliged to procure a
nobleman to join with him as surety in a deed, binding himself under a
great forfeiture to restore it. But when, in the eleventh century, the
art of making paper was invented, and more especially after the
manufacture became general, the number of MSS. increased, and the study
of the sciences was wonderfully facilitated. Indeed, the invention of
the art of making paper, and the invention of the art of printing, are
two very memorable events in the history of literature and of human
civilization. It is remarkable, that the former preceded the first
dawning of letters and improvement in knowledge, toward the close of the
eleventh century; and the latter ushered in the light which spread over
Europe at the æra of the reformation.

6. If the ancient books were large, they were formed of a number of
skins, of a number of pieces of linen and cotton cloth, or of papyrus,
or parchment, connected together. The leaves were rarely written over on
both sides, Ezek. ii, 9; Zech. v, 1. Books, when written upon very
flexible materials, were, as stated above, rolled round a stick; and, if
they were very long, round two, from the two extremities. The reader
unrolled the book to the place which he wanted, ἀναπτύζας τὸ βιλβλίον,
and rolled it up again, when he had read it, πτύζας τὸ βιβλίον, Luke iv,
17–20; whence the name מגלה, _a volume_, or thing rolled up, Psalm xl,
7; Isaiah xxxiv, 4; Ezek. ii, 9; 2 Kings xix, 14; Ezra vi, 2. The leaves
thus rolled round the stick, which has been mentioned, and bound with a
string, could be easily sealed, Isaiah xxix, 11; Dan. xii, 4; Rev. v, 1;
vi, 7. Those books, which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead,
brass, or ivory, were connected together by rings at the back, through
which a rod was passed to carry them by. The orientals appear to have
taken pleasure in giving tropical or enigmatical titles to their books.
The titles, prefixed to the fifty-sixth, sixtieth, and eightieth psalms
appear to be of this description. And there can be no doubt, that
David’s elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i, 18, is called קשת or
_the bow_, in conformity with this peculiarity of taste.

The book, or flying roll, spoken of in Zech. v, 1, 2, twenty cubits long
and ten wide, was one of the ancient rolls, composed of many skins, or
parchments, glued or sewed together at the end. Though some of these
rolls or volumes were very long, yet none, probably, was ever made of
such a size as this. This contained the curses and calamities which
should befal the Jews. The extreme length and breadth of it shows the
excessive number and enormity of their sins, and the extent of their
punishment.

Isaiah, describing the effects of God’s wrath, says, “The heavens shall
be folded up like a book,” (scroll,) Isaiah xxxiv, 4. He alludes to the
way among the ancients, of rolling up books, when they purposed to close
them. A volume of several feet in length was suddenly rolled up into a
very small compass. Thus the heavens should shrink into themselves, and
disappear, as it were, from the eyes of God, when his wrath should be
kindled. These ways of speaking are figurative, and very energetic.

7. Book is sometimes used for letters, memoirs, an edict, or contract.
In short, the word _book_, in Hebrew, _sepher_, is much more extensive
than the Latin _liber_. The letters which Rabshakeh delivered from
Sennacherib to Hezekiah are called a book. The English translation,
indeed, reads _letter_; but the Septuagint has βιβλίον, and the Hebrew
text, הספרים. The contract, confirmed by Jeremiah for the purchase of a
field, is called by the same name, Jer. xxxii, 10; and also the edict of
Ahasuerus in favour of the Jews, Esther ix, 20, though our translators
have called it _letters_. The writing which a man gave to his wife when
he divorced her, was denominated, in Hebrew, “a book of divorce,” Deut.
xxiv.

BOOKS, _Writers of_. The ancients seldom wrote their treatises with
their own hand, but dictated them to their freedmen and slaves. These
were either ταχυγράφοι, _amanuenses_, _notarii_, “hasty writers,” or
καλλιγράφοι, _librarii_, “fair writers,” or βιβλιογράφοι, _librarii_,
“copyists.” The office of these last was to transcribe fairly that which
the former had written hastily and from dictation; they were those who
were obliged to write books and other documents which were intended to
be durable. The correctness of the copies was under the care of the
_emendator_, _corrector_, ὁ δοκιμάζων τὰ γεγραμμένα. A great part of the
books of the New Testament was dictated after this custom. St. Paul
noted it as a particular circumstance in the Epistle to the Galatians,
that he had written it with his own hand, Gal. vi, 11. But he affixed
the salutation with his own hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17; 1 Cor. xvi, 21; Col.
iv, 18. The amanuensis who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, has
mentioned himself near the conclusion, Rom. xvi, 22.

BOOKS, _modes of publication_. Works could only be multiplied by means
of transcripts. Whenever in this way they passed over to others, they
were beyond the control of the author, and published. The edition, or
publication, by means of the booksellers, was, only at a later period,
advantageous to the Christians. The _recitatio_ [reading aloud] preceded
the publication, which took place often merely among some few friends,
and often with great preparations before many persons, who were invited
for that purpose. From hence the author became known as the writer, and
the world became previously informed of all which they might expect from
the work. If the composition pleased them, he was requested to permit
its transcription; and thus the work left the hands of the author, and
belonged to the _publicum_: [public.] Frequently an individual sent his
literary labours to some illustrious man, as a present, _strena_, [a
new-year’s gift,] _munusculum_; [a small present;] or he prefixed his
name to it, for the sake of giving him a proof of friendship or regard,
by means of this express and particular direction of his work. When it
was only thus presented or sent to him, and he accepted it, he was
considered as the person bound to introduce it to the world, or as the
_patronus libri_, [patron of the book,] who had pledged himself, as the
_patronus personæ_ [patron of the person] to this duty. It now became
his office to provide for its publication by means of transcripts, to
facilitate its approach _ad limina potentiorum_ to the gates of men of
great influence, and to be its _defensor_.

Thus the works of the first founders of the Christian church made their
appearance before their community. Their Epistles were read in those
congregations to which they were directed; and whoever wished to possess
them either took a transcript of them, or caused one to be procured for
him. The historical works were made known by the authors in the
congregations of the Christians, _per recitationem_: [by reading aloud:]
the object and general interest in them procured for them readers and
transcribers. St. Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious man of
the name of Theophilus.

BOOK OF LIFE, or BOOK OF THE LIVING, or BOOK OF THE LORD, Psalm lxix,
28. Some have thought it very probable that these descriptive phrases,
which are frequent in Scripture, are taken from the custom, observed
generally in the courts of princes, of keeping a list of persons who are
in their service, of the provinces which they govern, of the officers of
their armies, of the number of their troops, and sometimes even of the
names of their soldiers. Thus, when it is said that any one is written
in the book of life, it means that he particularly belongs to God, and
is enrolled among the number of his friends and servants: and to be
“blotted out of the book of life,” is to be erased from the list of
God’s friends and servants, as those who are guilty of treachery are
struck off the roll of officers belonging to a prince. The most
satisfactory explanation of these phrases is, however, that which refers
them to the genealogical lists of the Jews, or to the registers kept of
the living, from which the names of all the dead were blotted out.

BOOK OF JUDGMENT. Daniel, speaking of God’s judgment, says, “The
judgment was set, and the books were opened,” Dan. vii, 10. This is an
allusion to what was practised when a prince called his servants to
account. The accounts are produced and examined. It is possible he might
allude, also, to a custom of the Persians, among whom it was a constant
practice every day to write down the services rendered to the king, and
the rewards given to those who had performed them. Of this we see an
instance in the history of Ahasuerus and Mordecai, Esther iv, 12, 34.
When, therefore, the king sits in judgment, the books are opened: he
obliges all his servants to reckon with him; he punishes those who have
failed in their duty; he compels those to pay who are indebted to him;
and he rewards those who have done him services. A similar proceeding
will take place at the day of God’s final judgment.

SEALED BOOK, mentioned Isa. xxix, 11, and the book sealed with seven
seals, in the Revelation v, 1–3, are the prophecies of Isaiah and of
John, which were written in a book, or roll, after the manner of the
ancients, and were sealed, which figure truly signifies that they were
mysterious: they had respect to times remote, and to future events; so
that a complete knowledge of their meaning could not be obtained till
after what was foretold should happen, and the seals, as it were taken
off. In old times, letters, and other writings that were to be sealed,
were first wrapped round with thread or flax, and then wax and the seal
were applied to them. To read them, it was necessary to cut the thread
or flax, and to break the seals.

BOOTY, spoils taken in war, Num. xxxi, 27–32. According to the law of
Moses, the booty was to be divided equally between those who were in the
battle and those who were in the camp, whatever disparity there might be
in the number of each party. The law farther required that, out of that
part of the spoils which was assigned to the fighting men, the Lord’s
share should be separated; and for every five hundred men, oxen, asses,
sheep, &c, they were to take one for the high priest, as being the
Lord’s first fruits. And out of the other moiety, belonging to the
children of Israel, they were to give for every fifty men, oxen, asses,
sheep, &c, one to the Levites.

BOOZ, or BOAZ, the son of Salmon and Rahab, Ruth iv, 21, &c; Matt., i,
5. Rahab, we know, was a Canaanite of Jericho, Joshua ii, 1. Salmon, who
was of the tribe of Judah, married her, and she bore him Booz, one of
our Saviour’s ancestors according to the flesh. Some say there were
three of this name, the son, the grandson, and the great grandson, of
Salmon: the last Booz was Ruth’s husband, and the father of Obed.

2. BOOZ, or BOAZ, was the name of one of the two brazen pillars which
Solomon erected in the porch of the temple, the other column being
called Jachin. This last pillar was on the right hand of the entrance
into the temple, and Booz on the left, 1 Kings vii, 21. The word
signifies _strength_ or _firmness_. Mr. Hutchinson has an express
treatise upon these two columns, attempting to show that they
represented the true system of the universe, which he insists was given
by God to David, and by him to Solomon, and was wrought by Hiram upon
these pillars.

BOSOM. See ACCUBATION.

BOSSES, the thickest and strongest parts of a buckler, Job xv, 20.

BOTTLE. The eastern bottle is made of a goat or kid skin, stripped off
without opening the belly; the apertures made by cutting off the tail
and legs are sewed up, and, when filled, it is tied about the neck. The
Arabs and Persians never go a journey without a small leathern bottle of
water hanging by their side like a scrip. These skin bottles preserve
their water, milk, and other liquids, in a fresher state than any other
vessels they can use. The people of the east, indeed, put into them
every thing they mean to carry to a distance, whether dry or liquid, and
very rarely make use of boxes and pots, unless to preserve such things
as are liable to be broken. They enclose these leathern bottles in
woollen sacks, because their beasts of carriage often fall down under
their load, or cast it down on the sandy desert. These skin bottles were
not confined to the countries of Asia; the roving tribes, which passed
the Hellespont soon after the deluge, and settled in Greece and Italy,
probably introduced them into those countries. We learn from Homer, that
they were in common use among the Greeks at the siege of Troy; for, with
a view to an accommodation between the hostile armies, the heralds
carried through the city the things which were necessary to ratify the
compact, two lambs, and exhilarating wine, the fruit of the earth, in a
bottle of goat skin:

              Ἄρνε δύω, καὶ οἶνον ἐΰφρονα, καρπὸν ἀρούρης,
              Ἀσκῷ ὲν αἰγείῳ. _Il._ lib. iii, l. 246.

The bottle of wine which Samuel’s mother brought to Eli, 1 Sam. i, 24,
is called נבל, and was an earthen jug. Another word is used to signify
the vessel out of which Jael gave milk to Sisera: she opened a bottle of
milk, and gave him drink, Judges iv, 19. This is called נאוד, which
refers to something supple, moist, oozing, or, perhaps, imports
_moistened into pliancy_, as that skin must be which is kept constantly
filled with milk. This kind was usually made of goat skins. This word is
also used to denote the bottle in which Jesse sent wine by David to
Saul, 1 Sam. xvi, 20. It is likewise employed to express the bottle into
which the Psalmist desires his tears may be collected, Psalm lvi, 8; and
that to which he resembles himself, and which he calls a bottle in the
smoke, Psalm cxix, 83, that is, a skin bottle, blackened and shrivelled.
Beside the words already considered, another אבות, in the plural, is
used, Job xxxii, 19. This signifies, in general, to swell or distend. On
receiving the liquor poured into it, a skin bottle must be greatly
swelled and distended; and it must be swelled still farther by the
fermentation of the liquor within it, as that advances to ripeness. In
this state, if no vent be given to the liquor, it may overpower the
strength of the bottle, or it may penetrate by some secret crevice or
weaker part. Hence arises the propriety of putting new wine into new
bottles, which, being strong, may resist the expansion, the internal
pressure of their contents, and preserve the wine to due maturity; while
old bottles may, without danger, contain old wine, whose fermentation is
already past, Matt. ix, 17; Luke v, 38.

BOUDDHISTS, or BUDHISTS, one of the three great sects of India, distinct
both from the Brahminical sect, and the Jainas. The Bouddhists do not
believe in a First Cause: they consider matter as eternal; that every
portion of animated existence has in itself its own rise, tendency, and
destiny; that the condition of creatures on earth is regulated by works
of merit and demerit; that works of merit not only raise individuals to
happiness, but, as they prevail, exalt the world itself to prosperity;
while, on the other hand, when vice is predominant, the world
degenerates till the universe itself is dissolved. They suppose,
however, that there is always some superior deity, who has attained to
this elevation by religious merit; but they do not regard him as the
governor of the world. To the present grand period, comprehending all
the time included in a “kulpu,” they assign five deities, four of whom
have already appeared, including Goutumu, or Bouddhu, whose exaltation
continues five thousand years, two thousand three hundred and fifty-six
of which had expired, A. D. 1814. After the expiration of the five
thousand years, another saint will obtain the ascendancy, and be
deified. Six hundred millions of saints are said to be canonized with
each deity, though it is admitted that Bouddhu took only twenty-four
thousand devotees to heaven with him. The lowest state of existence is
in hell; the next is that in the forms of brutes: both these are states
of punishment. The next ascent is to that of man, which is probationary.
The next includes many degrees of honour and happiness up to demigods,
&c, which are states of reward for works of merit. The ascent to
superior deity is from the state of man. The Bouddhists are taught that
there are four superior heavens which are not destroyed at the end of
“kulpu;” that below these there are twelve other heavens, followed by
six inferior heavens; after which follows the earth; then the world of
snakes; and then thirty-two chief hells: to which are to be added, one
hundred and twenty hells of milder torments. The highest state of glory
is absorption. The person who is unchangeable in his resolution; who has
obtained the knowledge of things past, present, and to come, through one
“kulpu;” who can make himself invisible; go where he pleases; and who
has attained to complete abstraction; will enjoy absorption. Those who
perform works of merit are admitted to the heavens of the different
gods, or are made kings or great men on earth; and those who are wicked
are born in the forms of different animals, or consigned to different
hells. The happiness of these heavens is described as entirely sensual.
The Bouddhists believe that at the end of a “kulpu” the universe is
destroyed. To convey some idea of the extent of this period, the
illiterate Cingalese use this comparison: “If a man were to ascend a
mountain nine miles high, and to renew these journeys once in every
hundred years, till the mountain were worn down by his feet to an atom,
the time required to do this would be nothing to the fourth part of a
‘kulpu.’” Bouddhu, before his exaltation, taught his followers that,
after his death, the remains of his body, his doctrine, or an assembly
of his disciples, were to be held in equal reverence with himself. When
a Cingalese, therefore, approaches an image of Bouddhu, he says, “I take
refuge in Bouddhu; I take refuge in his doctrine; I take refuge in his
followers.” There are five commands given to the common Bouddhists; the
first forbids the destruction of animal life; the second forbids theft;
the third, adultery; the fourth, falsehood; the fifth, the use of
spirituous liquors. There are other commands for superior classes, or
devotees, which forbid dancing, songs, music, festivals, perfumes,
elegant dresses, elevated seats, &c. Among works of the highest merit,
one is the feeding of a hungry infirm tiger with a person’s own flesh.

BOURIGNONISTS, the followers of the celebrated Mad. Antoinette Bourignon
de la Ponte, a native of Flanders, born at Lisle, in 1616. She was so
much deformed at her birth, that it was even debated whether she should
not be stifled as a monster. As she grew up, however, this deformity
greatly decreased, and she discovered a superior mind, a strong
imagination, and very early indications of a devotional spirit, strongly
tinctured with mysticism. She conceived herself to be divinely called,
and set apart to revive the true spirit of Christianity that had been
extinguished by theological animosities and debates. In her confession
of faith, she professes her belief in the Scriptures, and in the
divinity and atonement of Christ. The leading principles which pervade
her productions are these: that man is perfectly free to resist or
receive divine grace; that God is ever unchangeable in love toward all
his creatures, and does not inflict any arbitrary punishment, but that
the evils they suffer are the natural consequences of sin; that true
religion consists not in any outward forms of worship, nor systems of
faith, but in immediate communion with the Deity, by internal feelings
and impulses, and by a perfect acquiescence in his will.

This lady was educated in the Roman Catholic religion; but she declaimed
equally against the corruptions of the church of Rome and those of the
Reformed churches: hence she was opposed and persecuted by both
Catholics and Protestants, and after being driven about from place to
place, she died at Franeker, in 1680. She maintained that there ought to
be a general toleration of all religions. Her notion on God’s
foreknowledge was, that God was capable of foreknowing all events, but,
his power being equal to his knowledge, he purposely withheld from
himself that knowledge in certain cases, that he might not interfere
with the free agency and responsibility of his creatures. Her works are
very numerous, making eighteen volumes in octavo: of which the principal
are, “The Light of the World;” “The Testimony of Truth;” and “The
Renovation of the Gospel Spirit;” which are much in esteem among the
admirers of mystical theology.

BOW. The expression, “to break the bow,” so frequent in Scripture,
signifies to destroy the power of a people, because the principal
offensive weapon of armies was anciently the bow. “A deceitful bow” is
one that, from some defect, either in bending or the string, carries the
arrow wide of the mark, however well aimed. See ARMS.

BOWELS. The bowels are the seat of mercy, tenderness, and compassion.
Joseph’s bowels were moved at the sight of his brother Benjamin; that
is, he felt himself softened and affected. The true mother of the child
whom Solomon commanded to be divided, felt her bowels move, and
consented that it should be given to the woman who was not its real
mother, 1 Kings, iii, 26. The Hebrews also sometimes place wisdom and
understanding in the bowels, “Who hath put wisdom in the inner parts?”
or bowels, Job xxxviii, 36. The Psalmist says, “Thy law is within my
heart,” literally, in the midst of my bowels,--it is by me strongly and
affectionately regarded, Psalm xl, 8.

BOX TREE, תאשור, Isa. xli, 9; lx, 13; Ezek. xxvii, 6; 2 Esdras xiv, 24,
where the word appears to be used for _tablets_. Most of the ancient,
and several of the modern, translators render this word the _buxus_, or
“box tree;” but from its being mentioned along with trees of the forest,
some more stately tree must be intended, probably the cedar.

BRACELET. A bracelet is commonly worn by the oriental princes, as a
badge of power and authority. When the calif Cayem Bemrillah granted the
investiture of certain dominions to an eastern prince, he sent him
letters patent, a crown, a chain, and bracelets. This was probably the
reason that the Amalekite brought the bracelet which he found on Saul’s
arm, along with his crown, to David, 2 Sam. i, 10. It was a royal
ornament, and belonged to the regalia of the kingdom. The bracelet, it
must be acknowledged, was worn both by men and women of different ranks;
but the original word, in the second book of Samuel, occurs only in two
other places, and is quite different from the term which is employed to
express the more common ornament known by that name. And beside, this
ornament was worn by kings and princes in a different manner from their
subjects. It was fastened above the elbow; and was commonly of great
value.

BRAHMINS, or BRACHMINS, the highest caste of Hindoos, to whom is
confined the priesthood, and, in general, all their ancient learning,
which is locked up in their sacred language, called the Sanscrit. The
Brahmins derive that name from Brahma, the Creator; for they maintain
the doctrine of three embodied energies, the creative, the preserving,
and the destroying; personified under the names of Brahma, Vishnu, and
Shiva, all sprung from Brimh; and to each of them is assigned a kind of
celestial consort, a female deity, which they describe as a passive
energy.

Like the philosophers of Greece, they seem to have had an open and a
secret doctrine: the latter, a species of Spinozism, considering the
great Supreme as “the soul of the world;” endowed with no other quality
than ubiquity; requiring no worship, and exerting no power, but in the
production of the three great energies above mentioned. These are so
ingeniously diversified as to produce three hundred and thirty millions
of gods, or objects of idolatry; so various in character as to suit
every man’s taste or humour, and to furnish examples of every vice and
folly to which humanity is subject.

As it respects a future state, two of the principal doctrines of
Brachminism are transmigration and absorption. After death, the person
is conveyed, by the messengers of Yumu, through the air to the place of
judgment. After receiving his sentence, he wanders about the earth for
twelve months, as an aërial being or ghost; and then takes a body suited
to his future condition, whether he ascend to the gods, or suffer in a
new body, or be hurled into some hell. This is the doctrine of several
“pooranus;” others maintain, that immediately after death and judgment,
the person suffers the pains of hell, and removes his sin by suffering;
and then returns to the earth in some bodily form. The descriptions
which the “pooranus” give of the heavens of the gods are truly in the
eastern style; all things, even the beds of the gods, are made of gold
and precious stones. All the pleasures of these heavens are exactly what
we should expect in a system formed by uninspired and unrenewed men:
like the paradise of Mohammed, they are brothels, rather than places of
rewards for “the pure in heart.” Here all the vicious passions are
personified, or rather, deified: the quarrels and licentious intrigues
of the gods fill these places with perpetual uproar, while their
impurities are described with the same literality and gross detail, as
similar things are talked of among these idolaters on earth.

But the highest degree of happiness is absorption. God, as separated
from matter, the Hindoos contemplate as a being reposing in his own
happiness, destitute of ideas; as infinite placidity; as an unruffled
sea of bliss; as being perfectly abstracted, and void of consciousness.
They therefore deem it the height of perfection to be like this being.
Hence Krishnu, in his discourse to Urjoonu, praises the man “who
forsaketh every desire that entereth into his heart; who is happy of
himself; who is without affection; who rejoiceth not either in good or
evil; who, like the tortoise, can restrain his members from their wonted
purpose; to whom pleasure and pain, gold, iron, and stones are the
same.” “The learned,” adds Krushnu, “behold Brumhu alike in the reverend
‘branhun,’ perfected in knowledge; in the ox, and in the elephant; in
the dog, and in him who eateth of the flesh of dogs.” The person whose
very nature, say they, is absorbed in divine meditation; whose life is
like a sweet sleep, unconscious and undisturbed; who does not even
desire God, and who is thus changed into the image of the ever blessed;
obtains absorption into Brumhu. The ceremonies leading to absorption are
called by the name of “tupushya” and the persons performing them, a
“tupushwee.” Forsaking the world; retiring to a forest; fasting, living
on roots, fruits, &c;--remaining in certain postures; exposure to all
the inclemencies of the weather, &c; these, and many other austere
practices are prescribed, to subdue the passions, to fix the mind,
habituate it to meditation, and fill it with that serenity and
indifference to the world which is to prepare it for absorption, and
place it beyond the reach of future birth.

BRAMBLE, אטד, a prickly shrub, Judges ix, 14, 15; Psalm lviii, 9. In the
latter place it is translated “thorn.” Hiller supposes _atad_ to be the
_cynobastus_, or sweetbrier. The author of “Scripture Illustrated” says,
that the bramble seems to be well chosen as the representative of the
original; which should be a plant bearing fruit of some kind, being
associated, Judges ix, 14, though by opposition, with the vine. The
apologue or fable of Jotham has always been admired for its spirit and
application. It has also been considered as the oldest fable extant.

BRANCH, a title of Messiah: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the
stem of Jesse, and a BRANCH shall grow out of his roots,” Isaiah xi, 1.
See also Zech. iii, 8; vi, 12; Jer. xxiii, 5; xxxiii, 15. When Christ is
represented as a slender twig, shooting out from the trunk of an old
tree lopped to the very root and decayed, and becoming itself a mighty
tree, reference is made, 1. To the kingly dignity of Christ, springing
up from the decayed house of David; 2. To the exaltation which was to
succeed his humbled condition on earth, and to the glory and vigour of
his mediatorial reign.

BRASS. נחשת. The word _brass_ occurs very often in our translation of
the Bible; but that is a mixed metal, for the making of which we are
indebted to the German metallurgists of the thirteenth century. That the
ancients knew not the art of making it, is almost certain. None of their
writings even hint at the process. There can be no doubt that copper is
the original metal intended. This is spoken of as known prior to the
flood; and to have been discovered, or at least wrought, as was also
iron, in the seventh generation from Adam, by Tubal-cain: whence the
name _Vulcan_. The knowledge of these two metals must have been carried
over the world afterward with the spreading colonies of the Noachidæ.
Agreeably to this, the ancient histories of the Greeks and Romans speak
of Cadmus as the inventor of the metal which by the former is called
χαλκὸς, and by the latter _æs_; and from him had the denomination
_cadmea_. According to others, Cadmus discovered a mine, of which he
taught the use. The name of the person here spoken of was undoubtedly
the same with Ham, or Cam, the son of Noah, who probably learned the art
of assaying metals from the family of Tubal-cain, and communicated that
knowledge to the people of the colony which he settled.

BRASEN SERPENT, the, was an image of polished brass, in the form of one
of those fiery serpents which were sent to chastise the murmuring
Israelites in the wilderness, and whose bite caused violent heat,
thirst, and inflammation. By divine command “Moses made a serpent of
brass,” or copper, and “put it upon a pole; and it came to pass, that if
a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he
lived,” Num. xxi, 6–9. This brasen serpent was preserved as a monument
of the divine mercy, but in process of time became an instrument of
idolatry. When this superstition began, it is difficult to determine;
but the best account is given by the Jewish rabbi, David Kimchi, in the
following manner: From the time that the kings of Israel did evil, and
the children of Israel followed idolatry, till the reign of Hezekiah,
they offered incense to it; for it being written in the law of Moses,
“Whoever looketh upon it shall live,” they fancied they might obtain
blessings by its mediation, and therefore thought it worthy to be
worshipped. It had been kept from the days of Moses, in memory of a
miracle, in the same manner as the pot of manna was: and Asa and
Jehoshaphat did not extirpate it when they rooted out idolatry, because
in their reign they did not observe that the people worshipped this
serpent, or burnt incense to it; and therefore they left it as a
memorial. But Hezekiah thought fit to take it quite away, when he
abolished other idolatry, because in the time of his father they adored
it as an idol; and though pious people among them accounted it only as a
memorial of a wonderful work, yet he judged it better to abolish it,
though the memory of the miracle should happen to be lost, than suffer
it to remain, and leave the Israelites in danger to commit idolatry
hereafter with it. On the subject of the serpent-bitten Israelites being
healed by looking at the brasen serpent, there is a good comment in the
book of Wisdom, chap. xvi, 4–12, in which are these remarkable
words:--“They were admonished, having a sign of salvation,” that is, the
brasen serpent, “to put them in remembrance of the commandments of thy
law. For he that turned himself toward it, was not saved by the THING
that he saw, but by THEE, that art the Saviour of all,” verses 6, 7. To
the circumstance of looking at the brasen serpent in order to be healed,
our Lord refers, John iii, 14, 15: “As Moses lifted up the (brasen)
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life.”

BREAD, a term which in Scripture is used, as by us, frequently for food
in general; but is also often found in its proper sense. Sparing in the
use of flesh, like all the nations of the east, the chosen people
usually satisfied their hunger with bread, and quenched their thirst in
the running stream. Their bread was generally made of wheat or barley,
or lentiles and beans. Bread of wheat flour, as being the most
excellent, was preferred: barley bread was used only in times of
scarcity and distress. So mean and contemptible, in the estimation of
the numerous and well-appointed armies of Midian, was Gideon, with his
handful of undisciplined militia, that he seems to have been compared to
bread of this inferior quality, which may account for the ready
interpretation of the dream of the Midianite respecting him: “And when
Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream unto his
fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and lo, a cake of barley
bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent and smote it
that it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along. And his fellow
answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the
son of Joash, a man of Israel; for into his hand hath God delivered
Midian, and all the host.” In the cities and villages of Barbary, where
public ovens are established, the bread is usually leavened; but among
the Bedoweens and Kabyles, as soon as the dough is kneaded, it is made
into thin cakes, either to be baked immediately upon the coals, or else
in a shallow earthen vessel like a frying-pan, called Tajen. Such were
the unleavened cakes which we so frequently read of in Scripture; and
those also which Sarah made quickly upon the hearth. These last are
about an inch thick; and, being commonly prepared in woody countries,
are used all along the shores of the Black Sea, from the Palus Mæotis to
the Caspian, in Chaldea and Mesopotamia, except in towns. A fire is made
in the middle of the room: and when the bread is ready for baking, a
corner of the hearth is swept, the bread is laid upon it, and covered
with ashes and embers; in a quarter of an hour, they turn it. Sometimes
they use small convex plates of iron, which are most common in Persia,
and among the nomadic tribes, as being the easiest way of baking, and
done with the least expense; for the bread is extremely thin, and soon
prepared. The oven is also used in every part of Asia: it is made in the
ground, four or five feet deep, and three in diameter, well plastered
with mortar. When it is hot, they place the bread (which is commonly
long, and not thicker than a finger) against the sides: it is baked in a
moment. Ovens, Chardin apprehends, were not used in Canaan in the
patriarchal age: all the bread of that time was baked upon a plate, or
under the ashes; and he supposes, what is nearly self-evident, that the
cakes which Sarah baked on the hearth were of the last sort, and that
the shew bread was of the same kind. The Arabs about Mount Carmel use a
great strong pitcher, in which they kindle a fire; and when it is
heated, they mix meal and water, which they apply with the hollow of
their hands to the outside of the pitcher; and this extremely soft
paste, spreading itself, is baked in an instant. The heat of the pitcher
having dried up all the moisture, the bread comes off as thin as our
wafers; and the operation is so speedily performed, that in a very
little time a sufficient quantity is made. But their best sort of bread
they bake, either by heating an oven, or a large pitcher full of little
smooth shining flints, upon which they lay the dough, spread out in the
form of a thin broad cake. Sometimes they use a shallow earthen vessel,
resembling a frying pan, which seems to be the pan mentioned by Moses,
in which the meat-offering was baked. This vessel, Dr. Shaw informs us,
serves both for baking and frying; for the bagreah of the people of
Barbary differs not much from our pancakes; only, instead of rubbing the
pan in which they fry them with butter, they rub it with soap, to make
them like a honey-comb. If these accounts of the Arab stone pitcher, the
pan, and the iron hearth or copper plate, be attended to, it will not be
difficult to understand the laws of Moses in the second chapter of
Leviticus: they will be found to answer perfectly well to the
description which he gives us of the different ways of preparing the
meat-offerings. As the Hebrews made their bread thin, in the form of
little flat cakes, they did not cut it with a knife, but broke it; which
gave rise to the expression, _breaking bread_, so frequent in Scripture.

The Arabians and other eastern people, among whom wood is scarce, often
bake their bread between two fires made of cow dung, which burns slowly,
and bakes the bread very leisurely. The crumb of it is very good, if it
be eaten the same day; but the crust is black and burnt, and retains a
smell of the materials that were used in baking it. This may serve to
explain a passage in Ezekiel, iv, 9–13. The straits of a siege and the
scarcity of fuel were thus intimated to the Prophet. During the whole
octave of the passover, the Hebrews use only unleavened bread, as a
memorial that at the time of their departure out of Egypt they wanted
leisure to bake leavened bread; and, having left the country with
precipitation, they were content to bake bread which was not leavened,
Exod. xii, 8. The practice of the Jews at this day, with relation to the
use of unleavened bread, is as follows: They forbid to eat, or have in
their houses, or in any place belonging to them, either leavened bread
or any thing else that is leavened. That they may the better observe
this rule, they search into all the corners of the house with scrupulous
exactness for all bread or paste, or any thing that is leavened. After
they have thus well cleansed their houses, they whiten them, and furnish
them with kitchen and table utensils, all new, and with others which are
to be used only on that day. If they are movables, which have served
only for something else, and are made of metal, they have them polished,
and put into the fire, to take away all the impurity which they may have
contracted by touching any thing leavened. All this is done on the
thirteenth day of Nisan, or on the vigil of the feast of the passover,
which begins with the fifteenth of the same month, or the fourteenth day
in the evening; for the Hebrews reckon their days from one evening to
another. On the fourteenth of Nisan, at eleven o’clock, they burn the
common bread, to show that the prohibition of eating leavened bread is
then commenced; and this action is attended with words, whereby the
master of the house declares that he has no longer any thing leavened in
his keeping; that, at least, he believes so. In allusion to this
practice, we are commanded to “purge out the old leaven;” by which
“malice and wickedness” are intended; and to feed only on the
“unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

2. SHEW BREAD, or, according to the Hebrews, _the bread of faces_, was
bread offered every Sabbath day upon the golden table in the holy place,
Exod. xxv, 30. The Hebrews affirm that these loaves were square, and had
four sides, and were covered with leaves of gold. They were twelve in
number, according to the number of the twelve tribes, in whose names
they were offered. Every loaf was composed of two assarons of flour,
which make about five pints and one-tenth. These loaves were unleavened.
They were presented hot every Sabbath day, the old ones being taken away
and eaten by the priests only. This offering was accompanied with salt
and frankincense, and even with wine, according to some commentators.
The Scripture mentions only salt and incense; but it is presumed that
wine was added, because it was not wanting in other sacrifices and
offerings. It is believed that these loaves were placed one upon
another, in two piles of six each; and that between every loaf were two
thin plates of gold, folded back in a semicircle the whole length of
them, to admit air, and to prevent the loaves from growing mouldy. These
golden plates, thus turned in, were supported at their extremities by
two golden forks, which rested on the ground. The twelve loaves, because
they stood before the Lord, were called לחם הפנים, ἄρτοι ϖροθέσεως, or
ἐνωπίοι, the bread of faces, or of the presence; and are therefore
denominated in our English translation _the shew bread_.

Since part of the frankincense put upon the bread was to be burnt on the
altar for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord; and
since Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, Lev. xxiv,
5–9, it is probable that this bread typified Christ, first presented as
a sacrifice to Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as in
and through him are spiritual priests to God, even his Father, Rev. i,
6; v, 10; xx, 6; 1 Peter ii, 5. It appears, from some places in
Scripture, (see Exodus xxix, 32, and Numbers vi, 15,) that there was
always near the altar a basket full of bread, in order to be offered
together with the ordinary sacrifices.

BREASTPLATE, or PECTORAL, one part of the priestly vestments, belonging
to the Jewish high priests. It was about ten inches square, Exod.
xxviii, 13–31; and consisted of a folded piece of the same rich
embroidered stuff of which the ephod was made. It was worn on the breast
of the high priest, and was set with twelve precious stones, on each of
which was engraven the name of one of the tribes. They were set in four
rows, three in each row, and were divided from each other by the little
golden squares or partitions in which they were set. The names of these
stones, and that of the tribe engraven on them, as also their
disposition on the breastplate, are usually given as follows; but what
stones really answer to the Hebrew name, is for the most part very
uncertain:--

          _Sardine_,            _Topaz_,           _Carbuncle_,
           REUBEN.              SIMEON.               LEVI.
          _Emerald_,          _Sapphire_,           _Diamond_,
            JUDAH.                DAN.              NAPHTALI.
          _Ligure_,             _Agate_,           _Amethyst_,
             GAD.                ASHER.             ISSACHAR.
           _Beryl_,             _Onyx_,             _Jasper_,
           ZEBULUN.             JOSEPH.             BENJAMIN.

This breastplate was fastened at the four corners, those on the top to
each shoulder, by a golden hook or ring, at the end of a wreathen chain;
and those below to the girdle of the ephod, by two strings or ribbons,
which had likewise two rings or hooks. This ornament was never to be
separated from the priestly garment; and it was called the _memorial_,
because it was a sign whereby the children of Israel might know that
they were presented to God, and that they were had in remembrance by
him. It was also called the _breastplate of judgment_, because it had
the divine oracle of URIM and THUMMIM annexed to it. These words signify
_lights_ and _perfections_, and are mentioned as in the high priest’s
breastplate; but what they were, we cannot determine. Some think they
were two precious stones added to the other twelve, by the extraordinary
lustre of which, God marked his approbation of a design, and, by their
becoming dim, his disallowance of it; others, that these two words were
written on a precious stone, or plate of gold, fixed in the breastplate;
others, that the letters of the names of the tribes, were the Urim and
Thummim; and that the letters by standing out, or by an extraordinary
illumination, marked such words as contained the answer of God to him
who consulted this oracle. Le Clerc will have them to be the names of
two precious stones, set in a golden collar of the high priest, and
coming down to his breast, as the magistrates of Egypt wore a golden
chain, at the end of which hung the figure of truth, engraven on a
precious stone. Prideaux thinks the words chiefly denote the clearness
of the oracles dictated to the high priest, though perhaps the lustre of
the stones in his breastplate might represent this clearness. Jahn says
the most probable opinion is, that URIM and THUMMIM (אורים, ותמים,
_light_ and _justice_, Septuagint, δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια) [manifestation
and truth] was a sacred lot, 1 Samuel xiv, 41, 42. There were employed,
perhaps, in determining this lot, three precious stones, on one of which
was engraven כן, _yes_; on the other, לא, _no_; the third being
destitute of any inscription. The question proposed, therefore, was
always to be put in such a way, that the answer might be direct, either
_yes_ or _no_, provided any answer was given at all. These stones were
carried in the purse or bag, formed by the lining or interior of the
pectoral; and when the question was proposed, if the high priest drew
out the stone which exhibited _yes_, the answer was affirmative; if the
one on which _no_ was written, the answer was negative; if the third, no
answer was to be given, Joshua vii, 13–21; 1 Sam. xiv, 40–43; xxviii, 6.
In the midst of all this conjecture, only two things are certain: 1.
That one of the appointed methods of consulting God, on extraordinary
emergencies, was by URIM and THUMMIM: 2. That the oracles of God
rejected all equivocal and enigmatical replies, which was the character
of the Heathen pretended oracles. “The words of the Lord are pure
words.” His own oracle bears, therefore, an inscription which signifies
_lights_ and _perfections_, or, _the shining_ and _the perfect_; or,
according to the LXX, _manifestation_ and _truth_. In this respect it
might be a type of the Christian revelation made to the true Israel, the
Christian church, by the Gospel. St. Paul seems especially to allude to
this translation of Urim and Thummim by the Septuagint, when he speaks
of himself and his fellow labourers, “commending themselves to every
man’s conscience _by manifestation of the truth_;” in opposition to
those who by their errors and compliances with the Jewish prejudices, or
with the philosophical taste of the Greeks, obscured the truth, and
rendered ambiguous the guidance of Christian doctrine. His preaching is
thus tacitly compared to the oracles of God; theirs, to the misleading
and perplexed oracles of the Heathen.

BRIDE and BRIDEGROOM. Under this head an account of the marriage customs
of ancient times, the knowledge of which is so necessary to explain many
allusions in the Holy Scriptures, may be properly introduced. Among the
Jews, the state of marriage was, from the remotest periods of their
history, reckoned so honourable, that the person who neglected or
declined to enter into it without a good reason, was thought to be
guilty of a great crime. Such a mode of thinking was not confined to
them; in several of the Grecian states, marriage was held in equal
respect. The Jews did not allow marriageable persons to enter into that
honourable state without restriction; the high priest was forbidden by
law to marry a widow; and the priests of every rank, to take a harlot to
wife, a profane woman, or one put away from her husband. To prevent the
alienation of inheritances, an heiress could not marry but into her own
tribe. The whole people of Israel, being a holy nation, separated from
all the earth to the service of the true God, and to be the depositaries
of his law, were forbidden to contract matrimonial alliances with the
idolatrous nations in their vicinity. The marriage engagement of a
minor, without the knowledge and consent of the parents, was of no
force; so sacred was the parental authority held among that people.
These customs appear to have been derived from a very remote antiquity;
for when Eliezer of Damascus went to Mesopotamia to take a wife from
thence unto his master’s son, he disclosed the motives of his journey to
the father and brother of Rebecca; and Hamor applied to Jacob and his
sons, for their consent to the union of Dinah with his son Shechem.
Samson also consulted his parents about his marriage; and entreated them
to get for him the object of his choice. Marriage contracts seem to have
been made in the primitive ages with little ceremony. The suitor
himself, or his father, sent a messenger to the father of the woman, to
ask her in marriage. In the remote ages of antiquity, women were
literally purchased by their husbands; and the presents made to their
parents or other relations were called their dowry. Thus, we find
Shechem bargaining with Jacob and his sons for Dinah: “Let me find grace
in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me, I will give: ask me never
so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto
me; but give me the damsel to wife,” Gen. xxxiv, 2. The practice still
continues in the country of Shechem; for when a young Arab wishes to
marry, he must purchase his wife; and for this reason, fathers, among
the Arabs, are never more happy than when they have many daughters. They
are reckoned the principal riches of a house. An Arabian suitor will
offer fifty sheep, six camels, or a dozen of cows: if he be not rich
enough to make such offers, he proposes to give a mare or a colt,
considering in the offer the merit of the young woman, the rank of her
family, and his own circumstances. In the primitive times of Greece, a
well-educated lady was valued at four oxen. When they are agreed on both
sides, the contract is drawn up by him that acts as cadi or judge among
these Arabs. In some parts of the east, a measure of corn is formally
mentioned in contracts for their concubines, or temporary wives, beside
the sum of money which is stipulated by way of dowry. This custom is
probably as ancient as concubinage, with which it is connected; and if
so, it will perhaps account for the Prophet Hosea’s purchasing a wife of
this kind, for fifteen pieces of silver, and for a homer of barley, and
a half homer of barley. When the intended husband was not able to give a
dowry, he offered an equivalent. The patriarch Jacob, who came to Laban
with only his staff, offered to serve him seven years for Rachel: a
proposal which Laban accepted. This custom has descended to modern
times; for in Cabul the young men who are unable to advance the required
dowry “live with their future father-in-law, and earn their bride by
their services, without ever seeing the object of their wishes.” The
contract of marriage was made in the house of the woman’s father, before
the elders and governors of the city or district. The espousals by
money, or a written instrument, were performed by the man and woman
under a tent or canopy erected for that purpose. Into this chamber the
bridegroom was accustomed to go with his bride, that he might talk with
her more familiarly; which was considered as a ceremony of confirmation
to the wedlock. While he was there, no person was allowed to enter: his
friends and attendants waited for him at the door, with torches and
lamps in their hands; and when he came out, he was received by all that
were present with great joy and acclamation. To this ancient custom, the
Psalmist alludes in his magnificent description of the heavens: “In them
he set a tabernacle for the sun; which, as a bridegroom coming out of
his chamber, rejoices as a strong man to run a race,” Psalm xix, 4. A
Jewish virgin legally betrothed was considered as a lawful wife; and, by
consequence, could not be put away without a bill of divorce. And if she
proved unfaithful to her betrothed husband, she was punished as an
adulteress; and her seducer incurred the same punishment as if he had
polluted the wife of his neighbour. This is the reason that the angel
addressed Joseph, the betrothed husband of Mary, in these terms:
“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” The Evangelist
Luke gives her the same title: “And Joseph also went up from Galilee
unto Bethlehem, to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife,” Luke ii, 4,
5.

2. Ten or twelve months commonly intervened between the ceremony of
espousals and the marriage: during this interval, the espoused wife
continued with her parents, that she might provide herself with nuptial
ornaments suitable to her station. This custom serves to explain a
circumstance in Samson’s marriage, which is involved in some obscurity.
“He went down,” says the historian, “and talked with the woman,” (whom
he had seen at Timnath,) “and she pleased him well,” Judges xiv, 7, &c.
These words seem to refer to the ceremony of espousals; the following,
to the subsequent marriage: “And after a time he returned to take her,”
Judges xiv, 8. Hence a considerable time intervened between the
espousals and their actual union. From the time of the espousals, the
bridegroom was at liberty to visit his espoused wife in the house of her
father; yet neither of the parties left their own abode during eight
days before the marriage; but persons of the same age visited the
bridegroom, and made merry with him. These circumstances are distinctly
marked in the account which the sacred historian has given us of
Samson’s marriage: “So his father went down unto the woman, and made
there a feast; for so used the young men to do. And it came to pass when
they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him,”
Judges xiv, 10. These companions were the children of the bride chamber,
of whom our Lord speaks: “Can the children of the bride chamber mourn as
long as the bridegroom is with them?” Matt. xix, 15. The marriage
ceremony was commonly performed in a garden, or in the open air; the
bride was placed under a canopy, supported by four youths, and adorned
with jewels according to the rank of the married persons; all the
company crying out with joyful acclamations, “Blessed be he that
cometh!” It was anciently the custom, at the conclusion of the ceremony,
for the father and mother and kindred of the woman, to pray for a
blessing upon the parties. Bethuel and Laban, and the other members of
their family, pronounced a solemn benediction upon Rebecca before her
departure: “And they blessed Rebecca, and said unto her, Thou art our
sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions; and let thy seed
possess the gate of those that hate them,” Gen. xxiv, 60. And in times
long posterior to the age of Isaac, when Ruth, the Moabitess, was
espoused to Boaz, “all the people that were in the gate, and the elders,
said, We are witnesses: the Lord make the woman that is come into thine
house like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build the house of
Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem,”
Ruth iv, 11, 12. After the benedictions, the bride is conducted with
great pomp to the house of her husband: this is usually done in the
evening; and as the procession moved along, money, sweetmeats, flowers,
and other articles, were thrown among the populace, which they caught in
cloths made for such occasions, stretched in a particular manner upon
frames. The use of perfumes at eastern marriages is common; and upon
great occasions very profuse.

3. It was the custom among the ancient Greeks, and the nations around
them, to conduct the new-married couple with torches and lamps to their
dwelling; as appears from the messenger in Euripides, who says he called
to mind the time when he bore torches before Menelaus and Helena. These
torches were usually carried by servants; and the procession was
sometimes attended by singers and dancers. Thus Homer, in his
description of the shield of Achilles:--

        --ἐν τῇ μέν ῥα γάμοι τ’ ἔσαν εἰλαπίναι τε,
        Νύμφας δ’ ἐκ θαλάμων, δαΐδων ὑπο λαμπομενάων,
        Ἠγίνεον ἀνὰ ἄστυ. κ. τ. λ.     _Il._ lib. xviii, l. 490.

“In one of the sculptured cities, nuptials were celebrating, and solemn
feasts; through the city they conducted the new-married pair from their
chambers, with flaming torches, while frequent shouts of Hymen burst
from the attending throng, and young men danced in skilful measures to
the sound of the pipe and the harp.”

A similar custom is observed among the Hindoos. The husband and wife, on
the day of their marriage, being both in the same palanquin, go about
seven and eight o’clock at night, accompanied with all their kindred and
friends; the trumpets and drums go before them; and they are lighted by
a number of flambeaux; immediately before the palanquin walk many women,
whose business it is to sing verses, in which they wish them all manner
of prosperity. They march in this equipage through the streets for the
space of some hours, after which they return to their own house, where
the domestics are in waiting. The whole house is illumined with small
lamps; and many of those flambeaux already mentioned are kept ready for
their arrival, beside those which accompany them, and are carried before
the palanquin. These flambeaux are composed of many pieces of old linen,
squeezed hard against one another in a round figure, and thrust down
into a mould of copper. The persons that hold them in one hand have in
the other a bottle of the same metal with the copper mould, which is
full of oil, which they take care to pour out from time to time upon the
linen, which otherwise gives no light. The Roman ladies also were led
home to their husbands in the evening by the light of torches. A Jewish
marriage seems to have been conducted in much the same way; for in that
beautiful psalm, where David describes the majesty of Christ’s kingdom,
we meet with this passage: “And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with
a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour. The
king’s daughter is all-glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold.
She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle work; the
virgins, her companions that follow her, shall be brought unto thee.
With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into
the king’s palace,” Psalm xlv, 12, &c. In the parable of the ten
virgins, the same circumstances are introduced: “They that were foolish
took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in
their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried,” leading
the procession through the streets of the city, the women and domestics
that were appointed to wait his arrival at home, “all slumbered and
slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh! Go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed
their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil;
for our lamps are gone out,” Matt. xxv, 6.

The following extract from Ward’s “View of the Hindoos” very strikingly
illustrates this parable: “At a marriage, the procession of which I saw
some years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived
at Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After
waiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced,
as if in the very words of Scripture, ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh! Go
ye out to meet him.’ All the persons employed now lighted their lamps,
and ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the
procession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared; but
it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to
the house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and
splendidly illuminated area, before the house covered with an awning,
where a great multitude of friends dressed in their best apparel were
seated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend,
and placed on a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a
short time, and then went into the house, the door of which was
immediately shut, and guarded by Sepoys. I and others expostulated with
the door keepers, but in vain.”

4. But among the Jews, the bridegroom was not always permitted to
accompany his bride from her father’s house; an intimate friend was
often sent to conduct her, while he remained at home to receive her in
his apartment. Her female attendants had the honour to introduce her;
and whenever they changed the bride’s dress, which is often done, they
presented her to the bridegroom. It is the custom, and belongs to their
ideas of magnificence, frequently to dress and undress the bride, and to
cause her to wear on that same day all the clothes made up for her
nuptials. These circumstances discover the force of St. John’s language,
in his magnificent description of the Christian church in her millennial
state: “And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from
God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband,” Rev.
xxi, 2.

5. Those that were invited to the marriage were expected to appear in
their best and gayest attire. If the bridegroom was in circumstances to
afford it, wedding garments were prepared for all the guests, which were
hung up in the antechamber for them to put on over the rest of their
clothes, as they entered the apartments where the marriage feast was
prepared. To refuse, or even to neglect, putting on the wedding garment,
was reckoned an insult to the bridegroom; aggravated by the circumstance
that it was provided by himself for the very purpose of being worn on
that occasion, and was hung up in the way to the inner apartment, that
the guests must have seen it, and recollected the design of its
suspension. This accounts for the severity of the sentence pronounced by
the king, who came in to see the guests, and found among them one who
had neglected to put it on: “And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest
thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless,”
Matt. xxii, 11, because it was provided at the expense of the
entertainer, and placed full in his view. “Then said the king to the
servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into
outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The following extract will show the importance of having a suitable
garment for a marriage feast, and the offence taken against those who
refuse it when presented as a gift. “The next day, Dec. 3d, the king
sent to invite the ambassadors to dine with him once more. The
Mehemander told them, it was the custom that they should wear over their
own clothes the best of those garments which the king had sent them. The
ambassadors at first made some scruple of that compliance; but when they
were told that it was a custom observed by all ambassadors, and that no
doubt the king would take it very ill at their hands if they presented
themselves before him without the marks of his liberality, they at last
resolved to do it; and, after their example, all the rest of the
retinue.”

BRIER. This word occurs several times in our translation of the Bible,
but with various authorities from the original. 1. הברקנים, Judges viii,
7, 16, is a particular kind of thorn. 2. חדק, Prov. xv, 19; Micah vii,
4. It seems hardly possible to determine what kind of plant this is.
Some kind of tangling prickly shrub is undoubtedly meant. In the former
passage there is a beautiful opposition, which is lost in our rendering:
“The _narrow way_ of the slothful is like a perplexed path among briers;
whereas the _broad road_” (elsewhere rendered _causeway_) “of the
righteous is a high bank;” that is, free from obstructions, direct,
conspicuous, and open. The common course of life of these two characters
answers to this comparison. Their manner of going about business, or of
transacting it, answers to this. An idle man always takes the most
intricate, the most oblique, and eventually the most thorny, measures to
accomplish his purpose; the honest and diligent man prefers the most
open and direct. In Micah, the unjust judge, taking bribes, is a brier,
holding every thing that comes within his reach, hooking all that he can
catch. 3. סרבים, Ezek. ii, 6. This word is translated by the Septuagint,
παροιϛρήσουσιν, _stung by the œstrus_, or _gadfly_; and they use the
like word in Hosea iv, 16, where, what in our version is “a backsliding
heifer,” they render “a heifer stung by the œstrus.” These coincident
renderings lead to the belief that both places may be understood of some
venomous insect. The word סרר may lead us to _sarran_, by which the
Arabs thus describe “a great bluish fly, having greenish eyes, its tail
armed with a piercer, by which it pesters almost all horned cattle,
settling on their heads, &c. Often it creeps up the noses of asses. It
is a species of gadfly; but carrying its sting in its tail.” 4. סלון,
Ezek. xxviii, 24, and סלונים, Ezek. ii, 6, must be classed among thorns.
The second word Parkhurst supposes to be a kind of thorn, overspreading
a large surface of ground, as the dewbrier. It is used in connection
with קוצ, which, in Gen. iii, 18, is rendered _thorns_. The author of
“Scripture Illustrated” queries, however, whether, as it is associated
with “scorpions” in Ezek. ii, 6, both this word and _serebim_ may not
mean some species of venomous insects. 5. סרפד, mentioned only in Isaiah
lv, 13, probably means a prickly plant; but what particular kind it is
impossible to determine. 6. שמיר. This word is used only by the Prophet
Isaiah, and in the following places: Isa. v, 6; vii, 23–25; ix, 17; x,
17; xxvii, 4; and xxxii, 13. It is probably a brier of a low kind; such
as overruns uncultivated lands.

BRIMSTONE, גפרית, Gen. xix, 24; Deut. xxix, 23; Job xviii, 15; Psalm xi,
6; Isaiah xxx, 33; xxxiv, 9; Ezek. xxxviii, 22. It is rendered θεῖον by
the Septuagint, and is so called in Luke xvii, 29. Fire and brimstone
are represented in many passages of Scripture as the elements by which
God punishes the wicked; both in this life, and another. There is in
this a manifest allusion to the overthrow of the cities of the plain of
the Jordan, by showers of ignited sulphur, to which the physical
appearances of the country bear witness to this day. The soil is
bituminous, and might be raised by eruptions into the air, and then
inflamed and return in horrid showers of overwhelming fire. This awful
catastrophe, therefore, stands as a type of the final and eternal
punishment of the wicked in another world. In Job. xviii, 15, Bildad,
describing the calamities which overtake the wicked person, says,
“Brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation.” This may be a
general expression, to designate any great destruction: as that in Psalm
xi, 6, “Upon the wicked he shall rain fire and brimstone.” Moses, among
other calamities which he sets forth in case of the people’s
disobedience, threatens them with the fall of brimstone, salt, and
burning like the overthrow of Sodom, &c, Deut. xxix, 23. The Prophet
Isaiah, xxxiv, 9, writes that the anger of the Lord shall be shown by
the streams of the land being turned into pitch, and the dust thereof
into brimstone. See DEAD SEA.

BROOK is distinguished from a river by its flowing only at particular
times; for example, after great rains, or the melting of the snow;
whereas a river flows constantly at all seasons. However, this
distinction is not always observed in the Scripture; and one is not
unfrequently taken for the other,--the great rivers, such as the
Euphrates, the Nile, the Jordan, and others being called brooks. Thus
the Euphrates, Isaiah xv, 7, is called the brook of willows. It is
observed that the Hebrew word, נחל, which signifies _a brook_, is also
the term for a valley, whence the one is often placed for the other, in
different translations of the Scriptures. To deal deceitfully “as a
brook,” and to “pass away as the stream thereof,” is to deceive our
friend when he most needs and expects our help and comfort, Job vi, 15;
because brooks, being temporary streams, are dried up in the heats of
summer, when the traveller most needs a supply of water on his journey.

BROTHER. 1. A brother by the same mother, a uterine brother, Matt. iv,
21; xx, 20. 2. A brother, though not by the same mother, Matt. i, 2. 3.
A near kinsman, a cousin, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3. Observe, that in
Matt. xiii, 55, James, and Joses, and Judas, are called the ἀδελφοὶ,
_brethren_, of Christ, but were most probably only his cousins by his
mother’s side; for James and Joses were the sons of Mary, Matt. xxvii,
56; and James and Judas, the sons of Alpheus, Luke vi, 15, 16; which
Alpheus is therefore probably the same with Cleopas, the husband of
Mary, sister to our Lord’s mother, John xix, 25.

BUCKLER. See ARMS.

BUILD. Beside the proper and literal signification of this word, it is
used with reference to children and a numerous posterity. Sarah desires
Abraham to take Hagar to wife, that by her she may be builded up, that
is, have children to uphold her family, Gen. xvi, 2. The midwives who
refused obedience to Pharaoh’s orders, when he commanded them to put to
death all the male children of the Hebrews, were rewarded for it; God
built them houses, that is, he gave them a numerous posterity. The
Prophet Nathan tells David that God would build his house; that is, give
him children and successors, 2 Sam. vii, 27. Moses, speaking of the
formation of the first woman, says, God built her with the rib of Adam,
Gen. ii, 22.

BUL, the eighth month of the ecclesiastical year of the Jews, and the
second month of the civil year. It answers to October, and consists of
twenty-nine days. On the sixth day of this month the Jews fasted,
because on that day Nebuchadnezzar put to death the children of Zedekiah
in the presence of their unhappy father, whose eyes, after they had been
witnesses of this sad spectacle, he ordered to be put out, 2 Kings xxv,
7. We find the name of this month mentioned in Scripture but once, 1
Kings vi, 38.

BULL, the male of the beeve kind; and it is to be recollected that the
Hebrews never castrated animals. There are several words translated
“bull” in Scripture, of which the following is a list, with the meaning
of each: שור, a bove, or cow, of any age. תאו, the wild bull, oryx, or
buffalo, occurs only Deut. xiv, 5; and in Isaiah li, 20, תוא, with the
interchange of the two last letters. אבירי, a word implying _strength_,
translated “bulls,” Psalm xxii, 12; l, 13; lxviii, 30; Isaiah xxxiv, 7;
Jer. xlvi, 15. בקר, herds, horned cattle of full age. פר, a full grown
bull, or cow, fit for propagating. עגל, a full grown, plump young bull;
and in the feminine, a heifer. תור, Chaldee _taur_, and Latin _taurus_;
the ox accustomed to the yoke: occurs only in Ezra vi, 9, 17; vii, 17;
Dan. iv, 25, 32, 33; xxii, 29, 30.

This animal was reputed by the Hebrews to be clean, and was generally
made use of by them for sacrifices. The Egyptians had a particular
veneration for it, and paid divine honours to it; and the Jews imitated
them in the worship of the golden calves or bulls, in the wilderness,
and in the kingdom of Israel. The wild bull is found in the Syrian and
Arabian deserts. It is frequently mentioned by the Arabian poets, who
are copious in their descriptions of hunting it, and borrow many images
from its beauty, strength, swiftness, and the loftiness of its horns.
They represent it as fierce and untamable; as being white on the back,
and having large shining eyes. Bulls, in a figurative and allegorical
sense, are taken for powerful, fierce, and insolent enemies, Psalm xxii,
12; lxviii, 30.

BULRUSH, גמא, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7. A
plant growing on the banks of the Nile, and in marshy grounds. The stalk
rises to the height of six or seven cubits, beside two under water. This
stalk is triangular, and terminates in a crown of small filaments
resembling hair, which the ancients used to compare to a _thyrsus_. This
reed, the _Cyperus papyrus_ of Linnæus, commonly called “the Egyptian
reed,” was of the greatest use to the inhabitants of the country where
it grew; the pith contained in the stock served them for food, and the
woody part for building vessels, figures of which are to be seen on the
engraven stones and other monuments of Egyptian antiquity. For this
purpose they made it up, like rushes, into bundles; and, by tying these
bundles together, gave their vessels the necessary shape and solidity.
“The vessels of bulrushes,” or papyrus, “that are mentioned in sacred
and profane history,” says Dr. Shaw, “were no other than large fabrics
of the same kind with that of Moses, Exodus ii, 3; which, from the late
introduction of plank and stronger materials, are now laid aside.” Thus
Pliny takes notice of the “_naves papyraceas armamentaque Nili_,” “ships
made of papyrus, and the equipments of the Nile;” and he observes, “_ex
ipsâ quidem papyro navigia texunt_,” “of the papyrus itself they
construct sailing vessels.” Herodotus and Diodorus have recorded the
same fact; and among the poets, Lucan, “_Conseritur bibulâ Memphitis
cymba papyro_,” “the Memphian” or Egyptian boat is made of the thirsty
papyrus; where the epithet _bibulâ_, “drinking,” “soaking,” “thirsty,”
is particularly remarkable, as corresponding with great exactness to the
nature of the plant, and to its Hebrew name, which signifies _to soak_
or _drink up_. These vegetables require much water for their growth;
when, therefore, the river on whose banks they grew was reduced, they
perished sooner than other plants. This explains Job viii, 11, where the
circumstance is referred to as an image of transient prosperity: “Can
the flag grow without water? Whilst it is yet in its greenness, and not
cut down, it withereth before any other herb.”

BURIAL, the interment of a deceased person; an office held so sacred,
that they who neglected it have in all nations been held in abhorrence.
As soon as the last breath had fled, the nearest relation, or the
dearest friend, gave the lifeless body the parting kiss, the last
farewell and sign of affection to the departed relative. This was a
custom of immemorial antiquity; for the patriarch Jacob had no sooner
yielded up his spirit, than his beloved Joseph, claiming for once the
right of the first-born, “fell upon his face and kissed him.” It is
probable he first closed his eyes, as God had promised he should do:
“Joseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes.” The parting kiss being
given, the company rent their clothes, which was a custom of great
antiquity, and the highest expression of grief in the primitive ages.
This ceremony was never omitted by the Hebrews when any mournful event
happened, and was performed in the following manner: they took a knife,
and holding the blade downward, gave the upper garment a cut in the
right side, and rent it a hand’s breadth. For very near relations, all
the garments are rent on the right side. After closing the eyes, the
next care was to bind up the face, which it was no more lawful to
behold. The next care of surviving friends was to wash the body,
probably, that the ointments and perfumes with which it was to be
wrapped up, might enter more easily into the pores, when opened by warm
water. This ablution, which was always esteemed an act of great charity
and devotion, was performed by women. Thus the body of Dorcas was
washed, and laid in an upper room, till the arrival of the Apostle
Peter, in the hope that his prayers might restore her to life. After the
body was washed, it was shrouded, and swathed with a linen cloth,
although in most places, they only put on a pair of drawers and a white
tunic; and the head was bound about with a napkin. Such were the napkin
and grave clothes in which the Saviour was buried.

2. The body was sometimes embalmed, which was performed by the Egyptians
after the following method: the brain was removed with a bent iron, and
the vacuity filled up with medicaments; the bowels were also drawn out,
and the trunk being stuffed with myrrh, cassia, and other spices, except
frankincense, which were proper to exsiccate the humours, it was pickled
in nitre, in which it lay for seventy days. After this period, it was
wrapped in bandages of fine linen and gums, to make it adhere; and was
then delivered to the relations of the deceased entire; all its
features, and the very hairs of the eyelids, being preserved. In this
manner were the kings of Judah embalmed for many ages. But when the
funeral obsequies were not long delayed, they used another kind of
embalming. They wrapped up the body with sweet spices and odours,
without extracting the brain, or removing the bowels. This is the way in
which it was proposed to embalm the lifeless body of our Saviour; which
was prevented by his resurrection. The meaner sort of people seem to
have been interred in their grave clothes, without a coffin. In this
manner was the sacred body of our Lord committed to the tomb. The body
was sometimes placed upon a bier, which bore some resemblance to a
coffin or bed, in order to be carried out to burial. Upon one of these
was carried forth the widow’s son of Nain, whom our compassionate Lord
raised to life, and restored to his mother. We are informed in the
history of the kings of Judah, that, Asa being dead, they laid him in
the bed, or bier, which was filled with sweet odours. Josephus, the
Jewish historian, describing the funeral of Herod the Great, says, His
bed was adorned with precious stones; his body rested under a purple
covering; he had a diadem and a crown of gold upon his head, a sceptre
in his hand; and all his house followed the bed. The bier used by the
Turks at Aleppo is a kind of coffin, much in the form of ours, only the
lid rises with a ledge in the middle.

3. The Israelites committed the dead to their native dust; and from the
Egyptians, probably, borrowed the practice of burning many spices at
their funerals. “They buried Asa in his own sepulchres, which he made
for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was
filled with sweet odours, and divers kinds of spices, prepared by the
apothecaries’ art; and they made a very great burning for him,” 2 Chron.
xvi, 14. Thus the Old Testament historian entirely justifies the account
which the Evangelist gives, of the quantity of spices with which the
sacred body of Christ was swathed. The Jews object to the quantity used
on that occasion, as unnecessarily profuse, and even incredible; but it
appears from their own writings, that spices were used at such times in
great abundance. In the Talmud it is said, that no less than eighty
pounds of spices were consumed at the funeral of rabbi Gamaliel the
elder. And at the funeral of Herod, if we may believe the account of
their most celebrated historian, the procession was followed by five
hundred of his domestics carrying spices. Why then should it be reckoned
incredible, that Nicodemus brought of myrrh and aloes about a hundred
pounds’ weight, to embalm the body of Jesus?

4. The funeral procession was attended by professional mourners,
eminently skilled in the art of lamentation, whom the friends and
relations of the deceased hired, to assist them in expressing their
sorrow. They began the ceremony with the stridulous voices of old women,
who strove, by their doleful modulations, to extort grief from those
that were present. The children in the streets through which they
passed, often suspended their sports, to imitate the sounds, and joined
with equal sincerity in the lamentations. “But whereunto shall I liken
this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and
calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have mourned unto you, and ye
have not lamented,” Matt. ix, 17. Music was afterward introduced to aid
the voices of the mourners: the trumpet was used at the funerals of the
great, and the small pipe or flute for those of meaner condition. Hired
mourners were in use among the Greeks as early as the Trojan war, and
probably in ages long before; for in Homer, a choir of mourners were
planted around the couch on which the body of Hector was laid out, who
sung his funeral dirge with many sighs and tears:--

          Ὁι δ’ ἐπεὶ ἐισάγαγον κλυτὰ δώματα, τὸν μὲν ἔπειτα
          Τρητοῖς ἐν λεχέεσσι θέσαν, ϖαρὰ δ’ εἷσαν ἀοιδοὺς,
          Θρήνων ἐξάρχȣς. κ. τ. λ.    _Il._ lib. xxiv, l. 720.

          “A melancholy choir attend around,
          With plaintive sighs and music’s solemn sound;
          Alternately they sing, alternate flow
          The obedient tears, melodious in their wo.”   POPE.

In Egypt, the lower class of people call in women who play on the tabor;
and whose business it is, like the hired mourners in other countries, to
sing elegiac airs to the sound of that instrument, which they accompany
with the most frightful distortions of their limbs. These women attend
the corpse to the grave, intermixed with the female relations and
friends of the deceased, who commonly have their hair in the utmost
disorder; their heads covered with dust; their faces daubed with indigo,
or at least rubbed with mud; and howling like maniacs. Such were the
minstrels whom our Lord found in the house of Jairus, making so great a
noise round the bed on which the dead body of his daughter lay. The
noise and tumult of these retained mourners, and the other attendants,
appear to have begun immediately after the person expired. It is evident
that this sort of mourning and lamentation was a kind of art among the
Jews: “Wailing shall be in the streets; and they shall call such as are
skilful of lamentation to wail,” Amos v, 16. Mourners are still hired at
the obsequies of Hindoos and Mohammedans, as in former times. To the
dreadful noise and tumult of the hired mourners, the following passage
of Jeremiah indisputably refers; and shows the custom to be derived from
a very remote antiquity: “Call for the mourning women that they may
come; and send for cunning women, that they may come, and let them make
haste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run down with
tears, and our eyelids gush out with waters,” Jer. ix, 17. The funeral
processions of the Jews in Barbary are conducted nearly in the same
manner as those in Syria. The corpse is borne by four to the place of
burial: in the first rank march the priests, next to them the kindred of
the deceased; after whom come those that are invited to the funeral; and
all singing in a sort of plain song, the forty-ninth Psalm. Hence the
Prophet, Amos viii, 3, warns his people that public calamities were
approaching, so numerous and severe, as should make them forget the
usual rites of burial, and even to sing one of the songs of Zion over
the dust of a departed relative. This appears to be confirmed by a
prediction in the eighth chapter: “And the songs of the temple shall be
howlings in that day, saith the Lord God; there shall be many dead
bodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with _silence_;” they
shall have none to lament and bewail; none to blow the funeral trump or
touch the pipe and tabor; none to sing the plaintive dirge, or express
their hope of a blessed resurrection, in the strains of inspiration. All
shall be silent despair. See SEPULCHRES.

BUSH. סנה. This word occurs in Exod. iii, 2, 4, and Deut. xxxiii, 16, as
the name of the bush in which God appeared to Moses. If it be the χιονὸς
mentioned by Dioscorides, it is the white thorn. Celsius calls it the
_rubus fructicosus_. The number of these bushes in this region seems to
have given the name to the mountain Sinai. The word נהללים, found only
in Isa. vii, 19, and there rendered “bushes,” means _fruitful pastures_.

BUTTER is taken in Scripture, as it has been almost perpetually in the
east, for cream or liquid butter, Prov. xxx, 33; 2 Sam. xvii, 29. The
ancient way of making butter in Arabia and Palestine was probably nearly
the same as is still practised by the Bedoween Arabs, and Moors in
Barbary, and which is thus described by Dr. Shaw: “Their method of
making butter is by putting the milk or cream into a goat’s skin turned
inside out, which they suspend from one side of the tent to the other;
and then pressing it to and fro in one uniform direction, they quickly
separate the unctious and wheyey parts. In the Levant they tread upon
the skin with their feet, which produces the same effect.” The last
method of separating the butter from the milk, perhaps may throw light
upon a passage in Job of some difficulty: “When I washed my steps with
butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil,” Job xxxi, 6. The
method of making butter in the east illustrates the conduct of Jael, the
wife of Heber, described in the book of Judges: “And Sisera said unto
her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink, for I am thirsty:
and she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink and covered him.” In
the Song of Deborah, the statement is repeated: “He asked water, and she
gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish,” Judges iv,
19; v, 25. The word חמאה, which our translators rendered _butter_,
properly signifies _cream_; which is undoubtedly the meaning of it in
this passage: for Sisera complained of thirst, and asked a little water
to quench it;--a purpose to which butter is but little adapted. Mr.
Harmer, indeed, urges the same objection to cream, which, he contends,
few people would think a very proper beverage for one that was extremely
thirsty; and concludes that it must have been butter-milk which Jael,
who had just been churning, gave to Sisera. But the opinion of Dr.
Russel is preferable,--that the _hemah_ of the Scriptures is probably
the same as the _haymak_ of the Arabs, which is not, as Harmer supposed,
simple cream, but cream produced by simmering fresh sheep’s milk for
some hours over a slow fire. It could not be butter newly churned, which
Jael presented to Sisera, because the Arab butter is apt to be foul, and
is commonly passed through a strainer before it is used: and Russel
declares, he never saw butter offered to a stranger, but always
_haymak_; nor did he ever observe the orientals drink butter-milk, but
always _leban_, which is coagulated sour milk, diluted with water. It
was _leban_, therefore, which Pococke mistook for butter-milk, with
which the Arabs treated him in the Holy Land. A similar conclusion may
be drawn concerning the butter and milk which the wife of Heber
presented to Sisera: they were forced cream or _haymak_, and _leban_, or
coagulated sour milk, diluted with water, which is a common and
refreshing beverage in those sultry regions. In Isaiah vii, 15, butter
and honey are mentioned as food which, in Egypt and other places in the
east, is in use to this day. The butter and honey are mixed, and the
bread is then dipped in it.

BYSSUS. By this word we generally understand that fine Egyptian linen of
which the priests’ tunics were made. But we must distinguish three kinds
of commodities, which are generally comprehended under the name of
_linen_: 1. The Hebrew בד, which signifies _linen_: 2. שש, which
signifies _cotton_: 3. בוץ, which is commonly called _bussus_, and is
the silk growing from a certain shell fish, called _pinna_. We do not
find the name _butz_ in the text of Moses, though the Greek and Latin
use the word _byssus_, to signify the fine linen of certain habits
belonging to the priests. The word _butz_ occurs only in 1 Chron. xv,
27; Ezek. xxvii, 16; Esther i, 6. In the Chronicles we see David dressed
in a mantle of _butz_, with the singers and Levites. Solomon used _butz_
in the veils of the temple and sanctuary. Ahasuerus’s tents were upheld
by cords of _butz_; and Mordecai was clothed with a mantle of purple and
_butz_, when king Ahasuerus honoured him with the first employment in
his kingdom. Lastly, it is observed that there was a manufacture of
_butz_ in the city of Beersheba, in Palestine. This _butz_ must have
been different from common linen, since in the same place where it is
said, David wore a mantle of byssus, we read likewise that he had on a
linen ephod.


CAB, or KAB, a Hebrew measure, containing three pints one-third of our
wine measure, or two pints five-sixths of our corn measure.

CABBALA, a mysterious kind of science, delivered to the ancient Jews, as
they pretend, by revelation, and transmitted by oral tradition to those
of our times; serving for the interpretation of the books both of nature
and Scripture. The word is variously written, as _Cabala_, _Caballa_,
_Kabbala_, _Kabala_, _Cabalistica_, _Ars Cabala_, and _Gaballa_. It is
originally Hebrew, קבלה, and properly signifies _reception_; formed from
the verb קבל, _to receive by tradition_, or _from father to son_;
especially in the Chaldee and Rabbinical Hebrew. Cabbala, then,
primarily denotes any sentiment, opinion, usage, or explication of
Scripture, transmitted from father to son. In this sense the word
_cabbala_ is not only applied to the whole art, but also to each
operation performed according to the rules of that art. Thus it is,
rabbi Jacob Ben Ascher, surnamed Baal-Hatturim, is said to have compiled
most of the cabbalas invented on the books of Moses before his time. As
to the origin of the cabbala, the Jews relate many marvellous tales.
They derive the mysteries contained in it from Adam; and assert, that
whilst the first man was in paradise, the angel Raphael brought him a
book from heaven, which contained the doctrines of heavenly wisdom; and
that when Adam received this book, angels came down from heaven to learn
its contents; but that he refused to admit them to the knowledge of
sacred things, intrusted to himself alone: that, after the fall, this
book was taken back into heaven; that, after many prayers and tears, God
restored it to Adam; and that it passed from Adam to Seth. The Jewish
fables farther relate, that the book being lost, and the mysteries
contained in it almost forgotten, in the degenerate age preceding the
flood, they were restored by special revelation to Abraham, who
transmitted them to writing in the book “Jezirah;” and that the
revelation was renewed to Moses, who received a traditionary and
mystical, as well as a written and preceptive, law from God.
Accordingly, the Jews believe that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai, not
only the law, but also the explication of that law; and that Moses,
after his coming down, retiring to his tent, rehearsed to Aaron both the
one and the other. When he had done, the sons of Aaron, Eleazar and
Ithamar, were introduced to a second rehearsal. This being over, the
seventy elders that composed the sanhedrim were admitted; and, lastly,
the people, as many as pleased; to all of whom Moses again repeated both
the law and explanation, as he received them from God: so that Aaron
heard it four times, his sons thrice, the elders twice, and the people
once. Now, of the two things which Moses taught them, the laws and the
explanation, only the first were committed to writing; which is what we
have in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. As to the second, or the
explication of those laws, they were contented to impress it well in
their memory, to teach it their children; they to theirs, &c. Hence the
first part they call simply the law, or the written law; the second, the
oral law, or cabbala. Such is the original notion of the cabbala.

2. The cabbala being again lost amidst the calamities of the Babylonish
captivity, was once more revealed to Esdras; and it is said to have been
preserved in Egypt, and transmitted to posterity through the hands of
Simeon Ben Setach, Elkanah, Akibha, Simeon Ben Jochai, and others. The
only warrantable inference from these accounts, which bear the obvious
marks of fiction, is, that the cabbalistic doctrine obtained early
credit among the Jews as a part of their sacred tradition, and was
transmitted, under this notion, by the Jews in Egypt to their brethren
in Palestine. Under the sanction of ancient names, many fictitious
writings were produced, which greatly contributed to the spreading of
this mystical system. Among these were “Sepher Happeliah,” or the book
of wonders; “Sepher Hakkaneh,” or the book of the pen; and “Sepher
Habbahir,” or the book of light. The first unfolds many doctrines said
to have been delivered by Elias to the rabbi Elkanah; the second
contains mystical commentaries on the divine commands; and the third
illustrates the most sublime mysteries. Among the profound doctors who,
beside the study of tradition, cultivated with great industry the
cabbalistic philosophy, the most celebrated persons are the rabbis
Akibba, who lived soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Simeon
Ben Jochai, who flourished in the second century. To the former is
ascribed the book entitled “Jezirah,” concerning the creation; and to
the latter, the book “Sohar,” or brightness; and these are the principal
sources from which we derive our knowledge of the cabbala.

3. That this system of the cabbalistic philosophy, which we may consider
as the acroamatic, esoteric, or concealed doctrine of the Jews, by way
of contradistinction from the exoretic or popular doctrine, was not of
Hebrew origin, we may conclude with a very great degree of probability,
from the total dissimilarity of its abstruse and mysterious doctrines to
the simple principles of religion taught in the Mosaic law; and that it
was borrowed from the Egyptian schools will sufficiently appear from a
comparison of its tenets with those of the oriental and Alexandrian
philosophy. Many writers have, indeed, imagined that they have found in
the cabbalistic dogmas a near resemblance of the doctrines of
Christianity; and they have thought that the fundamental principles of
this mystical system were derived from divine revelation. This opinion,
however, may be traced up to a prejudice which originated with the Jews,
and passed from them to the Christian fathers, by which they were led to
ascribe all Pagan wisdom to a Hebrew origin: a notion which very
probably took its rise in Egypt, when Pagan tenets first crept in among
the Jews. Philo, Josephus, and other learned Jews, in order to flatter
their own vanity, and that of their countrymen, industriously propagated
this opinion; and the more learned fathers of the Christian church, who
entertained a high opinion of the Platonic philosophy, hastily adopted
it, from an imagination that if they could trace back the most valuable
doctrines of Paganism to a Hebrew origin, this could not fail to
recommend the Jewish and Christian religions to the attention of the
Gentile philosophers. Many learned moderns, relying implicitly upon
these authorities, have maintained the same opinion; and have thence
been inclined to credit the report of the divine original of the Jewish
cabbala. But the opinion is unfounded; and the cabbalistic system is
essentially inconsistent with the pure doctrine of divine revelation.
The true state of the case seems to be, that during the prophetic ages,
the traditions of the Jews consisted in a simple explanation of those
divine truths which the prophets delivered, or their law exhibited,
under the veil of emblems. After this period, when the sects of the
Essenes and Therapeutæ were formed in Egypt, foreign tenets and
institutions were borrowed from the Egyptians and Greeks; and, in the
form of allegorical interpretations of the law, were admitted into what
might then be called the Jewish mysteries, or secret doctrines. These
innovations chiefly consisted in certain dogmas concerning God and
divine things, at this time received in the Egyptian schools;
particularly at Alexandria, where the Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines
on these subjects had been blended with the oriental philosophy. The
Jewish mysteries, thus enlarged by the accession of Pagan dogmas, were
conveyed from Egypt to Palestine, at the time when the Pharisees, who
had been driven into Egypt under Hyrcanus, returned with many other Jews
into their own country. From this time the cabbalistic mysteries
continued to be taught in the Jewish schools; but at length they were
adulterated by a mixture of Peripatetic doctrines, and other tenets.
These mysteries were not, probably, reduced to any systematic forms in
writing, till after the dispersion of the Jews; when in consequence of
their national calamities, they became apprehensive that those sacred
treasures would be corrupted or lost. In preceding periods, the
cabbalistic doctrines underwent various corruptions, particularly from
the prevalence of the Aristotelian philosophy. The similarity, or rather
the coincidence, of the cabbalistic, Alexandrian, and oriental
philosophy, will be sufficiently evinced by briefly stating the common
tenets in which these different systems agreed. They are as
follow:--“All things are derived by emanation from one principle; and
this principle is God. From him a substantial power immediately
proceeds, which is the image of God, and the source of all subsequent
emanations. This second principle sends forth, by the energy of
emanation, other natures, which are more or less perfect, according to
their different degrees of distance, in the scale of emanation, from the
first source of existence, and which constitute different worlds or
orders of being, all united to the eternal power from which they
proceed. Matter is nothing more than the most remote effect of the
emanative energy of the Deity. The material world receives its form from
the immediate agency of powers far beneath the first source of being.
Evil is the necessary effect of the imperfection of matter. Human souls
are distant emanations from Deity; and, after they are liberated from
their material vehicles, will return, through various stages of
purification, to the fountain whence they first proceeded.” From this
brief view it appears, that the cabbalistic system, which is the
offspring of the other two, is a fanatical kind of philosophy,
originating in defect of judgment and eccentricity of imagination, and
tending to produce a wild and pernicious enthusiasm.

4. Among the explications of the law which are furnished by the cabbala,
and which, in reality, are little else but the several interpretations
and decisions of the rabbins on the laws of Moses, some are mystical;
consisting of odd abstruse significations given to a word, or even to
the letters whereof it is composed: whence, by different combinations,
they draw meanings from Scripture very different from those it seems
naturally to import. The art of interpreting Scripture after this manner
is called more particularly _cabbala_; and it is in this last sense the
word is more ordinarily used among us. This cabbala, called also
artificial cabbala, to distinguish it from the first kind, or simple
tradition, is divided into three sorts. The first, called _gematria_,
consists in taking letters as figures, or arithmetical numbers, and
explaining each word by the arithmetical value of the letters whereof it
is composed; which is done various ways: the second is called
_notaricon_, and consists either in taking each letter of a word for an
entire diction, or in making one entire diction out of the initial
letters of many: the third kind, called _themurah_, that is, _changing_,
consists in changing and transposing the letters of a word; which is
done various ways. The generality of the Jews prefer the cabbala to the
literal Scripture; comparing the former to the sparkling lustre of a
precious stone, and the latter to the fainter glimmering of a candle.
The cabbala only differs from masorah, as the latter denotes the science
of reading the Scripture; the former, of interpreting it. Both are
supposed to have been handed down from generation to generation by oral
tradition only, till at length the readings were fixed by the vowels and
accents, as the interpretations were by the gemara.

5. Cabbala is also applied to the use, or rather abuse, which
visionaries and enthusiasts make of Scripture, for discovering futurity
by the study and consideration of the combination of certain words,
letters, and numbers, in the sacred writings. All the words, terms,
magic figures, numbers, letters, charms, &c, used in the Jewish magic,
as also in the hermetical science, are comprised under this species of
cabbala; which professes to teach the art of curing diseases, and
performing other wonders, by means of certain arrangements of sacred
letters and words. But it is only the Christians that call it by this
name, on account of the resemblance this art bears to the explications
of the Jewish cabbala: for the Jews never used the word _cabbala_ in any
such sense; but ever with the utmost respect and veneration. It is not,
however, the magic of the Jews alone which we call cabbala; but the word
is also used for any kind of magic.

CABUL, the name which Hiram, king of Tyre, gave to the twenty cities in
the land of Galilee, of which Solomon made him a present, in
acknowledgment for the great services in building the temple, 1 Kings
ix, 31. These cities not being agreeable to Hiram, on viewing them, he
called them the land of Cabul, which in the Hebrew tongue denotes
_displeasing_; others take it to signify _binding_ or _adhesive_, from
the clayey nature of the soil.

CÆSAR, a title borne by all the Roman emperors till the destruction of
the empire. It took its rise from the surname of the first emperor,
Caius Julius Cæsar; and this title, by a decree of the senate, all the
succeeding emperors were to bear. In Scripture, the reigning emperor is
generally mentioned by the name of Cæsar, without expressing any other
distinction: so in Matt. xxii, 21, “Render unto Cæsar,” &c, Tiberias is
meant; and in Acts xxv, 10, “I appeal unto Cæsar,” Nero is intended.

CÆSAREA, a city and port of Palestine, built by Herod the Great, and
thus called in honour of Augustus Cæsar. It was on the site of the tower
of Strato. This city, which was six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, is
often mentioned in the New Testament. Here it was that Herod Agrippa was
smitten of the Lord for not giving God the glory, when the people were
so extravagant in his praise. Cornelius the centurion, who was baptized
by St. Peter, resided here, Acts x, 1, &c; and also Philip the deacon,
with his four maiden daughters. At Cæsarea the Prophet Agabus foretold
that Paul would be bound and persecuted at Jerusalem. Lastly, the
Apostle himself continued two years a prisoner at Cæsarea, till he was
conducted to Rome. When Judea was reduced to the state of a Roman
province, Cæsarea became the stated residence of the proconsul, which
accounts for the circumstance of Paul being carried thither from
Jerusalem, to defend himself.

Dr. E. D. Clarke’s remarks upon this once celebrated city will be read
with interest: “On the 15th of July, 1801, we embarked, after sunset,
for Acre, to avail ourselves of the land wind, which blows during the
night, at this season of the year. By day break, the next morning, we
were off the coast of Cæsarea; and so near with the land that we could
very distinctly perceive the appearance of its numerous and extensive
ruins. The remains of this city, although still considerable, have long
been resorted to as a quarry, whenever building materials are required
at Acre. Djezzar Pacha brought from hence the columns of rare and
beautiful marble, as well as the other ornaments of his palace, bath,
fountain, and mosque at Acre. The place at present is inhabited only by
jackals and beasts of prey. As we were becalmed during the night, we
heard the cries of these animals until day break. Pococke mentions the
curious fact of the former existence of crocodiles in the river of
Cæsarea. Perhaps there has not been in the history of the world an
example of any city, that in so short a space of time rose to such an
extraordinary height of splendour as did this of Cæsarea; or that
exhibits a more awful contrast to its former magnificence, by the
present desolate appearance of its ruins. Not a single inhabitant
remains. Its theatres, once resounding with the shouts of multitudes,
echo no other sound than the nightly cries of animals roaming for their
prey. Of its gorgeous palaces and temples, enriched with the choicest
works of art, and decorated with the most precious marbles, scarcely a
trace can be discerned. Within the space of ten years after laying the
foundation, from an obscure fortress, it became the most celebrated and
flourishing city of all Syria. It was named Cæsarea by Herod, in honour
of Augustus, and dedicated by him to that emperor, in the twenty-eighth
year of his reign. Upon this occasion, that the ceremony might be
rendered illustrious, by a degree of profusion unknown in any former
instance, Herod assembled the most skilful musicians, wrestlers, and
gladiators from all parts of the world. This solemnity was to be renewed
every fifth year. But, as we viewed the ruins of this memorable city,
every other circumstance respecting its history was absorbed in the
consideration that we were actually beholding the very spot where the
scholar of Tarsus, after two years’ imprisonment, made that eloquent
appeal, in the audience of the king of Judea, which must ever be
remembered with piety and delight. In the history of the actions of the
holy Apostles, whether we regard the internal evidence of the narrative,
or the interest excited by a story so wonderfully appalling to our
passions and affections, there is nothing that we call to mind with
fuller emotions of sublimity and satisfaction. ‘In the demonstration of
the Spirit and of power,’ the mighty advocate for the Christian faith
had before ‘reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to
come,’ till the Roman governor, Felix, trembled as he spoke. Not all the
oratory of Tertullus; not the clamour of his numerous adversaries; not
even the countenance of the most profligate of tyrants availed against
the firmness and intrepidity of the oracle of God. The judge had
trembled before his prisoner; and now a second occasion offered, in
which, for the admiration and the triumph of the Christian world, one of
the bitterest persecutors of the name of Christ, and a Jew, appeals, in
the public tribunal of a large and populous city, to all its chiefs and
its rulers, its governor and its king, for the truth of his conversion
founded on the highest evidence.”

CÆSAREA PHILIPPI was first called Laish or Leshem, Judg. xviii, 7. After
it was subdued by the Danites, Judg. v, 29, it received the name of Dan;
and is by Heathen writers called Paneas. Philip, the youngest son of
Herod the Great, made it the capital of his tetrarchy, enlarged and
embellished it, and gave it the name of Cæsarea Philippi. It was
situated at the foot of Mount Hermon, near the head of the Jordan; and
was about fifty miles from Damascus, and thirty from Tyre. Our Saviour
visited and taught in this place, and healed one who was possessed of an
evil spirit: here also he gave the memorable rebuke to Peter, Mark viii.

CAIAPHAS, high priest of the Jews, succeeded Simon, son of Camith; and
after possessing this dignity nine years, from A. M. 4029 to 4038, he
was succeeded by Jonathan, son of Ananas, or Annas. Caiaphas was high
priest, A. M. 4037, which was the year of Jesus Christ’s death. He
married a daughter of Annas, who also is called high priest in the
Gospel, because he had long enjoyed that dignity. When the priests
deliberated on the seizure and death of Jesus Christ, Caiaphas declared,
that there was no room for debate on that matter, “because it was
expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation
should not perish,” John xi, 49, 50. This sentiment was a prophecy,
which God suffered to proceed from the mouth of the high priest on this
occasion, importing, that the death of Jesus would be for the salvation
of the world. When Judas had betrayed Jesus, he was first taken before
Annas, who sent him to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, who possibly lived in
the same house, John xviii, 24. The priests and doctors of the law there
assembled to judge our Saviour, and to condemn him. The depositions of
certain false witnesses being insufficient to justify a sentence of
death against him, and Jesus continuing silent, Caiaphas, as high
priest, said to him, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God!” To this adjuration, so
solemnly made by the superior judge, Jesus answered, “Thou hast said;
nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
On hearing these words, Caiaphas rent his clothes, saying, “What farther
need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy.
What think ye?” They answered, “He is worthy of death.” And as the power
of life and death was not at this time in their hands, but was reserved
by the Romans, they conducted him to Pilate, that he might confirm their
sentence, and order his execution.

Two years after this, Vitellus, governor of Syria, coming to Jerusalem
at the passover, was received very magnificently by the people. As an
acknowledgment for this honour, he restored the custody of the high
priest’s ornaments to the priests, he remitted certain duties raised on
the fruits of the earth, and deposed the high priest Caiaphas. From this
it appears that Caiaphas had fallen under popular odium, for his
deposition was to gratify the people.

CAIN, the eldest son of Adam and Eve. He was the first man who had been
a child, and the first man born of woman. For his history, as connected
with that of Abel, see _Abel_. The curse pronounced upon Cain, on
account of his fratricide, is thus expressed: “And the Lord said unto
Cain, Where is thy brother Abel? And he said, I know not: am I my
brother’s keeper? And God said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy
brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed
from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s
blood from thy hand. When thou tillest it, it shall not henceforth yield
unto thee its strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the
earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can
bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from _the face of the
earth_,” meaning, probably, from his own native district, and from the
presence of his kindred, “and from _thy face_ shall I be hid;” by which
he probably intended the divine glory, or Shekinah, whose appearance
sanctified the place of primitive worship, and was the pledge of
acceptance and protection. The mark set upon Cain “lest any one finding
him should kill him,” has been variously interpreted. Some have supposed
it a change in the colour of his skin, others a certain horror of
countenance. The LXX. understood the passage to mean, that the Lord gave
him a sign, to assure him that his life should be preserved. Whatever it
was, its object was not to aggravate, but to mitigate, his punishment,
which may intimate that Cain had manifested repentance. Cain, being thus
banished from the presence of the Lord, retired into the land of Nod,
lying east from the province of Eden. While he dwelt in this country,
which is generally understood to be Susiana, or Chusistan, he had a son,
whom he named Enoch, in memory of whom he built a city of the same name.
This is all we learn from Scripture concerning Cain.

CAKE. See BREAD.

CALAH, a city of Assyria, built by Ashur, Gen. x, 12. From it the
adjacent country, on the north-east of the Tigris, and south of the
Gordian mountains of Armenia, was called Callachene, or Callacine.

CALAMUS, קנה. Exod. xxx, 23; Cantic. iv, 14; Isa. xliii, 24; Jer. vi,
20; Ezek. xxvii, 19. An aromatic reed, growing in moist places in Egypt,
in Judea near lake Genezareth, and in several parts of Syria. It grows
to about two feet in height; bearing from the root a knotted stalk,
quite round, containing in its cavity a soft white pith. The whole is of
an agreeable aromatic smell; and the plant is said to scent the air with
a fragrance even while growing. When cut down, dried, and powdered, it
makes an ingredient in the richest perfumes. It was used for this
purpose by the Jews.

CALAMUS SCRIPTORIUS, a reed answering the purpose of a pen to write
with. The ancients used styles, to write on tablets covered with wax;
but reeds, to write on parchment or papyrus. The Psalmist says, “My
tongue is the pen of a ready writer,” xlv, 1. The Hebrew signifies
rather a style. The third book of Maccabees states, that the writers
employed in making a list of the Jews in Egypt, produced their reeds
quite worn out. Baruch wrote his prophecies _with ink_, Jer. xxxvi, 4;
and, consequently, used reeds; for it does not appear that quills were
then used to write with. In third John 13, the Apostle says, he did not
design to write with pen (reed) and ink. The Arabians, Persians, Turks,
Greeks, and Armenians, to this day, write with reeds or rushes.

CALEB, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, was one of those who
accompanied Joshua, when he was deputed by Moses to view the land of
Canaan, which the Lord had promised them for an inheritance, Num. xiii.
The deputies sent on this occasion were twelve in number, selected one
out of each of the tribes, and they performed their commission with
great promptitude and skill; they traversed the country in every
direction, bringing with them, on their return, some of its finest
fruits for the inspection of their brethren. Some of them, however,
after making the report of the beauty and goodness of the country, which
they described to be a land flowing with milk and honey, added, that the
inhabitants of it were remarkable for their strength, while its cities
were large and enclosed with walls. These later particulars having
excited a spirit of murmuring among the Israelites, Caleb endeavoured to
animate their courage by dwelling upon the fertility of the country, and
exhorting them to go boldly and take possession of it. Others, however,
dissuaded the people from making the attempt, assuring them that they
would never make themselves masters of it. We have seen giants there,
said they, in comparison of whom we were as grasshoppers; on which the
people declared against the project, and intimated their wish to return
again into Egypt. Moses and Aaron no sooner heard this than they fell
upon their faces before the whole congregation, and Joshua and Caleb
rent their clothes, imploring them to take courage and march boldly on;
since, if God were with them, they might easily make a conquest of the
whole land. So exasperated, however, were the multitude, that they were
proceeding to stone Caleb and Joshua, when the glory of the Lord
appeared upon the tabernacle, and threatened their extermination. Moses,
having fervently interceded for them, the Lord graciously heard his
prayer; but though he was pleased not to destroy them immediately, he
protested with an oath, that none of those who had murmured against him
should see the land of Canaan, but that they should all die in the
wilderness. “As for my servant Caleb,” it was added, “who hath
faithfully followed me, him will I bring into the land, and he shall
possess it, he and his children after him,” Num. xiv, 1–24. Joshua also
obtained a similar exception, verses 30, 38. When Joshua had entered the
promised land, and conquered a considerable part of it, Caleb, with the
people of his tribe, came to meet him at Gilgal, and finding that he was
about to divide the land among the twelve tribes, Caleb petitioned to
have the country which was inhabited by the giants allotted to him, on
which Joshua blessed him and granted his request. Assisted by a portion
of his tribe, he marched against Hebron, and slew the children of Anak:
thence he proceeded to Debir, and finding the place almost impregnable,
he offered his daughter Achsah in marriage to the hero that should take
it. This was done by his nephew Othniel, who in consequence obtained
Achsah with a considerable portion also of territory. We are not
informed of the particular time or manner of the death of Caleb; but by
his three sons, Iru, Elah, and Naam, he had a numerous posterity, who
maintained an honourable rank among their brethren. See Num. xiii, xiv,
Josh. xiv, 6–15; xv, 13–19; Judges i, 9–15; 1 Chron. iv, 15–20. עגל

CALF, עגל. The young of the ox kind. There is frequent mention in
Scripture of calves, because they were made use of commonly in
sacrifices. The “fatted calf,” mentioned in several places, as in 1 Sam.
xxviii, 24, and Luke xv, 23, was stall fed, with special reference to a
particular festival or extraordinary sacrifice. The “calves of the
lips,” mentioned by Hosea, xiv, 2, signify the sacrifices of praise
which the captives of Babylon addressed to God, being no longer in a
condition to offer sacrifices in his temple. The Septuagint render it
the “fruit of the lips;” and their reading is followed by the Syriac,
and by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xiii, 15. The “golden calf” was an
idol set up and worshipped by the Israelites at the foot of mount Sinai
in their passage through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. Having
been conducted through the wilderness by a pillar of cloud and fire,
which preceded them in their marches, while Moses was receiving the
divine commands that cloud covered the mountain, and they probably
imagined that it would no longer be their guide; and, therefore, applied
to Aaron to make for them a sacred sign or symbol, as other nations had,
which might visibly represent God. With this request, preferred
tumultuously, and in a menacing manner, Aaron in a moment of weakness
complied. The image thus formed is supposed to have been like the
Egyptian deity, Apis, which was an ox, an animal used in agriculture,
and so a symbol of the god who presided over their fields, or of the
productive power of the Deity. The means by which Moses reduced the
golden calf to powder, so that when mixed with water he made the people
drink it, in contempt, has puzzled commentators. Some understand that he
did this by a chymical process, then well known, but now a secret;
others, that he beat it into gold leaf, and then separated this into
parts so fine, as to be easily potable; others, that he reduced it by
filing. The account says, that he took the calf, burned it to powder,
and mixed the powder with water; from which it is probable, as several
Jewish writers have thought, that the calf was not wholly made of gold,
but of wood, covered with a profusion of gold ornaments cast and
fashioned for the occasion. For this reason it obtained the epithet
golden, as afterward some ornaments of the temple were called, which we
know were only overlaid with gold. It would in that case be enough to
reduce the wood to powder in the fire, which would also blacken and
deface the golden ornaments; but there is no need to suppose they were
also reduced to powder. It is plain from Aaron’s proclaiming a fast to
Jehovah, Exod. xxxii, 4, and from the worship of Jeroboam’s calves being
so expressly distinguished from that of Baal, 2 Kings x, 28–31, that
both Aaron and Jeroboam meant the calves they formed and set up for
worship to be emblems of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the inspired Psalmist
speaks of Aaron’s calf with the utmost abhorrence, and declares that, by
worshipping it, they forgat God their Saviour, (see 1 Cor. x, 9,) who
had wrought so many miracles for them, and that for this crime God
threatened to destroy them, Psalm cvi, 19–24; Exod. xxxii, 10; and St.
Stephen calls it plainly εἴδωλον, _an idol_, Acts vii, 41. As for
Jeroboam, after he had, for political reasons, 1 Kings xii, 27, &c, made
a schism in the Jewish church, and set up two calves in Dan and Bethel,
as objects of worship, he is scarcely ever mentioned in Scripture but
with a particular stigma set upon him: “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who
made Israel to sin.”

CALL, to name a person or thing, Acts xi, 26; Rom. vii, 3. 2. To cry to
another for help; and hence, to pray. The first passage in the Old
Testament in which we meet with this phrase, is Gen. iv, 26, where we
read, “Then began men to call on the name of the Lord,” or Jehovah; the
meaning of which seems to be, that they then first began to worship him
in public assemblies. In both the Old and New Testament, to call upon
the name of the Lord, imports invoking the true God in prayer, with a
confession that he is Jehovah, that is, with an acknowledgment of his
essential and incommunicable attributes. In this view the phrase is
applied to the worship of Christ.

CALLING, a term in theology, which is taken in a different sense by the
advocates and the impugners of the Calvinistic doctrine of grace. By the
former it is thus stated: In the golden chain of spiritual blessings
which the Apostle enumerates in Rom. viii, 30, originating in the divine
predestination, and terminating in the bestowment of eternal glory on
the heirs of salvation, that of calling forms an important link.
“Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he
called, them he also glorified.” Hence we read of “the called according
to his purpose,” Rom. viii, 28. There is indeed a universal call of the
Gospel to all men; for wherever it comes it is the voice of God to those
who hear it, calling them to repent and believe the divine testimony
unto the salvation of their souls; and it leaves them inexcusable in
rejecting it, John iii, 14–19; but this universal call is not
inseparably connected with salvation; for it is in reference to it that
Christ says, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” Matt. xxii, 14. But
the Scripture also speaks of a calling which is effectual, and which
consequently is more than the outward ministry of the word; yea, more
than some of its partial and temporary effects upon many who hear it,
for it is always ascribed to God’s making his word effectual through the
enlightening and sanctifying influences of his Holy Spirit. Thus it is
said, “Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase,”
1 Cor. iii, 6, 7. Again, he is said to have “opened the heart of Lydia,
that she attended to the doctrine of Paul,” Acts xvi, 14. “No man can
come unto Christ, except the Father draw him,” John vi, 44. Hence faith
is said to be the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8; Phil. i, 29. The Spirit takes
of the things of Christ and shows them to men, John xvi, 14; and thus
opens their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And so God saves his people, not
by works of righteousness which they have done, but according to his
mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Titus iii, 5. Thus they are saved, and called with a holy calling, not
according to their works, but according to the divine purpose and grace
which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. i,
9.

2. To this it is replied, that this whole statement respecting a
believer’s calling is without any support from the Scriptures, and is
either a misunderstanding, or a misapplication of their sense. “To call”
signifies to invite to the blessings of the Gospel, to offer salvation
through Christ, either by God himself, or, under his appointment, by his
servants; and in the parable of the marriage of the king’s son, Matt.
xxii, 1–14, which appears to have given rise, in many instances, to the
use of this term in the Epistles, we have three descriptions of “called”
or invited persons. First, the disobedient, who would not come in at the
call, but made light of it. Second, the class of persons represented by
the man who, when the king came in to see his guests, had not on the
wedding garment; and with respect to whom our Lord makes the general
remark, “For many are called, but few are chosen;” so that the persons
thus represented by this individual culprit were not only “called,” but
actually came into the company. Third, the approved guests; those who
were both called and chosen. As far as the simple calling or invitation
is concerned, all these three classes stood upon equal ground--all were
invited; and it depended upon their choice and conduct whether they
embraced the invitation, and were admitted as guests. We have nothing
here to countenance the notion of what is termed “effectual calling.”
This implies an irresistible influence exerted upon all the approved
guests, but withheld from the disobedient, who could not, therefore, be
otherwise than disobedient; or at most could only come in without that
wedding garment, which it was never put into their power to take out of
the king’s wardrobe; and the want of which would necessarily exclude
them, if not from the church on earth, yet from the church in heaven.
The doctrine of Christ’s parables is in entire contradiction to this
notion of irresistible influence; for they who refused, and they who
complied but partially with the calling, are represented, not merely as
being left without the benefit of the feast, but as incurring additional
guilt and condemnation for refusing the invitation. It is to this offer
of salvation by the Gospel, this invitation to spiritual and eternal
benefits, that St. Peter appears to refer, when he says, “For the
PROMISE is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall CALL,” Acts ii, 39; a passage
which declares “the promise” to be as extensive as the “calling;” in
other words, as the offer or invitation. To this also St. Paul refers,
Rom. i, 5, 6: “By whom we have received grace and Apostleship, for
obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;” that is, to
publish his Gospel, in order to bring all nations to the obedience of
faith; “among whom are ye also the CALLED of Jesus Christ;” you at Rome
have heard the Gospel, and have been invited to salvation in consequence
of this design. This promulgation of the Gospel, by the personal
ministry of the Apostle, under the name of _calling_, is also referred
to in Gal. i, 6: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
_called you_ into the grace of Christ,” obviously meaning, that it was
he himself who had called them, by his preaching, to embrace the grace
of Christ. So also in chap. v, 13: “For, brethren, ye have been _called_
unto liberty.” Again: 1 Thess. ii, 12: “That ye would walk worthy of
God, who hath CALLED you,” invited you, “to his kingdom and glory.”

3. In our Lord’s parable it will also be observed, that the persons
called are not invited as separate individuals to partake of solitary
blessings; but they are called to “a feast,” into a company or society,
before whom the banquet is spread. The full revelation of the transfer
of the visible church of Christ from Jews by birth, to believers of all
nations, was not, however, then made. When this branch of the evangelic
system was fully revealed to the Apostles, and taught by them to others,
that part of the meaning of our Lord’s parable which was not at first
developed was more particularly discovered to his inspired followers.
The calling of guests to the evangelical feast, we then more fully
learn, was not the mere calling of men to partake of spiritual benefits;
but calling them also to form a spiritual society composed of Jews and
Gentiles, the believing men of all nations; to have a common fellowship
in these blessings, and to be formed into this fellowship for the
purpose of increasing their number, and diffusing the benefits of
salvation among the people or nation to which they respectively
belonged. The invitation, “the calling,” of the first preachers was to
all who heard them in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and other places;
and those who embraced it, and joined themselves to the church by faith,
baptism, and continued public profession, were named, especially and
eminently, “the called,” because of their obedience to the invitation.
They not only put in their claim to the blessings of Christianity
individually, but became members of the new church, that spiritual
society of believers which God now visibly owned as his people. As they
were thus called into a common fellowship by the Gospel, this is
sometimes termed their “vocation;” as the object of this church state
was to promote “holiness,” it is termed a “holy vocation;” as sanctity
was required of the members, they are said to have been “called to be
saints;” as the final result was, through the mercy of God, to be
eternal life, we hear of “the hope of their calling,” and of their being
“called to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus.”

4. These views will abundantly explain the various passages in which the
term _calling_ occurs in the Epistles: “Even us whom he hath _called_,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,” Rom. ix, 24; that is,
whom he hath made members of his church through faith. “But unto them
which are _called_, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God;” the wisdom and efficacy of the Gospel being, of
course, acknowledged in their very profession of Christ, in opposition
to those to whom the preaching of “Christ crucified” was “a stumbling
block,” and “foolishness,” 1 Cor. i, 24. “Is any man _called_,” (brought
to acknowledge Christ, and to become a member of his church,) “being
circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any _called_ in
uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised,” 1 Cor. vii, 18. “That ye
walk worthy of the _vocation_, wherewith ye are called. There is one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are _called_ in one hope of your
calling,” Eph. iv, 1, 4. “That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath
_called_ you to his kingdom and glory,” 1 Thess. ii, 12. “Through
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he
_called_ you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ,” 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. “Who hath saved us and _called_ us
with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his
own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour
Jesus Christ,” 2 Tim. i, 9, 10. On this passage we may remark, that the
“calling,” and the “purpose” mentioned in it, must of necessity be
interpreted to refer to the establishment of the church on the principle
of faith, so that it might include men of all nations; and not, as
formerly, be restricted to natural descent. For _personal election_, and
a purpose of _effectual personal calling_, could not have been hidden
till manifested by the “appearing of Christ;” since every instance of
true conversion to God in any age prior to the appearing of Christ,
would be as much a manifestation of eternal election, and an instance of
personal effectual calling, according to the Calvinistic scheme, as it
was after the appearance of Christ. The Apostle is speaking of a purpose
of God, which was kept _secret_ till revealed by the Christian system;
and, from various other parallel passages, we learn that this secret,
this “mystery,” as he often calls it, was the union of the Jews and
Gentiles in “one body,” or church, by faith.

5. In none of these passages is the doctrine of the exclusive calling of
a set number of men contained; and the synod of Dort, as though they
felt this, only attempt to _infer_ the doctrine from a text already
quoted; but which we will now more fully notice: “Whom he did
predestinate, them he also _called_; and whom he _called_, them he also
justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” Rom. viii,
30. This is the text on which the Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine
of effectual calling; and tracing it, as they say, through its steps and
links, they conclude, that a set and determinate number of persons
having been predestinated unto salvation, this set number only are
_called effectually_, then justified, and finally glorified. But this
passage was evidently nothing to the purpose, unless it had spoken of a
set and determinate number of men as predestinated and called,
independent of any consideration of their faith and obedience; which
number as being determinate, would, by consequence exclude the rest. The
context declares that those who are foreknown, and predestinated to
eternal glory, are true believers, those who “love God,” as stated in a
subsequent verse; for of such only the Apostle speaks; and when he adds,
“Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he
called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also
glorified;” he shows in particular how the divine purpose to glorify
believers is carried into effect, through all its stages. The great
instrument of bringing men to “love God” is the Gospel; they are,
therefore, _called_, invited by it, to this state and benefit; the
calling being obeyed, they are _justified_; and being justified, and
continuing in that state of grace, they are _glorified_. Nothing,
however, is here said to favour the conclusion, that many others who
were _called_ by the Gospel, but refused, might not have been justified
and glorified as well as they; nothing to distinguish this calling into
common and effectual: and the very guilt which those are every where
represented as contracting who despised the Gospel calling, shows that
they reject a grace which is sufficient, and sincerely intended, to save
them.

CALNEH, a city in the land of Shinar, built by Nimrod, and one of the
cities mentioned Genesis x, 10, as belonging to his kingdom. It is
believed to be the same with Calno, mentioned in Isa. x, 9. It is said
by the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerom, to be the
same with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant
from Seleucia, and that for some time it was the capital city of the
Parthians. Bochart, Wells, and Michaëlis, agree in this opinion.

CALVARY, or, as it is called in Hebrew, _Golgotha_, “a skull,” or “place
of skulls,” supposed to be thus denominated from the similitude it bore
to the figure of a skull or man’s head, or from its being a place of
burial. It was a small eminence or hill to the north of Mount Sion, and
to the west of old Jerusalem, upon which our Lord was crucified. The
ancient summit of Calvary has been much altered, by reducing its level
in some parts, and raising it in others, in order to bring it within the
area of a large and irregular building, called “The Church of the Holy
Sepulchre,” which now occupies its site. But in doing this, care has
been taken that none of the parts connected with the crucifixion should
suffer any alteration. The same building also encloses within its
spacious walls several other places reputed sacred. The places which
claim the chief attraction of the Christian visitant of this church, and
those only perhaps which can be relied on, are, the spot on which the
crucifixion took place, and the sepulchre in which our Lord was
afterward laid. The first has been preserved without mutilation: being a
piece of ground about ten yards square, in its original position; and so
high above the common floor of the church, that there are, according to
Chateaubriand, twenty-one steps to ascend up to it. Mr. Buckingham
describes the present mount as a rock, the summit of which is ascended
by a steep flight of eighteen or twenty steps from the common level of
the church, which is equal with that of the street without; and beside
this, there is a descent of thirty steps, from the level of the church,
into the chapel of St. Helena, and by eleven more to the place where the
cross was said to be found. On this little mount is shown the hole in
which the cross was fixed; and near it the position of the crosses of
the two thieves: one, the penitent, on the north; and the other on the
south. Here, also, is shown a cleft in the rock, said to have been
caused by the earthquake which happened at the crucifixion. The
sepulchre, distant, according to Mr. Jolliffe, forty-three yards from
the cross, presents rather a singular and unexpected appearance to a
stranger; who, for such a place, would naturally expect to find an
excavation in the ground, instead of which, he perceives it altogether
raised, as if artificially, above its level. The truth is, that in the
alterations which were made on Calvary, to bring all the principal
places within the projected church, the earth around the sepulchre was
dug away; so that, what was originally a cave in the earth has now the
appearance of a closet or grotto above ground. The sepulchre itself is
about six feet square and eight high. There is a solid block of the
stone left in excavating the rock, about two feet and a half from the
floor, and running along the whole of the inner side; on which the body
of our Lord is said to have been laid. This, as well as the rest of the
sepulchre, is now faced with marble: partly from the false taste which
prevailed in the early ages of Christianity, in disguising with profuse
and ill-suited embellishments the spots rendered memorable in the
history of its Founder; and partly, perhaps, to preserve it from the
depredations of the visitants. This description of the holy sepulchre
will but ill accord with the notions entertained by some English readers
of a grave; but a cave or grotto, thus excavated in rocky ground, on the
side of a hill, was the common receptacle for the dead among the eastern
nations. Such was the tomb of Christ; such that of Lazarus; and such are
the sepulchres still found in Judea and the east. It may be useful
farther to observe, that it was customary with Jews of property to
provide a sepulchre of this kind on their own ground, as the place of
their interment after death; and it appears that Calvary itself, or the
ground immediately around it, was occupied with gardens; one of which
belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who had then recently caused a new
sepulchre to be made for himself. It was this sepulchre, so close at
hand, and so appropriate, which he resigned for the use of our Lord;
little thinking perhaps, at the time, how soon it would again be left
vacant for its original purpose by his glorious resurrection.

CALVINISM, that scheme of doctrine on predestination and grace, which
was taught by Calvin, the celebrated reformer, in the early part of the
sixteenth century. His opinions are largely opened in the third book of
his “Institutes:” “Predestination we call the eternal decree of God; by
which he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of
every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with similar
destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal
damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being _created for one or
other of these ends_, we say, he is predestinated, either to life, or to
death.” After having spoken of the election of the race of Abraham, and
then of particular branches of that race, he proceeds: “Though it is
sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom
he will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election is but half
displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only
offers salvation, but _assigns_ it in such a manner that the certainty
of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt.” He sums up the
chapter, in which he thus generally states the doctrine, in these words:
“In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we
assert, that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all
determined both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would
condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns
the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of
human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate
of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but _incomprehensible_,
judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election;
and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they
arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his
elect by vocation and justification, so by _excluding_ the reprobate
from the knowledge of his name, and sanctification of his Spirit, he
affords another indication of the judgment that awaits them,” chap. 21,
book iii.

2. In the commencement of the following chapter he thus rejects the
notion that predestination is to be understood as resulting from God’s
foreknowledge of what would be the conduct of either the elect or the
reprobate: “It is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing
what would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a
correspondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as
his children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace; and
devotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees
will be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure
election by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that
it originates in another cause,” book iii, chap. 22. Consistently with
this, he a little farther on asserts, that election does not flow from
holiness, but holiness from election: “For when it is said, that the
faithful are elected that they should be holy, it is fully implied, that
the holiness they were in future to possess had its origin in election.”
He proceeds to quote the example of Jacob and Esau, as loved and hated
before they had done good or evil, to show that the only reason of
election and reprobation is to be placed in God’s “secret counsel.” He
will not allow the future wickedness of the reprobate to have been
considered in the decree of their rejection, any more than the
righteousness of the elect, as influencing their better fate: “‘God hath
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ You
see how he (the Apostle) attributes _both_ to the _mere will_ of God.
If, therefore, we can assign no reason why he grants mercy to his people
but because such is his pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause
but _his will_ for the reprobation of others. For when God is said to
harden, or show mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught, by this
declaration, to seek _no cause beside his will_.” (_Ibid._) “Many,
indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in
such a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile
and absurd; because election itself could not exist, without being
opposed to reprobation;--whom God _passes by he therefore reprobates_;
and _from no other cause_ than his determination to exclude them from
the inheritance which he predestines for his children,” book iii, chap.
xxiii.

3. This is the scheme of predestination as exhibited by Calvin; and to
the objection taken from justice, he replies, “They” (the objectors)
“inquire by what right the Lord is angry with his creatures who had not
provoked him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction
whom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a tyrant, than the lawful
sentence of a judge. If such thoughts ever enter into the minds of pious
men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this
one consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is, only to inquire
into the causes of the divine _will_; which is, in fact, and is justly
entitled to be, the _cause_ of every thing that exists. For if it has
any cause, then there must be something antecedent on which it depends,
which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule
of justice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very
reason, because he wills it.” Thus he assumes the very thing in dispute,
that God has willed the destruction of any part of the human race, “for
no other cause than because he _wills it_;” of which assumption there is
not only not a word of proof in Scripture; but, on the contrary, it
ascribes the death of him that dieth to his own will, and not to the
will of God. 2. He pretends that to assign any _cause_ to the divine
will is to suppose something antecedent to, something above God, and
therefore “impious;” as if we might not suppose something IN God to be
the rule of his will, not only without any impiety, but with truth and
piety; as, for instance, his perfect wisdom, holiness, justice, and
goodness; or, in other words, to believe the exercise of his will to
flow from the perfection of his whole nature; a much more honourable and
Scriptural view of the will of God than that which subjects it to no
rule, even though it should arise from the nature of God himself. 3.
When he calls the will of God, “the highest rule of justice,” beyond
which we cannot push our inquiries, he confounds the will of God, as a
rule of justice _to us_, and as a rule to himself. This will is our
rule; yet even then, because we know that it is the will of a perfect
being: but when Calvin represents _mere will_ as constituting God’s own
rule of justice, he shuts out knowledge, discrimination of the nature of
things, and holiness; which is saying something very different from that
great truth, that God cannot will any thing but what is perfectly just.
It is to say that blind will, will which has no respect to any thing but
itself, is God’s highest rule of justice; a position which, if presented
abstractedly, many Calvinists themselves would spurn. 4. He determines
the question by the authority of his own metaphysics, and totally
forgets that one _dictum_ of inspiration overturns his whole
theory,--God “_willeth_ all men to be saved;” a declaration, which in no
part of the sacred volume is opposed or limited by any contrary
declaration.

4. Calvin was not, however, content thus to leave the matter; but
resorts to an argument, in which he has been generally followed by those
who have adopted his system with some mitigations: “As we are all
corrupted by sin, we must necessarily be odious to God, and that not
from tyrannical cruelty, but in the most _equitable estimation_ of
justice. If all whom the Lord predestinates to death are, in their
natural condition, liable to the sentence of death, what injustice do
they complain of receiving from him?” To this Calvin very fairly states
the obvious rejoinder made in his day; and which the common sense of
mankind will always make,--“They object, Were they not by the decree of
God antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as
the _cause_ of their condemnation? When they perish in their corruption,
therefore, they only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in
consequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his
posterity with him.” The manner in which Calvin attempts to meet this
objection, shows how truly unanswerable it is upon his system. “I
confess,” says he, “indeed, that all the descendants of Adam fell, _by
the Divine will_, into that miserable condition in which they are now
involved; and this is what I asserted from the beginning, that we must
always return at last _to the sovereign determination of God’s will_;
the cause of which is hidden in himself. But it follows not, therefore,
that God is liable to this reproach; for we will answer them in the
language of Paul, ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus’”
That is, in order to escape the pinch of the objection, he assumes that
St. Paul affirms that God has “formed” a part of the human race for
eternal misery; and that, by imposing silence upon them, he intended to
declare that this proceeding in God was just. Now the passage may be
proved from its context to have no respect to the eternal state of men
at all; but, if that were less obvious, it gives no answer to the
objection; and we are brought round again, as indeed he confesses, to
his former, and indeed only, argument, that the whole matter as he
states it, is to be referred back to the divine will; which will, though
perfectly arbitrary, is, as he contends, the highest rule of justice: “I
say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those whom he certainly
foreknew would fall into destruction; and that this was actually so,
because _he willed it_; but of his will, it belongs not to us to demand
the reason, which we are incapable of comprehending; nor is it
reasonable, that the divine will should be made the subject of
controversy with us, which is only another name for the highest rule of
justice.” Thus he shuts us out from pursuing the argument. But the
evasion proves the objection unanswerable. For if all is to be resolved
into the mere will of God as to the destruction of the reprobate; if
they were created for this purpose, as Calvin expressly affirms; if they
fell into their corruption in pursuance of God’s determination; if, as
he had said before, “God passes them by, and reprobates them, _from no
other_ cause than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance
of his children,” why refer to their natural corruption at all, and
their being odious to God in that state, since the same reason is given
for their corruption as for their reprobation?--not any fault of theirs;
but the mere will of God, “the reprobation hidden in his secret
counsel,” and that not grounded on the visible and tangible fact of
their demerit. Thus the election taught by Calvin is not the choice of
some persons to peculiar grace from the whole mass, equally deserving of
punishment; (though this is a sophism;) since, in that case, the decree
of reprobation would rest upon God’s foreknowledge of those passed by as
corrupt and guilty, which notion he rejects: “For since God foresees
future events only in consequence of _his decree that they shall
happen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is
evident that all things come to pass rather by _ordination and decree_.”
“It is a HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can deny that God
foreknew the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did
foreknow it, because it was _appointed_ by his own decree.” Agreeably to
this, he repudiates the distinction between will and permission: “For
what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his
will? It is _not probable_, however, that man procured his own
destruction by the mere _permission_, and without any _appointment_, of
God.”

5. With this doctrine he again attempts to reconcile the demerit of men:
“Their perdition depends on the divine predestination in such a manner,
that the _cause_ and _matter_ of it are found _in themselves_. For the
first man fell because the Lord had determined it should so happen. The
reason of this determination is unknown to us.--Man, therefore, falls
according to the _appointment_ of divine providence; but he falls by
_his own fault_. The Lord had a little before pronounced every thing
that he had made to be ‘very good.’ Whence, then, comes the depravity of
man to revolt from his God? Lest it should be thought to come from
creation, God approved and commended what had proceeded from himself. By
his own wickedness, therefore, man corrupted the nature he had received
pure from the Lord, and by his fall he drew all his posterity with him
to destruction.” It is in this way that Calvin attempts to avoid the
charge of making God the author of sin. But how God should not merely
_permit_ the defection of the first man, but _appoint_ it, and _will_
it, and that his will should be the “necessity of things,” (all which he
had before asserted,) and yet that Deity should not be the author of
that which he _appointed_, _willed_, and _imposed a necessity upon_,
would be rather a delicate inquiry. It is enough that Calvin rejects the
impious doctrine; and even though his principles directly lead to it,
since he has put in his disclaimer, he is entitled to be exempted from
the charge;--but the logical conclusion is inevitable.

6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of sinning is
laid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet denies God to
be the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption of men was
derived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts us
“rather to contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is
nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a
hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the predestination of
God.” “For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was _created_
to that misery to which he is subject, yet the _ground_ of it he has
derived from himself, not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in
consequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to
vicious and impure depravity.” Thus, almost in the same breath, he
affirms that men became reprobate from no other cause than “the will of
God,” and his “sovereign determination;” that men have no reason “to
expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death,
without _any demerit_ of their own, merely by his sovereign will;”--and
then, that the corrupt nature of mankind is the _evident_ and _nearer_
cause of condemnation; (which cause, however, was still a matter of
“appointment,” and “ordination,” not “permission;”) and that man is
“ruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure
state in which God created him.” These propositions manifestly fight
with each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in man’s
corruption, it cannot be laid in the mere will and sovereign
determination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of sin. It
is this offensive doctrine only, which can reconcile them. For if God so
wills, and appoints, and necessitates the depravity of man, as to be the
author of it, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the ruin of
the reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and from the corruption
of their nature, which is but the result of that will. The one is then,
as Calvin states, the “evident and nearer cause,” the other the more
remote and hidden one; yet they have the same source, and are
substantially acts of the same will. But if it be denied that God is, in
any sense, the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, then is the
“corruption of nature” the effect of an independent will; and if this
corruption be the “real source,” as he says, of men’s condemnation, then
the decree of reprobation rests not upon the sovereign will of God, as
its sole cause, which he affirms; but upon a cause dependent on the will
of the first man: but as this is denied, then the other must follow.
Calvin himself, indeed, contends for the perfect concurrence of these
proximate and remote causes, although in point of fact, to have been
perfectly consistent with himself, he ought rather to have called the
_mere will of God_ THE CAUSE of the decree of reprobation, and the
corruption of man THE MEANS by which it is carried into
effect:--language which he sanctions, and which many of his followers
have not scrupled to adopt.

7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences, that
in sin man is the instrument, and God the actor, that it cannot be
maintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as two
causes of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be either
opposed to each other, or be consenting. If they are opposed, the scheme
is given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and human
corruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and necessity.
It would be trifling to say that the decree does not influence; for if
so, it is no decree in Calvin’s sense, who understands the decree of
God, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third book of his
“Institutes” plainly show, as _appointing_ what shall be, and by that
appointment making it _necessary_. Otherwise, he could not reject the
distinction between will and permission, and avow the sentiment of St.
Augustine, “that the will of God is the necessity of things; and that
what he has willed will necessarily come to pass,” book iii, chap. 23,
sec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin of Adam the result
of an act of God: “You say Adam fell by his free will. I except against
it. That he might not fall, he stood in need of that strength and
constancy with which God armeth all the elect, as long as he will keep
them blameless. Whom God has elected, he props up with an invincible
power unto perseverance. Why did he not afford this to Adam, if he would
have had him stand in his integrity?” And with this view of necessity,
as resulting from the decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin
coincided; the end and the means, as to the elect, and as to the
reprobate, are equally fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to
the _appointing_ and _ordaining_ will of God. On such a scheme it is
therefore worse than trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice
in favour of this assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption
and guilt of man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives
up when he says, “That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made
known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of
their hearts, _provided it be at the same time stated_, that they are
abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a just
but _inscrutable_ judgment of God, to display his glory in their
condemnation.”

8. It was by availing themselves of the ineffectual struggles of Calvin
to give some colour of justice to his reprobating decree by fixing upon
the corruption of man as a cause of reprobation, that some of his
followers endeavoured, in the very teeth of his own express words, to
reduce his system to sublapsarianism. This was attempted by Amyraldus;
who was answered by Curcellæus, in his tract “_De Jure Dei in
Creaturas_.” This last writer, partly by several of the same passages we
have given above from Calvin’s Institutes, and by extracts from his
other writings, proves that Calvin did by no means consider man, as
fallen, to be the object of reprobation; but man not yet created; man as
to be created, and so reprobated, under no consideration in the divine
mind of his fall or actual guilt, except as _consequences_ of an eternal
preterition of the _persons_ of the reprobate, resolvable only into the
sovereign pleasure of God. The references he makes to men as corrupt,
and to their corrupt state as the proximate cause of their rejection,
are all manifestly used to parry off rather than to answer objections,
and somewhat to moderate and soften, as Curcellæus observes, the harsher
parts of his system. And, indeed, for what reason are we so often
brought back to that unfailing refuge of Calvin, “the presumption and
wickedness of replying against God?” For if reprobation be a matter of
human _desert_, it cannot be a mystery; if it be adequate punishment for
an adequate fault, there is no need to urge it upon us to bow with
submission to an unexplained sovereignty. We may add, there is no need
to speak of a remote or first cause of reprobation, if the _proximate_
cause will explain the whole case; and that Calvin’s continual reference
to God’s _secret counsel_, and _will_, and _inscrutable judgment_, could
have no aptness to his argument. Among English divines, Dr. Twisse has
sufficiently defended Calvin from the _charge_, as he esteems it, of
sublapsarianism; and, whatever merit Twisse’s own supralapsarian creed
may have, his argument on this point is unanswerable.

9. As it is not intended here to enter into this controversy, on which
multitudes of books have been written, and the leading authors are known
almost to every one, the above may be sufficient to convey a just notion
of Calvin’s own opinions. After these subjects had long agitated the
reformed churches, and given rise to several modifications of Calvin’s
original scheme, and to numerous writings in refutation of it, the synod
of Dort digested the whole into five articles from which arose the
celebrated controversy on the _five points_. These articles, as being
the standard of what is generally called strict Calvinism, are, in
substance, as follows:--

(1.) “_Of Predestination._ As all men have sinned in Adam, and have
become exposed to the curse and eternal death, God would have done no
injustice to any one, if he had determined to leave the whole human race
under sin and the curse, and to condemn them on account of sin;
according to those words of the Apostle, ‘All the world is become guilty
before God,’ Rom. iii, 19, 23; vi, 23. That some, _in time_, have faith
given them by God, and others have it not given, proceeds from his
eternal decree; for ‘known unto God are all his works from the
beginning,’ &c, Acts xv, 18; Eph. i, 11. According to which decree, he
graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard, and he bends
them to believe; but the non-elect he leaves, in his judgment, to their
own perversity and hardness. And here, especially, a deep
discrimination, at the same time both merciful and just; a
discrimination of men equally lost, opens itself to us; or that decree
of election and reprobation which is revealed in the word of God; which,
as perverse, impure, and unstable persons do wrest to their own
destruction, so it affords ineffable consolation to holy and pious
souls. But election is the immutable purpose of God; by which, before
the foundations of the world were laid, he chose, out of the whole human
race, fallen by their own fault from their primeval integrity into sin
and destruction, according to the most free _good pleasure_ of his own
will, and of _mere grace_, a certain number of men, neither better nor
worthier than others, but lying in the same misery with the rest, to
salvation in Christ; whom he had, even from eternity, constituted
Mediator and head of all the elect, and the foundation of salvation; and
therefore he decreed to give them unto him to be saved, and effectually
to call and draw them into communion with him, by his word and Spirit;
or he decreed himself to give unto them true faith, to justify, to
sanctify, and at length powerfully to glorify them, &c, Eph. i, 4–6;
Rom. viii, 30. This same election is not made from any _foreseen_ faith,
obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality and disposition,
as a _pre-requisite_ cause or condition in the man who should be
elected, &c. ‘He hath chosen us,’ not because we _were_, but ‘that we
_might_ be, holy,’ &c, Eph. i, 4; Rom. ix, 11–13; Acts xiii, 48.
Moreover, Holy Scripture doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal
and free grace of our election, in this more especially, that it doth
testify all men not to be elected; but that some are non-elect, or
_passed by_, in the eternal election of God, whom truly God, from most
free, just, irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure, decreed to
leave in the _common misery_ into which they had, by _their own fault_,
cast themselves; and not to bestow on them living faith, and the grace
of conversion; but having been left in their own ways, and under just
judgment, at length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also of
all their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish them, to the
manifestation of his own justice. And this is the decree of
_reprobation_, which determines that God is, in no wise, the author of
sin, (which, to be thought of, is blasphemy,) but a tremendous,
incomprehensible, just judge, and avenger.“

(2.) “_Of the Death of Christ._” Passing over, for brevity’s sake, what
is said of the necessity of atonement, in order to pardon, and of Christ
having offered that atonement and satisfaction, it is added, “This death
of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and
satisfaction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly
sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; but because many who
are called by the Gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but
perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of
the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own
fault. God willed that Christ, through the blood of the cross, should,
out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, _efficaciously_ redeem
all those, and those _only_, who were from eternity chosen to salvation,
and given to him by the Father; that he should confer on them the gift
of faith,” &c.

(3.) “_Of Man’s Corruption, &c._ All men are conceived in sin, and born
the children of wrath, indisposed (_inepti_) to all saving good,
propense to evil, dead in sin, and the slaves of sin; and without the
regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor able
to return to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose
themselves to the correction of it.“

(4.) “_Of Grace and Free will._ But in like manner as, by the fall, man
does not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will; neither hath
sin, which hath pervaded the whole human race, taken away the nature of
the human species, but it hath depraved and spiritually stained it; so
that even this divine grace of regeneration does not act upon men like
stocks and trees, nor take away the properties of his will; or violently
compel it, while unwilling; but it spiritually quickens, heals,
corrects, and sweetly, and at the same time powerfully, inclines it; so
that whereas before it was wholly governed by the rebellion and
resistance of the _flesh_, now prompt and sincere obedience of the
Spirit may begin to reign; in which the renewal of our spiritual will,
and our liberty, truly consist; in which manner, (or for which reason,)
unless the admirable Author of all good should work in us, there could
be no hope to man of rising from the fall by that _free will_, by which,
when standing, he fell into ruin.”

(5.) “_On Perseverance._ God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable
purpose of election, does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his
own, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit them to glide down,
(_prolabi_,) that they should fall from the grace of adoption, and the
state of justification; or commit the ‘sin unto death,’ or against the
Holy Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they should cast themselves
headlong into eternal destruction. So that not by their own merits or
strength, but by the gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they
neither _totally fall_ from faith and grace, nor _finally continue_ in
their falls and perish.”

10. The controversy on these difficult subjects was not decided by the
decrees of the synod of Dort, which, it will be seen under that article,
were purposely drawn up in a politic and wary manner, so as to quadrate
with the opinions, and not to outrage the feelings, of any grade of
Calvinists. Prior to the convention of that celebrated assembly, the
doctrines of Calvin had been refined upon and incautiously carried out
to some of their legitimate consequences, in a manner almost without
precedent, except that of the Mohammedan doctors on the absolute fate
which holds a distinguished place in the Koran. Several of the brightest
and most acute wits in Europe occupied themselves in sublimating to the
height of extravagance the two kindred branches of predestination,--the
eternal and absolute election of certain men to everlasting glory, and
the reprobation of the rest of mankind to endless punishment, without
regard in the divine mind to the foreseen faith of one class or to the
foreseen unbelief of the other. This course was commenced by Beza, the
contemporary and successor of Calvin, who possessed neither his genius
nor his caution; and his writings contain several rash assertions on
these points, which, it is probable, would never have obtained the
approbation of his departed friend and instructer. Zanchius, with true
Italian astuteness, carried on this process of refinement in high style;
and his predestinarian _improvements_ were only equalled by those of
Piscator, Pareus, Keckerman, Hommius, Kimedontius, Polanus, Sturmius,
Danæus, Thysius, Donteklock, Bogerman, Gomar, Smoutius, Triglandius,
down to the minor tribe of Contra-Remonstrants, Damman, Maccovius, and
Sibrandus Lubbertus. Nor were the clever divines of our own country a
whit behind the foreigners in accomplishing this grand object; and the
theological reader, on seeing the names of Perkins, Whitaker, Abbot, and
Twisse, will instantly recognise men whose doctrinal vagaries were
familiar to all the Calvinists in Europe. No one can form an adequate
conception of the injury thus inflicted on the divine attributes of
wisdom, goodness, and mercy, as they have been revealed in the
Scriptures, unless he has read the immense mass of quotations from the
writings of these and other divines, which were presented to the notice
of the synod of Dort by the Remonstrants, especially in their _Rejection
of Errors_ under each of the five points in dispute; the proofs of which
were quoted from their respective authors, and the accuracy and
faithfulness of which were never called in question. Not only would the
minds of all sober Christians in these days be shocked when perusing the
monstrous sentiments propounded in those extracts, but even the
tolerably stiff Calvinists of Oliver Cromwell’s time felt themselves
scandalized by any allusion to them, and would not admit that their
opinions had the least affinity to such desecrating dogmas. Little more
than twenty years after the synod of Dort, that distinguished polemical
divine and accurate scholar, Dr. Thomas Pierce, published his able and
very interesting pamphlet, entitled, “A Correct Copy of Some Notes
concerning God’s Decrees;” in which, without naming the authors, he gave
ten extracts from celebrated Calvinistic treatises, to prove, that
“there are men of no small name who have told the world, that all the
evil of sin which is in man proceedeth from God only as the author, and
from man only as the instrument.” Four of these extracts will furnish
sufficient matter to every judicious mind for mournful reflections on
the strange obliquities to which the human understanding is
liable:--(1.) “A wicked man, by the just impulse of God, doeth that
which is not lawful for him to do.” (2.) “When God makes an angel or a
man a transgressor, he himself doth not transgress, because he doth not
break a law. The very same sin, namely, adultery or murder, inasmuch as
it is the work of God, the author, mover, and compeller, is not a crime;
but inasmuch as it is of man, it is a wickedness.” (3.) “God can will
that man shall not fall, by his will which is called _voluntas signi_;
and in the mean while he can ordain that the same man shall infallibly
and efficaciously fall, by his will which is called _voluntas
beneplaciti_. The former will of God is improperly called his will, for
it only signifieth what man ought to do by right; but the latter will is
properly called a will, because by that he decreed what should
inevitably come to pass.” (4.) “God’s will doth pass, not only into the
permission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permitted. The
Dominicans,” the high predestinarian order in the church of Rome, “do
imperfectly and obscurely relate the truth whilst, beside God’s
concurrence to the making way for sin, they require nothing but the
negation of efficacious grace, when it is manifest that there is a
farther prostitution of sin required.” Of these four passages the first
is from Calvin himself, the second from Zuinglius, and the third and
fourth from Dr. Twisse. This pamphlet was the first in a smart
controversy, in which Doctor (afterward Bishop) Reynolds, Baxter,
Hickman, and Barlee, took part against Dr. Pierce, but in which those
eminent men virtually disclaimed all community of sentiment between
themselves and such high predestinarians. In their warmth, however, they
accused the Doctor of having “rifled the well-furnished cabinet of the
Batavian Remonstrant writings,” and of not having hesitated “to be
beholden to very thieves, namely, such roguish pamphlets as _Fur
Predestinatus_ and others are, rather than want materials for invectives
against Calvin, Beza, Twisse,” &c. In his reply, the Doctor says, “When
I published my papers on God’s decrees, I had never so much as seen that
well-furnished cabinet, the ‘_Acta Synodalia Remonstrantium_;’” and he
proves that he has copied none of his extracts from _Fur Predestinatus_.
As his opponents were “so unthankful for the lenity” which he had
displayed in giving “so _short_ a catalogue,” he added other
affirmations of a still more revolting import, if that were possible.
The four extracts which follow, will serve as a correct specimen of the
gross and unguarded assertions of some of those good men who were thus
exposed; the first two are from Zanchius, the other two from Piscator,
both of them men of renown in that age:--(1.) “Reprobates are compelled
with a necessity of sinning, and so of perishing, by this ordination of
God; and so compelled that they cannot choose but sin and perish.” (2.)
“God works all things in all men, not only in the godly, but also in the
ungodly.” (3.) “Judas could not but betray Christ, seeing that God’s
decrees are immutable; and whether a man bless or curse, he always doth
it necessarily in respect of God’s providence, and in so doing he doeth
always according to the will of God.” (4.) “It doth or at least may
appear from the word of God, that we neither can do more good than we
do, nor omit more evil than we omit; because God from eternity hath
precisely decreed that both [the good and the evil] should so be done.
It is fatally constituted when, and how, and how much, every one of us
ought to study and love piety, or not to love it.” In that newly
emancipated age, the ample discussion of these topics could not fail to
produce much good; and the result in the course of a few years was, that
a vast number of those who had implicitly followed the guidance of
Calvin, deserted his standard, and either went completely over to the
ranks of Arminius, or halted midway under the command of Baxter. From
that time to the middle of the eighteenth century, those dogmas which
are usually designated as ultra-Calvinian or Antinomian, received no
support except from such shallow divines as Dr. Crisp and his immediate
admirers. But when the Rev. John Wesley and his brother, as Arminians,
propounded the doctrines of the Gospel in as evangelical a manner, and
with as marked success, as any Calvinist, a number of those excellent
men, both in the church and among the Dissenters, who had been early
benefited by the ministry of the two brothers, thought, as many now do,
that it was impossible for any thing to be evangelical that was not
Calvinistic; and, apparently with the design of being at as great a
remove as possible from a reputed heresy, they became in principle real
Antinomians. In forming this conclusion, and in running to a supposed
opposite extreme, such persons seem to have forgotten that those truly
evangelical principles,--which in Germany and the neighbouring states
effected the reformation from Popery, which transformed sinners into
Christians and martyrs, and which, in the perverted state of society
that then obtained, but too painfully reminded the sainted sufferers of
the domestic, municipal, and national grievances and persecutions to
which the earliest confessors of the name of Christ were subjected,--had
been in beneficial operation long before Calvin’s doctrinal system was
brought to maturity, and when he was known only as the humble and
diligent pastor of the church of Geneva. And even after the publication
of his “Institutes,” which contained the peculiarities of his creed, he
had to wait many years, to labour hard, not always in the most
sanctified spirit, both from the pulpit and the press, and to endure
many personal mortifications, before he was able to obtrude his novel
dogmas on his own immediate connections, or to make any sensible
impression on the generally received theology of his learned
contemporaries. Such persons ought also to recollect, that, as Dr. Watts
justly observes, “some of the most rigid and narrow limitations of grace
to men are found chiefly in Calvin’s _Institutions_, which were written
in his youth. But his comments on Scripture were the labours of his
riper years and maturer judgment.”

11. His first tract on predestination was published in 1552; and the
first complete edition of his “Institutes” did not see the light till
the year 1558; but the change in Melancthon’s opinions, from the
fatality of Stoicism, to the universality of the Gospel, occurred at
least six years prior to 1535, when the second edition of his “Common
Places” was published, that contained his amended creed, and strong
cautions against the contrary doctrines. One of the most eloquent and
best informed writers of the present age has, in reference to this
subject, justly observed: “Both Luther and Melancthon, after their creed
became permanently settled at the diet of Augsburg, (A. D. 1530,) kept
one object constantly in view,--to inculcate only what was plain and
practical, and never to attempt philosophizing. They perceived, that
before the reformation the doctrine of divine foreknowledge had been
grossly misconceived and abused, although guarded by all the logic of
the schools; and they felt, that, after it, they had themselves at first
contributed to increase the evil, by grounding upon the same high
argument, although for a very different purpose, the position of an
infallible necessity. Thenceforward, therefore, they only taught a
predestination which the Christian religion explains, and the Christian
life exemplifies. Thus, while their adversaries philosophized upon a
predestination of individuals, preferred one before another by divine
regard because worthy of such a preference, they taught only that which
has been revealed with certainty,--the predestination of a peculiar
description of persons, of _a people zealous of good works_, of the
Christian church contemplated as an aggregate, not on account of its own
dignity, but on account of Christ its supreme Head, and _the author of
eternal salvation to all who obey him_. While restoring Scriptural
simplicity to the doctrine of predestination, perplexed and disfigured
by the vanity of the schools, they studiously and anxiously preserved
every trace of that universal benevolence by which Christianity is
particularly distinguished. ‘Let us,’ they said, ‘with both our hands,
or rather with all our heart, hold fast the true and pious maxim, that
God is not the author of sin, that he sits not in heaven writing Stoical
laws in the volumes of fate; but, endowed with a perfect freedom
himself, he communicates a liberty of action to his creatures; firmly
opposing the position of necessity as false, and pernicious to morals
and religion. God, we may be assured, is no cruel and merciless tyrant;
he does not hate and reject men, but loves them as a parent loves his
children.’ Universal grace, indeed, was at all times a favourite topic
with the Lutherans; nor would they admit of any predestination except
that of a beneficent Deity, who was _in Christ reconciling the world to
himself_; except a predestination conformable with that order of things
which he has established, and with the use or abuse of the means which
he has ordained. ‘The Almighty,’ they said, ‘has seriously willed and
decreed, from eternity, all men to be saved and to enjoy everlasting
felicity; let us not therefore indulge in evil suggestions, and separate
ourselves from his grace, which is as expanded as the space between
heaven and earth; let us not restrain the general promise, in which he
offers his favour to all without discrimination, nor confine it to those
who, affecting a peculiar garb, wish to be alone esteemed pious and
sanctified. If many perish, the fault is not to be imputed to the divine
will, but to human obstinacy, which despises that will, and disregards a
salvation destined for all men.’ ‘And because _many are called, but few
are chosen_, let us not,’ they added, ‘entertain an opinion highly
impious,--that God tenders his grace to many, but communicates it only
to a few; for should we not in the greatest degree detest a Deity by
whose arbitrary will we believed ourselves to be excluded from
salvation?’ Upon the important point likewise of the conditional
acceptance of the individual, their ideas were not more distinct than
their language was explicit. ‘If God chose,’ they argued, ‘certain
persons only in order to unite them to himself, and rejected the
remainder in all respects alike, would not such AN ELECTION WITHOUT
CAUSES seem tyrannical? Let us therefore be persuaded, that some cause
exists in us, as some difference is to be found between those who are,
and those who are not, accepted.’ Thus they conceived that,
predestinating his elect in Christ, or the Christian church, to eternal
salvation, he excludes none from that number by a partial adoption of
favourites, but calls all equally, and accepts of all who obey his
calling, or, in other words, who become true Christians by possessing
the qualifications which Christianity requires.--'He,' they stated, who
‘falls from grace, cannot but perish, completely losing remission of
sin, with the other benefits which Christ has purchased for him, and
acquiring in their stead divine wrath and death eternal.’ Melancthon,
who in his private correspondence expressly termed Calvin the Zeno of
his day, says, ‘Let us execrate the Stoical disputations which some
introduce, who imagine that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit,
even when they commit atrocious crimes,--a manifest and highly
reprehensible error; and let us not confirm in fools security and
blindness.’”

These quotations might be augmented by others from the earliest Lutheran
authors, more Arminian in their import than any which Arminius ever
wrote: but the preceding are sufficient to show, that, during upward of
thirty years, the Protestant church in Germany was nourished by
doctrines most manifestly at variance with the refinements afterward
promulgated by Calvin. Real conversions of sinners were never more
abundant than in that golden age; yet these were produced by the
blessing of God upon an evangelical agency that had scarcely any thing
in common with the Genevan dogmas. With these and similar facts before
him, therefore, no Calvinist can in common honesty claim for the
peculiarities of his creed, for those doctrines which distinguish it
from the Melancthonism of the Protestant churches of England and
Germany, the exclusive title of EVANGELICAL. Equally fallacious is the
ground on which he can prefer any such claim on account of the alleged
counsel and advice given by Calvin to our reformers while they were
engaged in the formation of our Articles and Liturgy. On no fact in the
ecclesiastical history of this country are our annalists more completely
at agreement than on this,--that Calvin’s name and writings were
scarcely known in England till the time when the persecution under Queen
Mary forced many of our best divines into banishment; and that, to the
great future disquietude of the church, several of these exiles on their
return imported a personal bias either in favour of his discipline or of
his dogmas. Anterior to that period he had received no such pressing
invitations from our reformers, and from the king himself, as Melancthon
had done, for his friendly theological aid in drawing up the doctrinal
and disciplinary formulæ of our national church. The man who asserts the
contrary to this, and who has the hardihood to deny the Melancthonian
origin of the Articles and Liturgy, discovers at once his want of
correct information on these subjects, and has never read the convincing
documents appended to the Archbishop of Cashel’s (Dr. Laurence’s) “Eight
Sermons,” being the Bampton Lectures for 1804, and entitled, “_An
Attempt to Illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the
Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical_;” Todd’s treatise “_On
Original Sin, Free Will, &c, as maintained by certain Declarations of
our Reformers_;” Plaifere’s “_Appello Evangelium_;” nor even the
portable yet convincing pamphlets of Kipling and Winchester, the former
entitled “_The Articles not Calvinistic_;” the latter, “_A Dissertation
on the Seventeenth Article of the Church_.”

12. There is one fact connected with these assumed yet unfounded claims,
which has never yet been placed in its proper light, but which it may be
well briefly to notice in this place. Calvin himself, in 1535, wrote the
following truly Melancthonian paragraphs as part of his preface to the
New Testament in French: “This Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, was the
only, true, and eternal Son of God, whom the Father was about to send
into the world, that he might collect all men together from this horrid
dispersion and devastation. When, at length, that fulness of time
arrived, that day preordained by the Lord, he openly showed himself as
that Messiah who had for so many ages been the desire of all nations,
and hath most abundantly performed all those things which were necessary
for the redemption of all men. But this great blessing was not confined
solely within the boundaries of the land of Israel, since, on the
contrary, it was intended [_porrigendum_] to be held out for the
acceptance of the whole human race; because through Christ alone the
entire family of man was to be reconciled to God, as will be seen, and
most amply demonstrated, in these pages of the New Testament.” “To this
inheritance of our heavenly Father’s kingdom we are all called without
respect of persons,--whether we be men or women, high or low, masters or
servants, teachers or disciples, [_doctores_] divines or laics, Jews or
Greeks, Frenchmen or [_Romani_] Italians. From this inheritance no one
is excluded, if he only so receive Christ as he is offered by the Father
for the salvation of all men, and embrace him when received.” Great
research has been displayed by the Calvinists at different periods, in
endeavouring to discover, in the public formularies of the church, or in
the private productions of our reformers, some trace of affinity between
them and the writings of Calvin. Only two cases of such affinity have
yet been found; and, unfortunately for the validity of all pretensions
of this kind, neither of them contains a single peculiarity of
Calvinism, but, on the contrary, both are of the moderate and
_evangelical_ class of the Melancthonian school. One of the passages
thus discovered is here subjoined from Cranmer’s “_Defence of the True
and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament_,” &c; and bears all the marks of
verisimilitude to the second of the preceding paragraphs from Calvin,
though written fifteen years after it:--“Almighty God, without respect
of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay
person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of
young and old, yea, of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, Jew, and
Gentile; of every man according to his faithful and obedient heart unto
him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesus Christ.” Had
either this or the other passage contained the least tinge of what is
now considered as belonging exclusively to the system of Calvin, the
English admirers of that great man would have had some grounds for the
assertions which have been too confidently made, because so easily
refuted.

13. Having given this summary of the sentiments of Calvin himself, and
of the ancient or strict Calvinists, it is proper to observe, that there
are, and always have been, many who generally embrace the Calvinistic
system, but object to some particular _parts_, and to the strong
language in which some of the propositions are expressed. These are
called _moderate_ or _modern_ Calvinists, who differ from Calvin, and
the synod of Dort, chiefly on two points,--the doctrine of reprobation,
and the extent of the death of Christ. The theory of Baxter has already
been noticed. This and all other mitigated schemes rest on two
principles, the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind, and the
sufficiency of grace for those who do not believe. Still something more
is held to be necessary than this sufficiency of grace in order to
actual salvation; namely, an acceptance by man, which can only be made
under that degree of effectual supernatural aid which is dispensed only
to a certain number of persons, who are thus distinguished as the “elect
of God.” The main characteristic of all these theories, from the first
to the last, from the highest to the lowest, is, that a part of mankind
are shut out from the mercies of God, on some ground irrespective of
their refusal of a sincere offer to them of salvation through Christ,
made with a communicated power of embracing it. Some power they allow to
the reprobate, as natural power, and degrees of superadded moral power;
but in no case the power to believe unto salvation; and thus, as one
well observes, “When they have cut some fair trenches, as if they would
bring the water of life unto the dwellings of the reprobate, on a sudden
they open a sluice which carries it off again.” The whole labour of
these theories is to find out some plausible reason for the infliction
of punishment on them that perish, independent of the only cause
assigned by the word of God--their rejection of a mercy free for all,
and made attainable by all. See BAXTERIANISM.

14. After all, however, it is pleasant to find these indications of a
growing consciousness, on the part of modern predestinarians, that the
common notions and common language of mankind on these deep subjects are
not far from the truth. And though some too fastidious Arminians may
complain, that, in this desire to enlist the views and words of common
sense on the side of Calvinism, many of those by whom they are employed
attach to them a meaning very different from that which ordinary usage
warrants; yet even this tendency to approximate to right views should be
regarded as favourable to the progress of truth, and the evidently
improved feeling which has suggested such approximation ought to be met
in a conciliating spirit. But this is a fault which must always be an
appendage to such a system, however it may be modified; and does not
exclusively apply to its modern supporters. The following remarks by
Archbishop Laurence on the ambiguity of language not unfrequently
discernible in the writings of Calvin himself, are worthy of
consideration:--“In whatsoever sense he wished these words to be
understood, it must be admitted that he sometimes adapted the style of
others, who had a very different object in view, to his own peculiar
opinions. And hence, from the want of a due discrimination, the
sentiments of his contemporaries, opposite in their natural tendency,
are often improperly forced into the vortex of Calvinism. Systematizing
was his darling propensity, and the ambition of being distinguished as a
leader in reform his predominant passion: in the arrangements of the
former, he never felt a doubt, or found a difficulty; and in the
pursuits of the latter he displayed an equal degree of perseverance and
ardour. Thus, in the doctrine of the eucharist, it is well known that he
laboured to acquire celebrity, and conciliate followers, by maintaining
a kind of middle sacramental presence between the corporeal of the
Lutherans, and the mere spiritual of the Zuinglians; expressing himself
in language which, partly derived from one, and partly from the other,
verged toward neither extreme; but which, by his singular talent at
perspicuous combination, he applied, and not without success, to his own
particular purpose. Nor was he less solicitous to press into his service
a foreign phraseology upon the subject more immediately before me; a
subject on his theory of which he not a little prided himself, and
seemed contented to stake his reputation. He perceived that the
Lutherans, strongly reprobating every discussion upon the decrees of a
Deity unrevealed to us, founded predestination solely on a Scriptural
basis; contending for a divine will which is seriously, not
fictitiously, disposed to save all men, and predetermined to save all
who become and continue sincere Christians. Zuingle, indeed, had
reasoned from a different principle; and, although persuaded that God’s
mercies in Christ were liberally bestowed on all without distinction, on
infants who commit not actual crime, and on the Heathen as well as the
Christian world, he nevertheless was a necessitarian in the strictest
sense of the expression; referring events of every kind to an
uncontrollable and absolute predetermination. Zuingle, however, died in
1531, before the youth of Calvin permitted him to assume the character
of a reformer; who found Bullinger then at the head of the Zuinglian
church, not only applauding, but adopting, the moderation of
the Lutherans; and, to use the phrase of Turretin, plainly
_Melancthonizing_. But the doctrine alluded to, it may be imagined, was
of a species too limited and unphilosophical for one of his enterprising
turn of mind, who never met with an obstacle which he attempted not
instantly to surmount. Disregarding, therefore, the sober restrictions
of the times, he gave loose to the most unbounded speculation: yet,
anxious by all means to win over all to his opinion, he studiously
laboured to preserve, on some popular points, a verbal conformity with
the Lutherans. With them, in words, he taught the universality of God’s
good will; but it was a universality which he extended only to the
_offer_ of salvation; conceiving the reprobate to be precluded from the
reception of that offer by the secret decree of an immutable Deity. The
striking feature of _their_ system was an election in Christ, by which
they meant an election as Christians. This also, in words, he
inculcated: his idea, however, of an election in Christ was totally
different from theirs; for he held it to be the previous election of
certain favourites by an irrespective will of God, whom, and whom alone,
Christ was subsequently appointed to save. But his ingenuity was such,
in adapting the terms borrowed from another source to his own theory,
that some erroneously conceive them to have been thus originally used by
the Lutherans themselves. Hence, therefore, much confusion has arisen in
the attempt of properly discriminating between the various sentiments of
Protestants upon this question, at the period under consideration: all
have been regarded as formed upon the model which Calvin exhibited; at
least by writers who have contemplated him as the greatest reformer of
his age, but who have forgotten that, although they chose to esteem him
the greatest, they could not represent him as the first in point of
time; and that his title to preëminence, in the common estimation of his
contemporaries, was then far from being acknowledged.”

15. On one topic, however, Calvin and the older divines of that school
were very explicit. They tell us plainly, that they found all the
Christian fathers, both of the Greek and the Latin church down to the
age of St. Augustine, quite unmanageable for their purpose; and
therefore occasionally bestow upon them and their productions epithets
not the most courteous. Yet some modern writers, not possessing half the
splendid qualifications of those veterans in learning, make a gorgeous
display of the little that they know concerning antiquity; and wish to
lead their readers to suppose, that the whole stream of early
Christianity has flowed down only in their channel. Every one must have
remarked how much like Calvin all those fathers speak whose works are
quoted by Toplady in his “Historic Defence.” Nor can the two Milners, in
their “History of the Church,” entirely escape censure on this
account,--though both were excellent men, and better scholars than
Toplady. But from the manner in which they “show up” only those ancient
Christian authors, some of whose sentiments _seem_ to be nearly in
unison with their own, they induce the unlearned or half informed to
draw the erroneous conclusion,--that the peculiarities of Calvinism are
not the inventions of a comparatively recent æra, and that they have
always formed a prominent part of the profession of faith of every
Christian community since the days of the Apostles.

All men must admire the candid and liberal spirit which breathes in the
subjoined high but just eulogium on Calvin, from the pen of the same
amiable Archbishop: “Calvin himself was both a wise and a good man;
inferior to none of his contemporaries in general ability, and superior
to almost all in the art, as well as elegance, of composition, in the
perspicuity and arrangement of his ideas, the structure of his periods,
and the Latinity of his diction. Although attached to a theory, which he
found it difficult in the extreme to free from the suspicion of
blasphemy against God, as the author of sin, he certainly was no
blasphemer; but, on the contrary, adopted that very theory from an
anxiety not to commit, but, as he conceived, to avoid blasphemy,--that
of ascribing to human, what he deemed alone imputable to divine,
agency.”

CAMBYSES, the son of Cyrus, king of Persia. He succeeded his father, A.
M. 3475, and is the Ahasuerus mentioned in Ezra iv, 6, to whom, as soon
as he came to the crown, the Samaritans applied by petition, desiring
that the rebuilding of Jerusalem might be stopped. What the motives were
which they made use of to prevail upon this prince, we are ignorant; but
it is certain, that though he was not persuaded to revoke his father’s
decree, yet he put a stop to the works, so that for the remaining seven
years and five months which he reigned, the building of the city and
temple was suspended. See AHASUERUS.

CAMEL, גמל. This animal is called in ancient Arabic, _gimel_; and in
modern, _diammel_; in Greek, κάμηλος. With very little variation, the
name is retained in modern languages. The camel is very common in
Arabia, Judea, and the neighbouring countries; and is often mentioned in
Scripture, and reckoned among the most valuable property, 1 Chron. v,
21; Job i, 3, &c. “No creature,” says Volney, “seems so peculiarly
fitted to the climate in which he exists as the camel. Designing this
animal to dwell in a country where he can find little nourishment,
nature has been sparing of her materials in the whole of his formation.
She has not bestowed upon him the fleshiness of the ox, horse, or
elephant; but limiting herself to what is strictly necessary, has given
him a long head, without ears, at the end of a long neck without flesh;
has taken from his legs and thighs every muscle not immediately
requisite for motion; and, in short, bestowed upon his withered body
only the vessels and tendons necessary to connect its frame together.
She has furnished him with a strong jaw, that he may grind the hardest
aliments; but, lest he should consume too much, has straitened his
stomach, and obliged him to chew the cud; has lined his foot with a lump
of flesh, which sliding in the mud, and being no way adapted to
climbing, fits him only for a dry, level, and sandy soil, like that of
Arabia. So great, in short, is the importance of the camel to the
desert, that, were it deprived of that useful animal, it must infallibly
lose every inhabitant.” The chief use of the camel has always been as a
beast of burden, and for performing journeys across the deserts. They
have sometimes been used in war, to carry the baggage of an oriented
army, and mingle in the tumult of the battle. Many of the Amalekite
warriors, who burnt Ziklag in the time of David, were mounted on camels;
for the sacred historian remarks, that of the whole army not a man
escaped the furious onset of that heroic and exasperated leader, “save
four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled,” 1 Sam. xxx,
17.

The passage of Scripture in which our Lord says, “It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xix, 24, has been the occasion of
much criticism. Some assert that near Jerusalem was a low gate called
“the needle’s eye,” through which a camel could not pass unless his load
was taken off. Others conjecture that κάμιλος should be read κάβιλος, _a
cable_. But there are no ancient manuscripts to support the reading. In
the Jewish Talmud, there is, however, a similar proverb respecting an
elephant: “Rabbi Shesheth answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an
absurdity, ‘Perhaps thou art one of the Pambidithians, who can make an
elephant pass through the eye of a needle;’” that is, says the Aruch,
“who speak things impossible.” There is also a saying of the same kind
in the Koran: “The impious, who in his arrogancy shall accuse our
doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he
enter there, till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is
thus that we shall recompense the wicked,” Surat. vii, 37. Indeed,
Grotius, Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Michaëlis join in opinion, that the
comparison is so much in the figurative style of the oriental nations
and of the rabbins, that the text is sufficiently authentic.

CAMEL’s HAIR, mentioned Matt. iii, 4; Mark i, 6. John the Baptist, we
are told, was habited in a raiment of camel’s hair; and Chardin assures
us, that the modern dervises wear such garments; as they do also great
leathern girdles. Camel’s hair is also made into those beautiful stuffs,
called shawls; but certainly the coarser manufacture of this material
was adopted by John, and we may receive a good idea of its texture, from
what Braithwaite says of the Arabian tents: “They are made of camel’s
hair, somewhat like our coarse hair cloths to lay over goods.” By this
coarse vesture the Baptist was not merely distinguished, but contrasted
with those in royal palaces, who wore “soft raiment,” such as shawls or
other superfine manufactures, whether of the same material or not.

CAMERONIANS, a sect in Scotland, who separated from the Presbyterians in
1666, and continued to hold their religious assemblies in the fields.
The Cameronians took their denomination from Richard Cameron, a famous
field preacher, who, refusing to accept the indulgence to tender
consciences granted by King Charles II, as such an acceptance seemed an
acknowledgment of the king’s supremacy, and that he had before a right
to silence them, separated from his brethren, and even headed a
rebellion in which he was killed. His followers were never entirely
reduced till the Revolution, when they voluntarily submitted to King
William. The Cameronians adhered rigidly to the form of government
established in 1648.

CAMERONISTS, or CAMERONITES, is the denomination of a party of
Calvinists in France, who asserted, that the cause of men’s doing good
or evil proceeds from the knowledge which God infuses into them; and
that God does not move the will physically, but only morally, in virtue
of its dependence on the judgment of the mind. They had this name from
John Cameron, one of the most famous divines among the Protestants of
France, in the seventeenth century, who was born at Glasgow, in
Scotland, about the year 1580, and taught Greek there till he removed to
Bourdeaux in 1600. Here he acquired such celebrity by the fluency with
which he spoke Greek, that he was appointed to teach the learned
languages at Bergerac. He afterward became professor of philosophy at
Sedan; but returning to Bourdeaux in 1604, he devoted himself to the
study of divinity. Upon being appointed tutor to the sons of the
chancellor of Navarre, he accompanied them to Paris, Geneva, and
Heidelberg. After having discharged the office of a minister at
Bourdeaux, which he assumed in 1608, for ten years, he accepted the
professorship of divinity at Saumur. Upon the dispersion of that academy
by the public commotions in 1621, he removed to England, and taught
divinity at his own house in London. King James inclined to favour him
on account of his supposed attachment to the hierarchy, made him master
of the college, and professor of divinity, at Glasgow; but after holding
this office, which he found to be unpleasant to him, for a year, he
returned to Saumur, where he read private lectures. From thence he
removed, in 1624, to Montauban; where the disturbances excited by the
emissaries of the duke de Rohan led him to remonstrate against the
principles which produced them, with more zeal than prudence. This
occasioned his being insulted by a private person in the streets, and
severely beaten: and this treatment so much affected him, that he soon
after died, in 1625, at the early age of forty-six years. Bayle
represents him as “a man of great parts and judgment, of an excellent
memory, very learned, a good philosopher, good humoured, liberal not
only of his knowledge but his purse, a great talker, a long-winded
preacher, little versed in the fathers, inflexible in his opinions, and
inclined to turbulence.” He was one of those who attempted to reconcile
the doctrine of predestination, as it had been taught at Geneva, and
confirmed at Dort, with the sentiments of those who believe that God
offers salvation to all mankind. His opinion was maintained and
propagated by Moses Amyraut, and several others of the most learned
among the reformed ministers, who thought Calvin’s doctrine too harsh.
They were called _Hypothetical Universalists_. Cameron likewise
maintained the possibility of salvation in the church of Rome. See
AMYRAUT and BAXTERIANISM.

CAMP, or ENCAMPMENT, of the Israelites. The whole body of the people,
consisting of six hundred thousand fighting men, beside women and
children, was disposed under four battalions, so placed as to enclose
the tabernacle, in the form of a square, and each under one general
standard. (See _Armies_.) There were forty-one encampments, from their
first in the month of March, at Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in
Egypt, and in the wilderness, until they reached the land of Canaan.
They are thus enumerated in Numbers xxxiii:--

 1. Rameses
 2. Succoth
 3. Etham, on the edge of the wilderness
 4. Pihahiroth
 5. Marah
 6. Elim
 7. By the Red Sea
 8. Wilderness of Sin
 9. Dophkah
 10. Alush
 11. Rephidim
 12. Wilderness of Sinai
 13. Kibroth-hattaavah
 14. Hazeroth
 15. Rithmah
 16. Rimmon-parez
 17. Libnah
 18. Rissah
 19. Kehelatha
 20. Shapher
 21. Haradah

 22. Makheloth
 23. Tahath
 24. Tarah
 25. Mithcah
 26. Hashmonah
 27. Moseroth
 28. Bene-jaakan
 29. Hor-hagidgad
 30. Jotbathah
 31. Ebronah
 32. Ebion-gaber
 33. Kadesh
 34. Mount Hor
 35. Zalmonah
 36. Punon
 37. Oboth
 38. Ije-abarim
 39. Dibon-gad
 40. Almon-diblathaim
 41. Mountains of Abarim

In the second year after their exodus from Egypt they were numbered; and
upon an exact poll, the number of their males amounted to six hundred
and three thousand, five hundred and fifty, from twenty years old and
upward, Num. i, ii. This vast mass of people, encamped in beautiful
order, must have presented a most impressive spectacle. That it failed
not to produce effect upon the richly endowed and poetic mind of Balaam,
appears from Num. xxiv, 2; “And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw
Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the Spirit of
God came upon him, and he took up his parable and said, How goodly are
thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! As the valleys are
they spread forth, as gardens by the river side, as the trees of lign
aloes which the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees beside waters.”
Grandeur, order, beauty, and freshness, were the ideas at once suggested
to the mind of this unfaithful prophet, and called forth his unwilling
admiration. Perhaps we may consider this spectacle as a type of the
order, beauty, and glory of the true “church in the wilderness,” in
those happy days when God “shall not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor
perverseness in Israel;” when it shall be said, “The Lord his God is
with him, and the shout of a king is among them.”

CAMPHIRE. כפר. Greek, κύπρος. Latin _cyprus_. Canticles i, 14; iv, 13.
Sir T. Browne supposes that the plant mentioned in the Canticles,
rendered κύπρος in the Septuagint, and _cyprus_ in the Vulgate, is that
described by Dioscorides and Pliny, which grows in Egypt, and near to
Ascalon, producing an odorate bush of flowers, and yielding the
celebrated _oleum cyprinum_. [A sweet oil made of the flowers of the
privet tree.] This is one of the plants which is most grateful to the
eye and the smell. The deep colour of its bark, the light green of its
foliage, the softened mixture of white and yellow with which the
flowers, collected into long clusters like the lilac, are coloured; the
red tint of the ramifications which support them, form an agreeable
combination. The flowers, whose shades are so delicate, diffuse around
the sweetest odours, and embalm the gardens and apartments which they
embellish. The women take pleasure in decking themselves with them. With
the powder of the dried leaves they give an orange tincture to their
nails, to the inside of their hands, and to the soles of their feet. The
expression, עשתה את־צפרניה, rendered “pare their nails,” Deut. xxi, 12,
may perhaps rather mean, “_adorn_ their nails;” and imply the antiquity
of this practice. This is a universal custom in Egypt, and not to
conform to it would be considered indecent. It seems to have been
practised by the ancient Egyptians, for the nails of the mummies are
most commonly of a reddish hue.

In the Song of Solomon, the bride is described as saying, “My beloved is
unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi,” chap. i,
24; and again, “Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant
fruits, camphire with spikenard,” chap. iv, 13.

CANA, a town of Galilee, where Jesus performed his first miracle, John
ii, 1, 2, &c. It lay in the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Nazareth.
Cana was visited by Dr. E. D. Clarke, who says, “It is worthy of note,
that, walking among the ruins of a church, we saw large massy stone
pots, answering the description given of the ancient vessels of the
country; these were not preserved nor exhibited as reliques, but lying
about, disregarded by the present inhabitants, as antiquities with whose
original use they were unacquainted. From their appearance, and the
number of them, it was quite evident that a practice of keeping water in
large stone pots, each holding from eighteen to twenty-seven gallons,
was once common in the country.”

CANAAN, the son of Ham. The Hebrews believe that Canaan, having first
discovered Noah’s nakedness, told his father Ham; and that Noah, when he
awoke, having understood what had passed, cursed Canaan, the first
author of the offence. Others are of opinion that Ham was punished in
his son Canaan, Gen. ix, 25. For though Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not
exempted from the malediction; on the contrary, he suffers more from it,
since parents are more affected with their children’s misfortunes than
with their own; especially if the evils have been inflicted through some
fault or folly of theirs. Some have thought that _Canaan_ may be put
elliptically for _the father of Canaan_, that is, Ham, as it is rendered
in the Arabic and Septuagint translations.

The posterity of Canaan was numerous. His eldest son, Sidon, founded the
city of Sidon, and was father of the Sidonians and Phenicians. Canaan
had ten other sons, who were fathers of as many tribes, dwelling in
Palestine and Syria; namely, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites,
the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites,
the Zemarites, and the Hemathites. It is believed that Canaan lived and
died in Palestine, which from him was called the land of Canaan.
Notwithstanding the curse is directed against Canaan the son, and not
against Ham the father, it is often supposed that all the posterity of
Ham were placed under the malediction, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren.” But the true reason why Canaan
only was mentioned probably is, that the curse was in fact restricted to
the posterity of Canaan. It is true that many Africans, descendants of
other branches of Ham’s family, have been largely and cruelly enslaved;
but so have other tribes in different parts of the world. There is
certainly no proof that the negro race were ever placed under this
malediction. Had they been included in it, this would neither have
justified their oppressors, nor proved that Christianity is not designed
to remove the evil of slavery. But Canaan alone in his descendants, is
cursed, and Ham only in that branch of his posterity. It follows that
the subjugation of the Canaanitish races to Israel fulfils the prophecy.
To them it was limited, and with them it expired. Part of the seven
nations of the Canaanites were made slaves to the Israelites, when they
took possession of their land; and the remainder by Solomon.

CANAAN, LAND OF. In the map it presents the appearance of a narrow slip
of country, extending along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean; from
which, to the river Jordan, the utmost width does not exceed fifty
miles. This river was the eastern boundary of the land of Canaan, or
Palestine, properly so called, which derived its name from the
Philistines or Palestines originally inhabiting the coast. To three of
the twelve tribes, however, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, portions of
territory were assigned on the eastern side of the river, which were
afterward extended by the subjugation of the neighbouring nations. The
territory of Tyre and Sidon was its ancient border on the north-west;
the range of the Libanus and Antilibanus forms a natural boundary on the
north and north-east; while in the south it is pressed upon by the
Syrian and Arabian deserts. Within this circumscribed district, such
were the physical advantages of the soil and climate, there existed, in
the happiest periods of the Jewish nation, an immense population. The
kingdom of David and Solomon, however, extended far beyond these narrow
limits. In a north-eastern direction, it was bounded only by the river
Euphrates, and included a considerable part of Syria. It is stated that
Solomon had dominion over all the region on the western side of the
Euphrates, from Thiphsah, or Thapsacus, on that river, in latitude 25°
20´, to Azzah, or Gaza. “Tadmore in the wilderness,” (Palmyra,) which
the Jewish monarch is stated to have built, (that is, either founded or
fortified,) is considerably to the north-east of Damascus, being only a
day’s journey from the Euphrates; and Hamath, the Epiphania of the
Greeks, (still called Hamah,) in the territory belonging to which city
Solomon had several “store cities,” is seated on the Orontes, in
latitude 34° 45´ N. On the east and south-east, the kingdom of Solomon
was extended by the conquest of the country of Moab, that of the
Ammonites, and Edom; and tracts which were either inhabited or pastured
by the Israelites, lay still farther eastward. Maon, which belonged to
the tribe of Judah, and was situated in or near the desert of Paran, is
described by Abulfeda as the farthest city of Syria toward Arabia, being
two days’ journey beyond Zoar. In the time of David, the people of
Israel, women and children included, amounted, on the lowest
computation, to five millions; beside the tributary Canaanites, and
other conquered nations.

The vast resources of the country, and the power of the Jewish monarch,
may be estimated not only by the consideration in which he was held by
the contemporary sovereigns of Egypt, Tyre, and Assyria, but by the
strength of the several kingdoms into which the dominions of David were
subsequently divided. Damascus revolted during the reign of Solomon, and
shook off the Jewish yoke. At his death, ten of the tribes revolted
under Jeroboam, and the country became divided into the two rival
kingdoms of Judah and Israel, having for their capitals Jerusalem and
Samaria. The kingdom of Israel fell before the Assyrian conqueror, in
the year B. C. 721, after it had subsisted about two hundred and fifty
years. That of Judah survived about one hundred and thirty years, Judea
being finally subdued and laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and the temple
burned B. C. 588. Idumea was conquered a few years after. From this
period till the æra of Alexander the Great, Palestine remained subject
to the Chaldean, Median, and Persian dynasties. At his death, Judea fell
under the dominion of the kings of Syria, and, with some short and
troubled intervals, remained subject either to the kings of Syria or of
Egypt, till John Hyrcanus shook off the Syrian yoke, and assumed the
diadem, B. C. 130. The Asmonean dynasty, which united, in the person of
the monarch, the functions of king and pontiff, though tributary to
Roman conquerors, lasted one hundred and twenty-six years, till the
kingdom was given by Anthony to Herod the Great, of an Idumean family,
B. C. 39.

2. At the time of the Christian æra, Palestine was divided into five
provinces; Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, and Idumea. On the death of
Herod, Archelaus, his eldest son, succeeded to the government of Judea,
Samaria, and Idumea, with the title of tetrarch; Galilee being assigned
to Herod Antipas; and Perea, or the country beyond Jordan, to the third
brother, Philip. But in less than ten years the dominions of Archelaus
became annexed, on his disgrace, to the Roman province of Syria; and
Judea was thenceforth governed by Roman procurators. Jerusalem, after
its final destruction by Titus, A. D. 71, remained desolate and almost
uninhabited, till the emperor Hadrian colonized it, and erected temples
to Jupiter and Venus on its site. The empress Helena, in the fourth
century, set the example of repairing in pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to
visit the scenes consecrated by the Gospel narrative; and the country
became enriched by the crowds of devotees who flocked there. In the
beginning of the seventh century, it was overrun by the Saracens, who
held it till Jerusalem was taken by the crusaders in the twelfth. The
Latin kingdom of Jerusalem continued for about eighty years, during
which the Holy Land streamed continually with Christian and Saracen
blood. In 1187, Judea was conquered by the illustrious Saladin, on the
decline of whose kingdom it passed through various revolutions, and at
length, in 1317, was finally swallowed up in the Turkish empire.

Palestine is now distributed into pashalics. That of Acre or Akka
extends from Djebail nearly to Jaffa; that of Gaza comprehends Jaffa and
the adjacent plains; and these two being now united, all the coast is
under the jurisdiction of the pasha of Acre. Jerusalem, Hebron, Nablous,
Tiberias, and in fact, the greater part of Palestine, are included in
the pashalic of Damascus, now held in conjunction with that of Aleppo;
which renders the present pasha, in effect, the viceroy of Syria. Though
both pashas continue to be dutiful subjects to the Grand Seignior in
appearance, and annually transmit considerable sums to Constantinople to
insure the yearly renewal of their office, they are to be considered as
tributaries, rather than subjects of the Porte; and it is supposed to be
the religious supremacy of the Sultan, as caliph and vicar of Mohammed,
more than any apprehension of his power, which prevents them from
declaring themselves independent. The reverence shown for the firmauns
of the Porte throughout Syria attests the strong hold which the Sultan
maintains, in this character, on the Turkish population. The pashas of
Egypt and Bagdad are attached to the Turkish sovereign by the same
ecclesiastical tie, which alone has kept the ill-compacted and feeble
empire from crumbling to ruin.

3. A few additional remarks upon the topography and climate will tend to
elucidate the force of many of those parts of Scripture which contain
allusions to these topics. Dr. E. D. Clarke, after stating his resolve
to make the Scriptures his only guide throughout this interesting
territory, says, “The delight afforded by the internal evidences of
truth, in every instance where their fidelity of description was proved
by a comparison of existing documents, surpassed even all we had
anticipated. Such extraordinary instances of coincidence even with the
customs of the country as they are now exhibited, and so many wonderful
examples of illustration afforded by contrasting the simple narrative
with the appearances presented, made us only regret the shortness of our
time, and the limited sphere of our abilities for the comparison.” Judea
is beautifully diversified with hills and plains--hills now barren and
gloomy, but once cultivated to their summits, and smiling in the variety
of their produce, chiefly the olive and the vine; and plains, over which
the Bedouin now roves to collect a scanty herbage for his cattle, but
once yielding an abundance of which the inhabitants of a northern
climate can form no idea. Rich in its soil; glowing in the sunshine of
an almost perpetual summer; and abounding in scenery of the grandest, as
well as of the most beautiful kind; this happy country was indeed a land
which the Lord had blessed: but Mohammedan sloth and despotism, as the
instruments employed to execute the curse of Heaven, have converted it
into a waste of rock and desert, with the exception of some few spots,
which remain to attest the veracity of the accounts formerly given of
it. The hills of Judea frequently rise into mountains; the most
considerable of which are those of Lebanon and Hermon, on the north;
those which surround the sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea, also attain a
respectable elevation. The other mountains of note are, Carmel, Tabor,
Ebal, and Gerizim, and the mountains of Gilboa, Gilead, and Abarim; with
the summits of the latter, Nebo and Pisgah: a description of which will
be found under their respective heads. Many of the hills and rocks
abound in caverns, the refuge of the distressed, or the resorts of
robbers.

4. From the paucity of rain which falls in Judea, and the heat and
dryness of the atmosphere for the greater part of the year, it possesses
but few rivers; and as these, have all their rise within its boundaries,
their course is short, and their size inconsiderable: the principal is
the Jordan, which runs about a hundred miles. The other remarkable
streams are, the Arnon, the Jabbok, the Kishon, the Kedron, the Besor,
the Sorek, and the stream called the river of Egypt. These, also, will
be found described under their respective heads. This country was once
adorned with woods and forests: as we read of the forest of cedars in
Lebanon, the forest of oaks in Bashan, the forest or wood of Ephraim,
and the forest of Hareth in the tribe of Judah. Of these, the woods of
Bashan alone remain; the rest have been swept away by the ravages of
time and of armies, and by the gradual consumption of the inhabitants,
whose indolence and ignorance have prevented their planting others.

5. There are no volcanoes now existing in Judea or its vicinity: nor is
mention made of any in history, although volcanic traces are found in
many parts on its eastern side, as they are also in the mountains of
Edom on the south, the Djebel Shera and Hesma, as noticed by Burckhardt.
There can be no doubt that many of the sacred writers were familiarly
acquainted with the phenomena of volcanoes; whence it may be inferred
that they were presented to their observation at no great distance, and
from which they drew some of their sublimest imagery. Mr. Horne has
adduced the following instances: “The mountains quake at him, and the
hills _melt_, and the earth is _burned_ at his presence. His fury is
_poured out like fire_, and the rocks are thrown down by him,” Nahum i,
5, 6. “Behold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come
down and tread upon the high places of the earth. And _the mountains
shall be molten_ under him, and the valleys shall be _cleft as wax
before the fire_, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place,”
Micah i, 3, 4. “O that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou
wouldest come down, that the _mountains might flow down_ at thy
presence. As when _the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters
to boil_, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations
may tremble at thy presence. When thou didst terrible things which we
looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy
presence,” Isa. lxiv, 1–3.

6. The climate of Judea, from the southern latitude of the country, is
necessarily warm. The cold of winter is, indeed, sometimes greater than
in European climates situated some degrees farther to the north; but it
is of short duration, and the general character of the climate is that
of heat. Both heat and cold are, however, tempered by the nature of the
surface; the winter being scarcely felt in the valleys, while in the
summer the heat is almost insupportable; and, on the contrary, in the
more elevated parts, during the winter months, or rather weeks, frosts
frequently occur, and snow sometimes falls, while the air in summer is
comparatively cool and refreshing. Many winters pass without either snow
or frost; and in the coldest weather which ever occurs, the sun in the
middle of the day is generally warm, and often hot; so that the pain of
cold is in reality but little felt, and the poor who cannot afford fires
may enjoy, during several hours of the day, the more genial and
invigorating influence of the sun. This is the ordinary character of the
winters; though in some years, as will be seen presently, the cold is
more severely felt during the short time that it prevails, which is
never more than two months, and more frequently not so much as one.
Toward the end of November, or beginning of December, domestic fires
become agreeable. It was at this time that Jehoiakim, king of Judah, is
represented by Jeremiah as sitting in his winter house, with a fire
burning on the hearth before him, Jer. xxxvi, 22. The same luxury,
though frequently by no means necessary, is used by the wealthy till the
end of March.

7. Rain only falls during the autumn, winter, and spring, when it
sometimes descends with great violence: the greatest quantity, and that
which properly constitutes the rainy season, happening between the
autumnal equinox, or somewhat later, and the beginning of December;
during which period, heavy clouds often obscure the sky, and several
days of violent rain sometimes succeed each other with winds. This is
what in Scripture is termed the early or the former rain. Showers
continue to fall at uncertain intervals, with some cloudy but more fair
weather, till toward the vernal equinox, when they become again more
frequent and copious till the middle of April. These are the latter
rains, Joel ii, 23. From this time to the end of May, showers come on at
irregular intervals, gradually decreasing as the season advances; the
sky being for the most part serene, and the temperature of the air
agreeable, though sometimes acquiring a high degree of heat. From the
end of May, or beginning of June, to the end of September, or middle of
October, scarce a drop of rain falls, the sky being constantly
unclouded, and the heat generally oppressive. During this period, the
inhabitants commonly sleep on the tops of their houses. The storms,
especially in the autumn, are preceded by short but violent gusts of
wind, which, from the surface of a parched soil, raise great clouds of
dust; which explains what is meant by, “Ye shall not _see_ wind,” 2
Kings iii, 7. The continuation of the same passage likewise implies,
that such circumscribed whirlwinds were generally considered as the
precursors of rain: a circumstance likewise alluded to by Solomon, who
says, “Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift, is like clouds and wind
without rain,” Prov. xxv, 14. Another prognostic of an approaching storm
is a small cloud rising in the west, and increasing until it overspreads
the whole heavens. Such was the cloud, “like a man’s hand,” which
appeared to Elijah, on mount Carmel; which spread “till the heaven was
black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain,” 1 Kings xviii,
44. To this phenomenon, and the certainty of the prognostic, our Saviour
alludes: “When ye see a cloud” (or _the_ cloud, την νεφελην) “rise out
of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is,”
Luke xii, 54. The same appearance is noticed by Homer:--

          Ὡς δ’ ὄτ’ ἀπὸ σκοπιῆς εῖδεν νεφος αιπολος ανηρ
          Ἐρχόμενον κατὰ ϖόντον ὑπὸ Ζεφύροιο ἰωῆς,
          Τῷ δε τ’, ἄνευθεν ἐόντι, μελάντερον, ἠΰτι ϖὶσσα,
          Φαίνετ’ ἰὸν κατὰ ϖόντον, ἄγεί δέ τέ λαίλαπα ϖολλην.
          Ῥίγησεν τε ἰδὼν. κ. τ. λ.   _Il._ lib. iv, 275.

            “Slow from the main the heavy vapours rise,
            Spread in dim streams, and sail along the skies,
            Till black as night the swelling tempest shows,
            The cloud condensing as the west wind blows.
            He dreads the impending storm,” &c.    POPE.

Hail frequently falls in the winter and spring in very heavy storms, and
with hailstones of an enormous size. Dr. Russel says that he has seen
some at Aleppo which measured two inches in diameter; but sometimes they
are found to consist of irregularly shaped pieces, weighing near three
ounces. The copious dew forms another peculiarity of this climate,
frequently alluded to in Scripture: so copious, indeed, is it sometimes,
as to resemble small rain, and to supply the wants of superficial
vegetation. Mr. Maundrell, when travelling near mount Hermon, says, “We
were instructed by experience what the Psalmist means by ‘the dew of
Hermon,’ Psalm cxxxiii, 3; our tents being as wet with it, as if it had
rained all night.”

8. The seasons are often adverted to in Scripture, under the terms “seed
time and harvest.” The former, for wheat, is about the middle of October
to the middle or end of November: barley is put into the ground two and
sometimes three months later. The wheat harvest commences about the
twentieth of May, and early in June the whole is off the ground. The
barley harvest, it is to be observed, is generally a fortnight earlier.
A survey of the astonishing produce of this country, and of the manner
in which its most rocky and, to appearance, insuperably sterile parts,
are made to yield to the wants of man, will be sufficient to refute the
objections raised by skeptical writers against the possibility of its
furnishing subsistence to the multitude of its former inhabitants
recorded in Scripture. Dr. Clarke, when travelling from Napolose to
Jerusalem, relates, “The road was mountainous, rocky, and full of loose
stones; yet the cultivation was every where marvellous: it afforded one
of the most striking pictures of human industry which it is possible to
behold. The limestone rocks and stony valleys of Judea were entirely
covered with plantations of figs, vines, and olive trees: not a single
spot seemed to be neglected. The hills, from their bases to their upmost
summits, were entirely covered with gardens: all of these were free from
weeds, and in the highest state of agricultural perfection. Even the
sides of the most barren mountains had been rendered fertile, by being
divided into terraces, like steps rising one above another, whereon soil
had been accumulated with astonishing labour. Among the standing crops,
we noticed millet, cotton, linseed, and tobacco; and occasionally small
fields of barley. A sight of this territory can alone convey any
adequate idea of its surprising produce: it is truly the Eden of the
east, rejoicing in the abundance of its wealth. Under a wise and a
beneficent government, the produce of the Holy Land would exceed all
calculation. Its perennial harvest; the salubrity of its air; its limpid
springs; its rivers, lakes, and matchless plains; its hills and
dales;--all these, added to the serenity of its climate, prove this land
to be indeed ‘a field which the Lord hath blessed: God hath given it of
the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and
wine.’” An oriental’s ideas of fertility differ, however, from ours; for
to him, plantations of figs, vines, and olives, with which the limestone
rocks of Judea were once covered, would suggest the same associations of
plenty and opulence that are called up in the mind of an Englishman by
rich tracts of corn land. The land of Canaan is characterized as flowing
with milk and honey; and it still answers to this description; for it
contains extensive pasture lands of the richest quality, and the rocky
country is covered with aromatic plants, yielding to the wild bees, who
hive in the hollow of the rocks, such abundance of honey as to supply
the poorer classes with an article of food. Honey from the rocks is
repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, as a delicious food, and an
emblem of plenty, 1 Sam. xiv, 25; Psa. lxxxi, 16. Dates are another
important article of consumption; and the neighbourhood of Judea was
famous for its numerous palm trees, which are found springing up from
chance-sown kernels in the midst of the most arid districts. When to
these wild productions we add the oil extracted from the olive, so
essential an article to an oriental, we shall be at no loss to account
for the ancient fertility of the most barren districts of Judea, or for
the adequacy of the soil to the support of so numerous a population,
notwithstanding the comparatively small proportion of arable land. There
is no reason to doubt, however, that corn and rice would be imported by
the Tyrian merchants; which the Israelites would have no difficulty in
exchanging for the produce of the olive ground and the vineyard, or for
their flocks and herds. Delicious wine is still produced in some
districts, and the valleys bear plentiful crops of tobacco, wheat,
barley, and millet. Tacitus compares both the climate and the soil,
indeed, to those of Italy; and he particularly specifies the palm tree
and balsam tree as productions which gave the country an advantage over
his own. Among other indigenous productions may be enumerated the cedar
and other varieties of the pine, the cypress, the oak, the sycamore, the
mulberry tree, the fig tree, the willow, the turpentine tree, the
acacia, the aspen, the arbutus, the myrtle, the almond tree, the
tamarisk, the oleander, the peach tree, the chaste tree, the carob or
locust tree, the oskar, the doom, the mustard plant, the aloe, the
citron, the apple, the pomegranate, and many flowering shrubs. The
country about Jericho was celebrated for its balsam, as well as for its
palm trees; and two plantations of it existed during the last war
between the Jews and the Romans, for which both parties fought
desperately. But Gilead appears to have been the country in which it
chiefly abounded: hence the name, “balm of Gilead.” Since the country
has fallen under the Turkish dominion, it has ceased to be cultivated in
Palestine, but is still found in Arabia. Other indigenous productions
have either disappeared or are now confined to circumscribed districts.
Iron is found in the mountain range of Libanus, and silk is produced in
abundance in the plains of Samaria.

9. The grand distinction of Canaan, however, is, that it was the only
part of the earth made, by divine institution, a type of heaven. So it
was exhibited to Abraham, and also to the Jews. It pointed to the
eternal rest which the spiritual seed of the father of the faithful were
to enjoy after the pilgrimage of life; its holy city was the figure of
the “Jerusalem above;” and Zion, with its solemn and joyful services
represented that “hill of the Lord” to which the redeemed shall come
with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads; where they shall
obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall fly away.

CANAANITES, the posterity of Canaan by his eleven sons, who are supposed
to have settled in the land of Canaan, soon after the dispersion of
Babel. Five of these are known to have dwelt in the land of Canaan; viz.
Heth, Jebus, Hemor or Amor, Girgashi, and Hevi or Hivi; and these,
together with their father Canaan, became the heads of so many nations.
Sina or Sini was another son of Canaan, whose settlement is not so
precisely ascertained; but some authors infer, from the affinity of the
names, that the Desert of Sin, and Mount Sinai, were the places of his
abode, and that they were so called from him. The Hittites inhabited the
country about Hebron, as far as Beersheba, and the brook Besor, reckoned
by Moses the southern limits of Canaan. The Jebusites dwelt near them on
the north, as far as the city of Jebus, since called Jerusalem. The
Amorites possessed the country on the east side of Jordan, between the
river Arnon on the south-east, and Mount Gilead on the north, afterward
the lot of Reuben and Gad. The Girgashites lay next above the Amorites,
on the east side of the Sea of Tiberias, and their land was afterward
possessed by the half tribe of Manasseh. The Hivites dwelt northward,
under Mount Libanus. The Perizzites, who make one of the seven nations
of the Canaanites, are supposed, by Heylin and others, to be the
descendants of Sina or Sini; and it is probable, since we do not read of
their abode in cities, that they lived dispersed, and in tents, like the
Scythians, roving on both sides of the Jordan, on the hills and plains;
and that they were called by that name from the Hebrew _pharatz_, which
signifies “to disperse.” The Canaanites dwelt in the midst of all, and
were surrounded by the rest. This appears from the sacred writings to
have been the respective situation of those seven nations, which are
said to have been doomed to destruction for their idolatry and
wickedness, when the Israelites first invaded their country. The learned
have not absolutely determined whether the nations proceeding from
Canaan’s other six sons should be reckoned among the inhabitants of the
land of Canaan. The prevalent opinion is, that they were not included.
As to the customs, manners, arts, sciences, and language of the seven
nations that inhabited the land of Canaan, they must, from the situation
they severally occupied, have been very different. Those who inhabited
the sea coast were merchants, and by reason of their commerce and wealth
scattered colonies over almost all the islands and maritime provinces of
the Mediterranean. (See _Phenicia_) The colonies which Cadmus carried to
Thebes in Bæotia, and his brother Cilix into Cilicia, are said to have
proceeded from the stock of Canaan. Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus,
Corfu, Majorca, Minorca, Gades, and Ebutris, are supposed to have been
peopled by the Canaanites. The other Canaanites, whose situation was
inland, were employed partly in pasturage, and partly in tillage, and
they were also well skilled in the exercise of arms. Those who dwelt in
the walled cities, and who had fixed abodes, cultivated the land; and
those who wandered about, as the Perizzites seem to have done, grazed
cattle: so that among the Canaanites, we discover the various classes of
merchants, and, consequently, mariners; of artificers, soldiers,
shepherds, and husbandmen. We learn, also, from their history, that they
were all ready, however diversified by their occupations or local
interests, to join in a common cause; that they were well appointed for
war, both offensive and defensive; that their towns were well fortified;
that they were sufficiently furnished with military weapons and warlike
chariots; that they were daring, obstinate, and almost invincible; and
that they were not destitute of craft and policy. Their language, we
find, was well understood by Abraham, who was a Hebrew, for he conversed
readily with them on all occasions; but as to their mode of writing,
whether it was originally their own or borrowed from the Israelites, it
is not so easy to determine. Their religion, at least in part, seems to
have been preserved pure till the days of Abraham, who acknowledged
Melchisedek to be priest of the most high God; and Melchisedek was,
without doubt, a Canaanite, or, at least, dwelt at that time in Canaan
in high esteem and veneration.

2. But we learn from the Scripture history, that the Hittites in
particular were become degenerate in the time of Isaac and Rebekah; for
they could not endure the thoughts of Jacob’s marrying one of the
daughters of Heth, as Esau had done. From this time, then, we may date
the prevalence of those abominations which subjected them to the divine
displeasure, and made them unworthy of the land which they possessed. In
the days of Moses, they were become incorrigible idolaters; for he
commands his people to destroy their altars, and break down their
images, (statues or pillars,) and cut down their groves, and burn their
graven images with fire. And lest they should pervert the Israelites,
the latter were strictly enjoined not to intermarry with them; but “to
smite them, and utterly destroy them, nor show mercy upon them,” Deut.
vii, 1–5. They are accused of the cruel custom of sacrificing men, and
are said to have made their seed pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev.
xviii, 21. Their morals were as corrupt as their doctrine: adultery,
bestiality of all sorts, profanation, incest, and all manner of
uncleanness, are the sins laid to their charge. “The Canaanites,” says
Mr. Bryant, “as they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim, resembled them
in their rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high
veneration, agreeably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief deity was the
sun, whom they worshipped, together with the Baalim, under the titles of
Ourchol, Adonis, or Thamuz.”

3. When the measure of the idolatries and abominations of the Canaanites
was filled up, God delivered their country into the hands of the
Israelites, who conquered it under Joshua. However, they resisted with
obstinate valour, and kept Joshua employed six years from the time of
his passing the river Jordan, and entering Canaan, in the year B. C.
1451, to the year B. C. 1445, the sabbatical year beginning from the
autumnal equinox; when he made a division of the land among the tribes
of Israel, and rested from his conquests. As God had commanded this
people, long before, to be treated with rigour, see Deut. vii, 2, Joshua
extirpated great numbers, and obliged the rest to fly, some of them into
Africa, and others into Greece. Procopius says, they first retreated
into Egypt, but advanced into Africa, where they built many cities, and
spread themselves over those vast regions which reach to the straits,
preserving their old language with little alteration. In the time of
Athanasius, the Africans still said they were descended from the
Canaanites; and when asked their origin, they answered, “Canani.” It is
agreed, that the Punic tongue was nearly the same as the Canaanitish or
Hebrew.

4. On the rigorous treatment of the nations of Canaan by the Israelites,
to which infidels have taken so many exceptions, the following remarks
of Paley are a sufficient reply: The first thing to be observed is, that
the nations of Canaan were destroyed for their wickedness. This is plain
from Lev. xviii, 24, &c. Now the facts disclosed in this passage
sufficiently testify, that the Canaanites were a wicked people; that
detestable practices were general among them, and even habitual; that it
was for these enormities the nations of Canaan were destroyed. It was
not, as some have imagined, to make way for the Israelites; nor was it
simply to make away with their idolatry; but it was because of the
abominable crimes which usually accompanied the latter. And we may
farther learn from the passage, that God’s abhorrence of these crimes
and his indignation against them are regulated by the rules of strict
impartiality, since Moses solemnly warns the Israelites against falling
into the like wicked courses, “that the land,” says he, “cast not you
out also, when you defile it, as it cast out the nations that were
before you; for whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even
the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people,”
Lev. xviii, 28, 29. Now, when God, for the wickedness of a people, sends
an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague among them, there is no complaint
of injustice, especially when the calamity is known, or expressly
declared beforehand, to be inflicted for the wickedness of such people.
It is rather regarded as an act of exemplary penal justice, and, as
such, consistent with the character of the moral Governor of the
universe. The objection, therefore, is not to the Canaanitish nations
being destroyed; (for when their national wickedness is considered, and
when that is expressly stated as the cause of their destruction, the
dispensation, however severe, will not be questioned;) but the objection
is solely to the manner of destroying them. I mean there is nothing but
the manner left to be objected to: their wickedness accounts for the
thing itself. To which objection it may be replied, that if the thing
itself be just, the manner is of little signification, of little
signification even to the sufferers themselves. For where is the great
difference, even to them, whether they were destroyed by an earthquake,
a pestilence, a famine, or by the hands of an enemy? Where is the
difference, even to our imperfect apprehensions of divine justice,
provided it be, and is known to be, for their wickedness that they are
destroyed? But this destruction, you say, confounded the innocent with
the guilty. The sword of Joshua, and of the Jews spared neither women
nor children. Is it not the same with all other national visitations?
Would not an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague, or a famine among them
have done the same? Even in an ordinary and natural death the same thing
happens; God takes away the life he lends, without regard, that we can
perceive, to age, or sex, or character. “But, after all, promiscuous
massacres, the burning of cities, the laying waste of countries, are
things dreadful to reflect upon.” Who doubts it? so are all the
judgments of Almighty God. The effect, in whatever way it shows itself,
must necessarily be tremendous, when the Lord, as the Psalmist expresses
it, “moveth out of his place to punish the wicked.” But it ought to
satisfy us; at least this is the point upon which we ought to rest and
fix our attention; that it was for excessive, wilful, and forewarned
wickedness, that all this befel them, and that it is all along so
declared in the history which recites it.

But, farther, if punishing them by the hands of the Israelites rather
than by a pestilence, an earthquake, a fire, or any such calamity, be
still an objection, we may perceive, I think, some reasons for this
method of punishment in preference to any other whatever; always bearing
in our mind, that the question is not concerning the justice of the
punishment, but the mode of it. It is well known, that the people of
those ages were affected by no proof of the power of the gods which they
worshipped, so deeply as by their giving them victory in war. It was by
this species of evidence that the superiority of their own gods above
the gods of the nations which they conquered, was, in their opinion,
evinced. This being the actual persuasion which then prevailed in the
world, no matter whether well or ill founded, how were the neighbouring
nations, for whose admonition this dreadful example was intended, how
were they to be convinced of the supreme power of the God of Israel
above the pretended gods of other nations; and of the righteous
character of Jehovah, that is, of his abhorrence of the vices which
prevailed in the land of Canaan? How, I say, were they to be convinced
so well, or at all indeed, as by enabling the Israelites, whose God he
was known and acknowledged to be, to conquer under his banner, and drive
out before them, those who resisted the execution of that commission
with which the Israelites declared themselves to be invested, namely,
the expulsion and extermination of the Canaanitish nations? This
convinced surrounding countries, and all who were observers or
spectators of what passed, first, that the God of Israel was a real God;
secondly, that the gods which other nations worshipped, were either no
gods, or had no power against the God of Israel; and thirdly, that it
was he, and he alone, who possessed both the power and the will, to
punish, to destroy, and to exterminate from before his face, both
nations and individuals, who gave themselves up to the crimes and
wickedness for which the Canaanites were notorious. Nothing of this sort
would have appeared, or with the same evidence, from an earthquake, or a
plague, or any natural calamity. These might not have been attributed to
divine agency at all, or not to the interposition of the God of Israel.

Another reason which made this destruction both more necessary, and more
general, than it would have otherwise been, was the consideration, that
if any of the old inhabitants were left, they would prove a snare to
those who succeeded them in the country; would draw and seduce them by
degrees into the vices and corruptions which prevailed among themselves.
Vices of all kinds, but vices most particularly of the licentious kind,
are astonishingly infectious. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
A small number of persons addicted to them, and allowed to practise them
with impunity or encouragement, will spread them through the whole mass.
This reason is formally and expressly assigned, not simply for the
punishment, but for the extent to which it was carried; namely,
extermination: “Thou shalt utterly destroy them, that they teach you not
to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their
gods.”

In reading the Old Testament account, therefore, of the Jewish wars and
conquests in Canaan, and the terrible destruction brought upon the
inhabitants thereof, we are always to remember that we are reading the
execution of a dreadful but just sentence, pronounced by Jehovah against
the intolerable and incorrigible crimes of these nations; that they were
intended to be made an example to the whole world of God’s avenging
wrath against sins, which, if they had been suffered to continue, might
have polluted the whole ancient world, and which could only be checked
by the signal and public overthrow of nations notoriously addicted to
them, and so addicted as even to have incorporated them into their
religion and their public institutions; and that the Israelites were
mere instruments in the hands of a righteous Providence for effecting
the extirpation of a people, of whom it was necessary to make a public
example to the rest of mankind; that this extermination, which might
have been accomplished by a pestilence, by fire, by earthquakes, was
appointed to be done by the hands of the Israelites, as being the
clearest and most intelligible method of displaying the power and the
righteousness of the God of Israel; his power over the pretended gods of
other nations; and his righteous indignation against the crimes into
which they were fallen.

CANDACE, the name of an Ethiopian queen, whose eunuch coming to
Jerusalem to worship the Lord, was baptized by Philip the deacon, near
Bethsura, in the way to Gaza, as he was returning to his own country,
Acts viii, 27. The Ethiopia here mentioned was the isle or peninsula of
Meroë to the south of Egypt, which, as Mr. Bruce shows, is now called
Atbara, up the Nile. Candace was the common name of the queens of that
country. Strabo and Pliny mention queens of that name as reigning in
their times. That the queen mentioned in the Acts was converted by the
instrumentality of her servant, and that the country thus received
Christianity at that early period, are statements not supported by any
good testimony. See ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.

CANDLESTICK. The instrument so rendered by our translators was more
properly a stand for lamps. One of beaten gold was made by Moses, Exod.
xxv, 31, 32, and put into the tabernacle in the holy place, over against
the table of shew bread. The basis of this candlestick was also of pure
gold; it had seven branches, three on each side, and one in the middle.
When Solomon had built the temple, he was not satisfied with placing one
golden candlestick there, but had ten put up, of the same form and metal
with that described by Moses, five on the north, and five on the south
side of the holy place, 1 Kings vii, 49. After the Jews returned from
their captivity, the golden candlestick was again placed in the temple,
as it had been before in the tabernacle by Moses. The lamps were kept
burning perpetually; and were supplied morning and evening with pure
olive oil. Josephus says, that after the Romans had destroyed the
temple, the several things which were found within it, were carried in
triumph to Rome, namely, the golden table, and the golden candlestick
with seven branches. These were lodged in the temple built by Vespasian,
and consecrated to Peace; and at the foot of Mount Palatine, there is a
triumphal arch still visible, upon which Vespasian’s triumph is
represented, and the several monuments which were carried publicly in
the procession are engraved, and among the rest the candlestick with the
seven branches, which are still discernible upon it. In Rev. i, 12, 20,
mention is made of seven golden candlesticks, which are said to be
emblems of the seven Christian churches.

CANKER-WORM, ילק, Psalm cv, 34; Jer. li, 27, where it is rendered
_caterpillar_; Joel i, 4; ii, 25; Nahum iii, 15, _canker-worm_. As it is
frequently mentioned with the locust, it is thought by some to be a
species of that insect. It certainly cannot be the canker-worm, as our
version renders it; for in Nahum, it is expressly said to have wings and
fly, to camp in the hedges by day, and commit its depredations in the
night. But it may be, as the Septuagint renders it in five passages out
of eight where it occurs, the _bruchus_, or “hedge-chaffer.”
Nevertheless, the passage, Jer. li, 27, where the _ialek_ is described
as “rough,” that is, with hair standing on end on it, leads us very
naturally to the rendering of our translators in that place, “the rough
caterpillar,” which, like other caterpillars, at a proper time, casts
its exterior covering and flies away in a winged state. Scheuchzer
observes that we should not, perhaps, be far from the truth, if with the
ancient interpreters, we understood this _ialek_, after all, as a kind
of locust; as some species of them have hair principally on the head,
and others have prickly points standing out.

CANON, a word used to denote the authorized catalogue of the sacred
writings. The word is originally Greek, κανὼν, and signifies a _rule_ or
_standard_, by which other things are to be examined and judged.
Accordingly the same word has been applied to the tongue of a balance,
or that small part which, by its perpendicular position, determines the
even poise or weight, or, by its inclination either way, the uneven
poise of the things which are weighed. Hence it appears, that as the
writings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists contain an authentic
account of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and
practice of those who receive them. Canon is also equivalent to a list
or catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the rule
of faith.

For an account of the settling of the canon of Scripture, see _Bible_.
The following observations of Dr. Alexander, in his work on the canon,
proving that no canonical book of the Old or New Testament has been
lost, may here be properly introduced.--No canonical book of the Old
Testament has been lost. On this subject, there has existed some
diversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine as saying, “that
many of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be
proved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and
not only negligent, but impious; so that some books were lost through
carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.” In
confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1 Kings iv, 32, 33,
where it is said of Solomon, “that he spake three thousand proverbs, and
his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the
cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he
spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of
fishes.” All these productions, it is acknowledged, have perished. Again
it is said in 1 Chron. xxix, 29, 30: “Now, the acts of David the king,
first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer,
and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer;
with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and
over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.” The book of
Jasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x, 13: “And the
sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged
themselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?”
And in 2 Sam. i, 18: “And he bade them teach the children of Israel the
use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.”

The book of the wars of the Lord is referred to in Numbers xxi, 14. But
we have in the canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad, nor any
book of Jasher, nor of the wars of the Lord. Moreover, we frequently are
referred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a
fuller account of the matters spoken of, which chronicles are not now
extant. And in 2 Chron. ix, 29, it is said, “Now, the rest of the acts
of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan
the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the
visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam, the son of Nebat?” Now, it
is well known that none of these writings of the prophets are in the
canon; at least, none of them under their names. It is said, also, in 2
Chron. xii, 15, “Now, the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not
written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer,
concerning genealogies?” Of which works nothing remains under the names
of these prophets.

1. The first observation which may be made on this subject is, that
every book referred to or quoted in the sacred writings is not
necessarily an inspired or canonical book. Because St. Paul cites
passages from the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive
their poems as inspired.

2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither inspired
nor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets;
but was occasional, and for particular important purposes. In common
matters, and especially in things no way connected with religion, it is
reasonable to suppose that the Prophets and Apostles were left to the
same guidance of reason and common sense as other men. A man, therefore,
inspired to deliver some prophecy, or even to write a canonical book,
might write other books with no greater assistance than other good men
receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books, it
does not follow that what he wrote on natural history was also inspired,
any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if ever he wrote
any. Let it be remembered that the Prophets and Apostles were only
inspired on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all
difficulties respecting such works as these will vanish. How many of the
books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of
this description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of
them belong to this class. No doubt there were many books of annals much
more minute and particular in the narration of facts than those which we
have. It was often enough merely to refer to these _state papers_, or
public documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts
on account of which the reference was made. The book of the wars of the
Lord might, for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of
the army. The word translated _book_ has so extensive a meaning in
Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose that it was a writing
at all. The book of Jasher (or of _Rectitude_, if we translate the word)
might have been some useful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by
the wise, for the regulation of justice and equity between man and man.
Augustine, in his “City of God,” has distinguished accurately on this
subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have
authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men
composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by
inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is
only by those written by inspiration that we are to suppose that God,
through them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness
of knowledge; the other, for authority in religion; in which authority
the canon is preserved.”

3. But again: it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the
completeness of the canon, that there may have been inspired writings
which were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages,
but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings,
though inspired, were not canonical. They were temporary in their
design; and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We
know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the
people, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are
mentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned,
whose names are not even given. The same is true of the Apostles. Very
few of them had any concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet
they all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they wrote letters on
special occasions, to the churches planted by them; yet these were not
designed for the perpetual instruction of the universal church.
Therefore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad, might have written
some things by inspiration which were never intended to form a part of
the sacred volume. It is not asserted that there certainly existed such
temporary inspired writings: all that is necessary to be maintained is,
that, supposing such to have existed, which is not improbable, it does
not follow that the canon is incomplete by reason of their loss.

4. The last remark in relation to the books of the Old Testament
supposed to be lost is, that it is highly probable that we have several
of them now in the canon, under another name. The books of Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a
succession of prophets. There is reason to believe that, until the canon
of sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of prophets was never
interrupted. Whatever was necessary to be added, by way of explanation,
to any book already received into the canon, they were competent to
annex; or, whatever annals or histories it was the purpose of God to
have transmitted to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to
prepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by
Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c. That some parts of these histories were
prepared by prophets, we have clear proof in one instance; for Isaiah
has inserted in his prophecy several chapters which are contained in 2
Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt were originally written
by himself. The Jewish doctors are of opinion that the book of Jasher is
one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law. The book of the
wars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book
of Numbers.

Thus, it sufficiently appears from an examination of particulars, that
there exists no evidence that any canonical book of the Old Testament
has been lost. To which we may add, that there are many general
considerations of great weight which go to prove that no part of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament has been lost. The translation of these
books into Greek is sufficient to show that the same books existed
nearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ. And, above all,
the unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by
Christ and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us that we have lost none of
the inspired books of the canon. The Scriptures are constantly referred
to, and quoted as infallible authority by them, as we have before shown.
These oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they
are never charged with unfaithfulness in this trust. The Scriptures are
declared to have been written “for our learning;” and no intimation is
given that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted.

As to the New Testament, the same author proceeds: With respect to the
New Testament, I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may
have been books written by inspired men that have been lost; for
inspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of
faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of
mere science. And if such writings have been lost, the canon of
Scripture has suffered no more by this means, than by the loss of any
other uninspired books. But again: I am willing to go farther, and say
that it is possible (although I know no evidence of the fact) that some
things, written under the influence of inspiration, for a particular
occasion, and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, may have
been lost, without injury to the canon. For, since much that the
Apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly lost, so there is no
reason why every word which they wrote must necessarily be preserved,
and form a part of the canonical volume. For example: suppose that when
St. Paul said, “I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with
fornicators,” 1 Cor. v, 9, he referred to an epistle which he had
written to the Corinthians, before the one now called the First; it
might never have been intended that this letter should form a
constituent part of the canon; for although it treated of subjects
connected with Christian faith or practice, yet, an occasion having
arisen, in a short time, of treating these subjects more at large, every
thing in that epistle (supposing it ever to have been written) may have
been included in the two Epistles to the Corinthians which are now in
the canon.

1. The first argument to prove that no canonical book has been lost, is
derived from the watchful care of providence over the sacred Scriptures.
Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, and intended to form a part of the canon, which is the rule of
faith to the church, should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely
not very honourable to the wisdom of God, and in no way consonant with
the ordinary method of his dispensations, in regard to his precious
truth. There is good reason to think that, if God saw it needful, and
for the edification of the church, that such books should be written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would
have taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this
treasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in the worst times,
the special care of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in
existence. And if one canonical book might be lost through the
negligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of
God, in making a revelation of his will, might have been defeated. But
whatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian
churches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever
incurred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles
of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred
Scriptures to their own ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred
deposit intrusted to them. History informs us of the fierce and
malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige of the
sacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people
manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and
defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their
lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the
sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested,
and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the
Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of
Christians; and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the
New Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel
persecution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the
holy book; but they were ever afterward called traitors; and it was with
the utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the
communion of the church, after a long repentance, and the most humbling
confessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it
must have been in these early times, when the word of God was valued far
above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with
his blood.

2. Another argument which appears to me to be convincing is, that in a
little time, all the sacred books were dispersed over the whole world.
If a book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed in one
region, the loss could soon have been repaired, by sending for copies to
other countries. The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be
satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed that
there is evidence that some things were written by the Apostles which
are not now in the canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the
Corinthians, which St. Paul is supposed to have written to them,
previously to the writing of those which we now possess. But it is by no
means certain, or even probable, that St. Paul ever did write such an
epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least mention of any such
letter, nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any
reference to it. It is a matter of testimony, in which all the fathers
concur, as with one voice, that St. Paul wrote no more than fourteen
epistles, all of which we now have. But still, St. Paul’s own
declaration stands in the way of our opinion: “I wrote to you in an
epistle,” 1 Cor. v, 9, 11. The words in the original are, Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν
τῇ ἐπιϛολῇ; the literal version of which is, “I have written to you in
the epistle,” or “in this epistle;” that is, in the former part of it;
where, in fact, we find the very thing which he says that he had
written. See 1 Cor. v, 2, 5, 6. But it is thought by learned and
judicious commentators, that the words following, Νυνὶ δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν,
“But now I have written unto you,” require that we should understand the
former clause, as relating to some former time; but a careful attention
to the context will convince us that this reference is by no means
necessary. The Apostle had told them in the beginning of the chapter, to
avoid the company of fornicators, &c; but it is manifest, from the tenth
verse, that he apprehended that his meaning might be misunderstood, by
extending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with
the world; therefore, he repeats what he had said, and informs them that
it had relation only to the professors of Christianity, who should be
guilty of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased: “I wrote to you
above in my letter, that you should separate from those who were
fornicators, and that you should purge them out as old leaven; but,
fearing lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I
have directed you to avoid all intercourse with the Heathen around you,
who are addicted to these shameful vices, which would make it necessary
that you should go out of the world, I now inform you that my meaning
is, that you do not associate familiarly with any who make a profession
of Christianity, and yet continue in these evil practices.” In
confirmation of this interpretation, we can adduce the old Syriac
version, which, having been made soon after the days of the Apostles, is
good testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable
version, the meaning of the eleventh verse is thus given: “This is what
I have written unto you,” or, “the meaning of what I have written unto
you.”

The only other passage in the New Testament which has been thought to
refer to an epistle of St. Paul not now extant, is that in Colossians
iv, 16: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be
read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the
epistle from Laodicea.” But what evidence is there that St. Paul ever
wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has
been founded, in ancient and modern times, correctly interpreted, has no
such import. The words in the original are, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, “and that ye likewise read the epistle from
Laodicea,” Col. iv, 16. These words have been differently taken; for, by
them some understand that an epistle had been written by St. Paul to the
Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse.
Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers
almost universally have adopted this opinion. “Therefore,” says
Bellarmine, “it is certain that St. Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans is
now lost.” And their opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we
read, _eamque Laodicensium_, “that which is of the Laodiceans;” but even
these words admit of another construction. Many learned Protestants,
also, have embraced the same interpretation; while others suppose that
St. Paul here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they think
he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious.
But that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very
probable. That St. Paul could not intend, by the language used in the
passage under consideration, an epistle written by himself, will appear
by the following arguments: (1.) St. Paul could not, with any propriety
of speech, have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the
Laodiceans, an epistle _from_ Laodicea. He certainly would have said,
ϖρὸς Λαοδικείαν, [to Laodicea,] or some such thing. Who ever heard of an
epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an
epistle from them? (2.) If the epistle referred to in this passage had
been one written by St. Paul, it would have been most natural for him to
call it his epistle; and this would have rendered his meaning incapable
of misconstruction. (3.) All those best qualified to judge of the fact,
and who were well acquainted with St. Paul’s history and writings, never
mention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac
interpreter, knew any thing of such an epistle of St. Paul. But it may
be asked, To what epistle, then, does St. Paul refer? It seems safest in
such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense
of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the
Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians,
together with his own epistle, for their perusal.

CANTICLES, _the book of_, in Hebrew, שיר השירים, _the song of songs_.
The church, as well as the synagogue, received this book generally as
canonical. The royal author appears, in the typical spirit of his times,
to have designed to render a ceremonial appointment descriptive of a
spiritual relation; and this song is accordingly considered, by
judicious writers, to be a mystical allegory of that sort which induces
a more sublime sense on historical truths, and which, by the description
of human events, shadows out divine circumstances. The sacred writers
were, by God’s condescension, authorized to illustrate his strict and
intimate relation to the church by the figure of a marriage; and the
emblem must have been strikingly becoming and expressive to the
conceptions of the Jews, since they annexed ideas of peculiar mystery to
this appointment, and imagined the marriage union to be a counterpart
representation of some original pattern in heaven. Hence it was
performed among them with very peculiar ceremonies and solemnity, with
every thing that could give dignity and importance to its rites.
Solomon, therefore, in celebrating the circumstances of his marriage,
was naturally led, by a train of correspondent reflections, to consider
that spiritual connection which it was often employed to symbolize; and
the idea must have been the more forcibly suggested to him, as he was at
this period preparing to build a temple to God, and thereby to furnish a
visible representation of the Hebrew church. The spiritual allegory thus
worked up by Solomon to its highest perfection, was very consistent with
the prophetic style, which was accustomed to predict evangelical
blessings by such parabolical figures; and Solomon was more immediately
furnished with a pattern for this representation by the author of the
forty-fifth Psalm, who describes, in a compendious allegory, the same
future connection between Christ and his church.

2. But though the work be certainly an allegorical representation, many
learned men, in an unrestrained eagerness to explain the song, even in
its minutest and most obscure particulars, have too far indulged their
imaginations; and, by endeavouring too nicely to reconcile the literal
with the spiritual sense, have been led beyond the boundaries which a
reverence for the sacred Scriptures should ever prescribe. The ideas
which the sacred writers furnish concerning the mystical relation
between Christ and his church, though well accommodated to our
apprehensions by the allusion of a marriage union, are too general to
illustrate every particular contained in this poem, which may be
supposed to have been intentionally decorated with some ornaments
appropriate to the literal construction. When the general analogy is
obvious, we are not always to expect minute resemblance, and should not
be too curious in seeking for obscure and recondite allusions. Solomon,
in the glow of an inspired fancy, and unsuspicious of misconception or
deliberate perversion, describes God and his church, with their
respective attributes and graces, under colourings familiar and
agreeable to mankind, and exhibits their ardent affection under the
authorized figures of earthly love. No similitude, indeed, could be
chosen so elegant and apposite for the illustration of this intimate and
spiritual alliance, as a marriage union, if considered in the chaste
simplicity of its first institution, or under the interesting
circumstances with which it was established among the Jews.

3. This poem may be considered, as to its form, as a dramatic poem of
the pastoral kind. There is a succession of time, and a change of place,
to different parts of the palace and royal gardens. The persons
introduced as speakers, are the bridegroom and bride, and their
respective attendants. The interchange of dialogue is carried on in a
wild and digressive manner; but the speeches are adapted to the persons
with appropriate elegance. The companions of the bride compose a kind of
chorus, which seems to bear some resemblance to that afterward adopted
in the Grecian tragedy. Solomon and his queen assume the pastoral
simplicity of style, which is favourable to the communication of their
sentiments. The poem abounds throughout with beauties, and presents
every where a delightful and romantic display of nature, painted at its
most interesting season, and described with every ornament that an
inventive fancy could furnish. It is justly entitled Song of Songs, or
most excellent song, as being superior to any that an uninspired writer
could have produced, and tending, if properly understood, to purify the
mind, and to elevate the affections from earthly to heavenly things.

CAPERNAUM, a city celebrated in the Gospels, being the place where Jesus
usually resided during the time of his ministry. It stood on the sea
coast, that is, on the coast of the sea of Galilee, in the borders of
Zebulun and Naphtalim, Matt. iv, 15, and consequently toward the upper
part of it. As it was a convenient port from Galilee to any place on the
other side of the sea, this might be our Lord’s inducement to make it
the place of his most constant residence. Upon this account Capernaum
was highly honoured; and though “exalted unto heaven,” as its
inhabitants boasted, because it made no proper use of this signal favour
it drew from him the severe denunciation, that it should “be brought
down to hell,” Matt. xi, 23. This sentence of destruction has been fully
realized; the ancient city is reduced to a state of utter desolation.
Burckhardt supposes the ruins called Tal Houm, near the rivulet called
El Eshe, to be those of Capernaum. Mr. Buckingham, who gives this place
the name of Talhhewn, describes considerable and extensive ruins; the
only remains of those edifices which exalted Capernaum above its
fellows.

CAPPADOCIA, is called in Hebrew _Caphtor_. Cappadocia joined Galatia on
the east, and is mentioned in Acts ii, 9, and by St. Peter, who
addresses his First Epistle to the dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia. The people of this country were formerly
infamous for their vices; but after the promulgation of Christianity, it
produced many great and worthy men: among these may be reckoned Gregory
Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, and St. Basil, commonly styled the Great.

CAPTIVES. The treatment of persons taken in war among ancient nations
throws great light upon many passages of Scripture. The eastern
conqueror often stripped his unhappy captives naked, shaved their heads,
and made them travel in that condition, exposed to the burning heat of a
vertical sun by day, and the chilling cold of the night. Such barbarous
treatment was to modest women the height of cruelty and indignity;
especially to those who had been educated in softness and elegance, who
had figured in all the superfluities of ornamental dress, and whose
faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. The Prophet
Isaiah mentions this as the hardest part of the sufferings in which
female captives are involved: “The Lord will expose their nakedness.”
The daughter of Zion had indulged in all the softness of oriental
luxury; but the offended Jehovah should cause her unrelenting enemies to
drag her forth from her secret chambers into the view of an insolent
soldiery; strip her of her ornaments, in which she so greatly delighted;
take away her splendid and costly garments, discover her nakedness, and
compel her to travel in that miserable plight to a far distant country,
a helpless captive, the property of a cruel lord. Arrived in the land of
their captivity, captives were often purchased at a very low price. The
Prophet Joel complains of the contemptuous cheapness in which the people
of Israel were held by those who made them captives: “And they have cast
lots for my people; and have given a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl
for wine, that they might drink.” The custom of casting lots for the
captives taken in war appears to have prevailed both among the Jews and
the Greeks. The same allusion occurs in the prophecy of Obadiah:
“Strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into
his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,” Obadiah 11. With respect to
the Greeks, we have an instance in Tryphiodorus:--

             “Shared out by lot the female captives stand,
             The spoils divided with an equal hand;
             Each to his ship conveys his rightful share,
             Price of their toil, and trophies of the war.”

2. By an inhuman custom which is still retained in the east, the eyes of
captives taken in war were not seldom put out, sometimes literally
scooped or dug out of their sockets. This dreadful calamity Samson had
to endure from the unrelenting vengeance of his enemies. In a posterior
age, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah and Benjamin, after being
compelled to behold the violent death of his sons and nobility, had his
eyes put out, and was carried in chains to Babylon. The barbarous custom
long survived the decline and fall of the Babylonian empire; for by the
testimony of Mr. Maurice, in his history of Hindostan, the captive
princes of that country were often treated in this manner by their more
fortunate rivals; a red hot iron was passed over their eyes, which
effectually deprived them of sight, and at the same time of their title
and ability to reign. To the wretched state of such prisoners, the
Prophet Isaiah alludes in a noble prediction, where he describes in very
glowing colours the character and work of the promised Messiah: “He hath
sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them
that are bruised,” as captives too frequently were by the weight of
their fetters.

3. It seems to have been the practice of eastern kings, to command their
captives taken in war, especially those that had, by the atrociousness
of their crimes, or the stoutness of their resistance, greatly provoked
their indignation, to lie down on the ground, and then put to death a
certain part of them, which they measured with a line, or determined by
lot. This custom was not, perhaps, commonly practised by the people of
God, in their wars with the nations around them; but one instance is
recorded in the life of David, who inflicted this punishment on the
Moabites: “And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting
them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to
death, and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became
David’s servants, and brought gifts,” 2 Sam. viii, 2. But the most
shocking punishment which the ingenious cruelty of a haughty and
unfeeling conqueror ever inflicted on the miserable captive, is
described by Virgil in the eighth book of the Æneid; and which even a
Roman, inured to blood, could not mention without horror:--

“_Quid memorem infandas cædes? quid facta tyranni_,” &c.

                                                               Line 483.

          “What words can paint those execrable times,
          The subjects’ sufferings, and the tyrant’s crimes!
          That blood, those murders, O ye gods! replace
          On his own head, and on his impious race:
          The living and the dead at his command
          Were coupled face to face, and hand to hand,
          Till, choked with stench, in loathed embraces tied,
          The lingering wretches pined away, and died.”
                                                DRYDEN.

It is to this deplorable condition of a captive that the Apostle refers,
in that pathetic exclamation, “O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?” Who shall rescue me, miserable
captive as I am, from this continual burden of sin which I carry about
with me; and which is cumbersome and odious, as a dead carcass bound to
a living body, to be dragged along with it where-ever it goes?

CAPTIVITY. God generally punished the sins and infidelities of the Jews
by different captivities or servitudes. The first captivity is that of
Egypt, from which they were delivered by Moses, and which should be
considered rather as a permission of providence, than as a punishment
for sin. Six captivities are reckoned during the government by judges:
the first, under Chushanrishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, which continued
about eight years; the second, under Eglon, king of Moab, from which the
Jews were delivered by Ehud; the third, under the Philistines, from
which they were rescued by Shamgar; the fourth, under Jabin, king of
Hazor, from which they were delivered by Deborah and Barak; the fifth,
under the Midianites, from which Gideon freed them; and the sixth, under
the Ammonites and Philistines, during the judicatures of Jephthah,
Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, Samson, and Samuel. But the greatest and most
remarkable captivities were those of Israel and Judah, under their regal
government.

CAPTIVITIES OF ISRAEL. In the year of the world 3264, Tiglath-pileser
took several cities, and carried away captives, principally from the
tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, 2 Kings xv, 29.
In the year of the world 3283, Shalmaneser took and destroyed Samaria,
after a siege of three years, and transplanted the tribes that had been
spared by Tiglath-pileser, to provinces beyond the Euphrates, 2 Kings
xviii, 10, 11. It is generally believed, there was no return of the ten
tribes from this second captivity. But when we examine carefully the
writings of the Prophets, we find a return of at least a great part of
Israel from the captivity clearly pointed out. Hosea says, “They shall
tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of
Assyria; and I will place them in their houses, saith the Lord,” Hosea
xi, 11. Amos says, “And I will bring again my people Israel from their
captivity: they shall build their ruined cities and inhabit them,” &c,
Amos ix, 14. Obadiah observes, “The captivity of this host of the
children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites,” &c, Obadiah
18, 19. To the same purpose speak the other Prophets. “The Lord shall
assemble the outcast of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah,” Isa. xi, 12, 13. Ezekiel received an order from God to take two
pieces of wood, and write on one, “For Judah and for the children of
Israel;” and on the other, “For Joseph and for all the house of Israel;”
and to join these two pieces of wood, that they might become one, and
designate the reunion of Judah and Israel, Ezek. xxxvii, 16. Jeremiah is
equally express: “The house of Judah shall walk with the house of
Israel; and they shall come together out of the north, to the land which
I have given for an inheritance to their fathers,” Jer. iii, 18. See
also Jer. xxxi, 7–9, 16, 17, 20; xvi, 15; xlix, 2, &c; Zech. ix, 13; x,
6, 10; Micah ii, 12. In the historical books of Scripture, we find that
Israelites of the ten tribes, as well as of Judah and Benjamin, returned
from the captivity. Among those that returned with Zerubbabel are
reckoned some of Ephraim and Manasseh, who settled at Jerusalem with the
tribe of Judah. When Ezra numbered those who returned from the
captivity, he only inquired whether they were of the race of Israel; and
at the first passover which was then celebrated in the temple, was a
sacrifice of twelve he-goats for the whole house of Israel, according to
the number of the tribes, Ezra vi, 16, 17; viii, 35. Under the
Maccabees, and in our Saviour’s time, we see Palestine peopled by
Israelites of all the tribes indifferently. The Samaritan Chronicle
asserts that in the thirty-fifth year of the pontificate of Abdelus,
three thousand Israelites, by permission of King Sauredius, returned
from captivity, under the conduct of Adus, son of Simon.

CAPTIVITIES OF JUDAH. The captivities of Judah are generally reckoned
four: the first, in the year of the world 3398, under King Jehoiakim,
when Daniel and others were carried to Babylon; the second, in the year
of the world 3401, and in the seventh year of the reign of Jehoiakim,
when Nebuchadnezzar carried three thousand and twenty-three Jews to
Babylon; the third, in the year of the world 3406, and in the fourth of
Jehoiachin, when this prince, with part of his people, was sent to
Babylon; and the fourth in the year 3416, under Zedekiah, from which
period begins the captivity of seventy years, foretold by the Prophet
Jeremiah. Dr. Hales computes that the first of these captivities, which
he thinks formed the commencement of the Babylonish captivity, took
place in the year before Christ 605. The Jews were removed to Babylon by
Nebuchadnezzar, who, designing to render that city the capital of the
east, transplanted thither very great numbers of people, subdued by him
in different countries. In Babylon the Jews had judges and elders, who
governed them, and who decided matters in dispute juridically, according
to their laws. Of this we see a proof in the story of Susanna, who was
condemned by elders of her own nation. Cyrus, in the year of the world
3457, and in the first year of his reign at Babylon, permitted the Jews
to return to their own country, Ezra i, 1. However, they did not obtain
leave to rebuild the temple; and the completion of those prophecies
which foretold the termination of their captivity after seventy years,
was not till the year of the world 3486. In that year, Darius Hystaspes,
by an edict, allowed them to rebuild the temple. In the year of the
world 3537, Artaxerxes Longimanus sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem. The Jews
assert that only the refuse of their nation returned from the captivity,
and that the principal of them continued in and near Babylon, where they
had been settled, and where they became very numerous. It may, however,
be doubted whether the refuse of Judah was really carried to Babylon. It
appears from incidental observations in Scripture that some remained;
and Major Rennell has offered several reasons for believing that only
certain classes of the Jews were deported to Babylon, as well as into
Assyria. Nebuchadnezzar carried away only the principal inhabitants, the
warriors, and artisans of every kind; and he left the husbandmen, the
labourers, and in general, the poorer classes, that constitute the great
body of the people.

CARAITES, or KARÆITES, an ancient Jewish sect. The name signifies
_Textualists_, or _Scripturists_, and was originally given to the school
of Shammai, (about thirty years or more before Christ,) because they
rejected the traditions of the elders, as embraced by the school of
Hillel and the Pharisees, and all the fanciful interpretations of the
Cabbala. They claim, however, a much higher antiquity, and produce a
catalogue of doctors up to the time of Ezra. The rabbinists have been
accustomed to call them Sadducees; but they believed in the inspiration
of the Scriptures, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment.
They believe that Messiah is not yet come, and reject all calculations
of the time of his appearance: yet they say, it is proper that even
every day they should receive their salvation by Messiah, the Son of
David. As to the practice of religion, they differ from the rabbinists
in the observance of the festivals, and keep the Sabbath with more
strictness. They extend their prohibition of marriage to more degrees of
affinity, and admit not of divorce on any slight or trivial grounds. The
sect of Caraites still exists, but their number is inconsiderable. They
are found chiefly in the Crimea, Lithuania, and Persia; at Damascus,
Constantinople, and Cairo. Their honesty in the Crimea is said to be
proverbial.

CARBUNCLE, ברקת, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Ezek. xxviii, 13; and
ἄνθραξ, Eccles. xxxii, 5; Tobit xiii, 17; a very elegant and rare gem,
known to the ancients by the name ἄνθραξ, or _coal_, because, when held
up before the sun, it appears like a piece of bright burning charcoal:
the name _carbunculus_ has the same meaning. It was the third stone in
the first row of the pectoral; and is mentioned among the glorious
stones of which the new Jerusalem is figuratively said to be built.
Bishop Lowth observes that the precious stones, mentioned Isa. liv, 11,
12, and Rev. xxi, 18, seem to be general images to express beauty,
magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the ideas of
the eastern nations; and to have never been intended to be strictly
scrutinized, and minutely and particularly explained, as if they had
some precise moral or spiritual meaning. Tobit, in his prophecy of the
final restoration of Israel, Tobit xii, 16,17, describes the new
Jerusalem in the same oriental manner.

CARMEL, in the southern part of Palestine, where Nabal the Carmelite,
Abigail’s husband, dwelt, Joshua xv, 55; 1 Sam. xxv.

2. CARMEL was also the name of a celebrated mountain in Palestine.
Though spoken of in general as a single mountain, it ought rather to be
considered as a mountainous region, the whole of which was known by the
name of Carmel, while to one of the hills, more elevated than the rest,
that name was usually applied by way of eminence. It had the plain of
Sharon on the south; overlooked the port of Ptolemais on the north; and
was bounded on the west by the Mediterranean sea; forming one of the
most remarkable promontories that present themselves on the shores of
that great sea. According to Volney, it is about two thousand feet in
height, and has the shape of a flattened cone. Its sides are steep and
rugged; the soil neither deep nor rich; and among the naked rocks
stinted with plants, and wild forests which it presents to the eye,
there are at present but few traces of that fertility which we are
accustomed to associate with the idea of Mount Carmel. Yet even Volney
himself acknowledges that he found among the brambles, wild vines and
olive trees, which proved that the hand of industry had once been
employed on a not ungrateful soil. Of its ancient productiveness there
can be no doubt; the etymology and ordinary application of its name
being sufficient evidence of the fact. Carmel is not only expressly
mentioned in Scripture as excelling other districts in that respect;
but, every place possessed of the same kind of excellence obtained from
it the same appellation in the language both of the prophets and the
people. Mount Carmel is celebrated in the Old Testament, as the usual
place of residence of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha. It was here that
Elijah so successfully opposed the false prophets of Baal, 1 Kings
xviii; and there is a certain part of the mountain facing the west, and
about eight miles from the point of the promontory, which the Arabs call
Mansur, and the Europeans the place of sacrifice, in commemoration of
that miraculous event. Near the same place is also still shown a cave,
in which it is said the Prophet had his residence. The brook Kishon,
which issues from Mount Tabor, waters the bottom of Carmel, and falls
into the sea toward the northern side of the mountain, and not the
southern, as some writers have erroneously stated. Its greatest
elevation is about one thousand five hundred feet; hence, when the sea
coast on one side, and the plain on the other, are oppressed with sultry
heat, this hill is refreshed by cooling breezes, and enjoys a delightful
temperature. The fastnesses of this rugged mountain are so difficult of
access, that the Prophet Amos classes them with the deeps of hell, the
height of heaven, and the bottom of the sea: “Though they dig into
hell,” (or the dark and silent chambers of the grave,) “thence shall
mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring
them down; and though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will
search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in
the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall
bite them,” Amos ix, 2, 3. Lebanon raises to heaven a summit of naked
and barren rocks, covered for the greater part of the year with snow;
but the top of Carmel, how naked and sterile soever its present
condition, was clothed with verdure which seldom was known to fade. Even
the lofty genius of Isaiah, stimulated and guided by the Spirit of
inspiration, could not find a more appropriate figure to express the
flourishing state of the Redeemer’s kingdom, than “the excellency of
Carmel and Sharon.”

CART, a machine used in Palestine to force the corn out of the ear, and
bruise the straw, Isaiah xxviii, 27, 28. The wheels of these carts were
low, broad, and shod with iron, and were drawn over the sheaves spread
on the floor by means, of oxen.

CASTOR and POLLUX. It is said that the vessel which carried Paul to Rome
had the sign of Castor and Pollux, Acts xxviii, 11. Castor and Pollux
were sea-gods, and invoked by sailors; and even the light balls or
meteors which are sometimes seen on ships, were called Castor and
Pollux. An inscription in Gruter proves that seamen implored Castor and
Pollux in dangers at sea. It is to be observed, that St. Luke does not
mention the name, but the sign, of the ship. By the word sign, the
sacred writer meant a protecting image of the deity, to whom the vessel
was in some sort consecrated; as at present in Catholic countries, most
of their vessels are named after some saint, St. Xavier, St. Andero, St.
Dominique, &c. It appears to be certain, that the figure which gave name
to the ship was at the head, and the tutelary deity was placed on the
poop.

CASUIST, one who studies and decides upon cases of conscience. Escobar
has made a collection of the opinions of all the casuists before his
time. M. Le Feore, preceptor to Louis XIII, said that the books of the
casuists taught “the art of quibbling with God;” which does not seem far
from truth, by reason of the multitude of distinctions and subtleties
with which they abound. Mayer has published a bibliotheca of casuists,
containing an account of all the writers on cases of conscience, ranged
under three heads; the first comprehending the Lutheran; the second, the
Calvinistic; and the third, the Roman casuists.

CASUISTRY, the doctrine and science of conscience and its cases, with
the rules and principles of resolving the same; drawn partly from
natural reason, or equity, and partly from the authority of Scripture,
the canon law, councils, fathers, &c. To casuistry belongs the decision
of all difficulties arising about what a man may lawfully do or not do;
what is sin or not sin; what things a man is obliged to do in order to
discharge his duty, and what he may let alone without breach of it.
Although the morality of the Gospel is distinguished by its purity and
by its elevation, it is necessarily exhibited in a general form; certain
leading principles are laid down; but the application of these to the
innumerable cases which occur in the actual intercourse of life, is left
to the understanding and the conscience of individuals. Had it been
otherwise, the Christian code would have swelled to an extent which
would have rendered it in a great degree useless; it would have been
difficult or impossible to recollect all its provisions; and, minute as
these would have been, they would still have been defective,--new
situations or combinations of circumstances modifying duty continually
arising, which it would have been impracticable or hurtful to
anticipate. When the principles of duty are rightly unfolded, and when
they are placed on a sound foundation, there is, to a fair mind, no
difficulty in accommodating them to its own particular exigencies. A few
cases, it is true, may occur, where it is a matter of doubt in what way
men should act; but these are exceedingly rare, and the lives of vast
numbers may come to an end without any of them happening to occasion
perplexity. Every man may be, and perhaps is, sensible, that his errors
are to be ascribed, not to his having been at a loss to know what he
should have done, but to his deliberately or hastily violating what he
saw to be right, or to his having allowed himself to confound, by vain
and subtile distinctions, what, in the case of any one else, would have
left in his mind no room for hesitation. The manner, however, in which
the Gospel inculcates the law of God, combined with other causes in
leading to a species of moral discussion, which, pretending to ascertain
in every case what ought to be practised, and thus to afford plain and
safe directions to the conscience, terminated in what has been
denominated casuistry.

The schoolmen delighted in this species of intellectual labour. They
transferred their zeal for the most fanciful and frivolous distinctions
in what respected the doctrines of religion to its precepts; they
anatomized the different virtues; nicely examined all the circumstances
by which our estimate of them should be influenced; and they thus
rendered the study of morality inextricable, confounded the natural
notions of right and wrong, and so accustomed themselves and others to
weigh their actions, that they could easily find some excuse for what
was most culpable, while they continued under the impression that they
were not deviating from what, as moral beings, was incumbent upon them.
The corruption of manners which was introduced into the church during
the dark ages rendered casuistry very popular; and, accordingly, many
who affected to be the most enlightened writers of their age, and
perhaps really were so, tortured their understanding or their fancy in
solving cases of conscience, and often in polluting their own
imaginations and those of others, by employing them on possible crimes,
upon which, however unlikely was their occurrence in life, they were
eager to pronounce a decision. The happy change which the Reformation
produced upon the views of men respecting the sacred Scriptures, tended
to erect that pure standard of duty which for ages had been laid in the
dust. Yet for a considerable time Protestant divines occupied themselves
with the intricacies of casuistry, thus in some degree shutting out the
light which they had fortunately poured upon the world. The Lutheran
theologians walked very much in the tract which the schoolmen had
opened, although their decisions were much more consonant with
Christianity; and it was not uncommon in some countries for
ecclesiastical assemblies to devote part of their time to the resolution
of questions which might have been safely left unnoticed, which now are
almost universally regarded as frivolous, and about which almost the
most ignorant would be ashamed to ask an opinion. Even after much of the
sophistry, and much of the moral perversion connected with casuistry,
were exploded, the form of that science was preserved, and many valuable
moral principles in conformity to it delivered. The venerable Bishop
Hall published a celebrated work, to which he gave the appellation of
“Cases of Conscience Practically resolved;” and he introduces it with
the following observations addressed to the reader: “Of all divinity,
that part is most useful which determines cases of conscience; and of
all cases of conscience, the practical are most necessary, as action is
of more concernment than speculation; and of all practical cases, those
which are of most common use are of so much greater necessity and
benefit to be resolved, as the errors thereof are more universal, and
therefore more prejudicial to the society of mankind. These I have
selected out of many; and having turned over divers casuists, have
pitched upon those decisions which I hold most conformable to
enlightened reason and religion; sometimes I follow them, and sometimes
I leave them for a better guide.” He divides his work into four
parts,--Cases of profit and traffic, Cases of life and liberty, Cases of
piety and religion, and Cases matrimonial; under each of these solving a
number of questions, or rather giving a number of moral dissertations.

Casuistry, as a systematic perversion of Christian morality, is now, in
the Protestant world, very much unknown; though there still is, and
perhaps always will be, that softening down of the strict rules of duty,
to which mankind are led either by self-deceit, or by the natural desire
of reconciling, with the hope of the divine favour, considerable
obliquity from that path of rectitude and virtue which alone is
acceptable to God. But the most striking specimen of the length to which
casuistry was carried, and of the dangerous consequences which resulted
from it, is furnished by the history of the maxims and sentiments of the
Jesuits, that celebrated order, which combined with profound literature,
and the most zealous support of Popery, an ambition that perverted their
understandings, or rather induced them to employ their rational powers
in the melancholy work of poisoning the sources of morality, and of
casting the name and the appearance of virtue over a dissoluteness of
principle and a profligacy of licentiousness, which, had they not been
checked by sounder views, and by feelings and habits favourable to
morality, would have spread through the world the most degrading misery.
See JESUITS.

CATERPILLAR. חסיל. The word occurs Deut. xxviii, 38; Psa. lxviii, 46;
Isa. xxxiii, 4; 1 Kings viii, 37; 2 Chron. vi, 28; Joel i, 4; ii, 25. In
the four last cited texts, it is distinguished from the locust, properly
so called; and in Joel i, 4, is mentioned as “eating up” what the other
species had left, and therefore might be called _the consumer_, by way
of eminence. But the ancient interpreters are far from being agreed what
particular species it signifies. The Septuagint in Chronicles, and
Aquila in Psalms, render it βροῦχος: so the Vulgate in Chronicles and
Isaiah, and Jerom in Psalms, _bruchus_, the chafer, which is a great
devourer of leaves. From the Syriac version, however, Michaëlis is
disposed to understand it the _taupe grillon_, “mole cricket,” which, in
its grub state, is very destructive to corn and other vegetables, by
feeding on their roots. See LOCUST.

CATHOLIC denotes what is general or universal. The rise of heresies
induced the primitive Christian church to assume to itself the
appellation of _catholic_, as being a characteristic to distinguish
itself from them. The Romish church now proudly assumes the title
_catholic_, in opposition to all who have separated from her communion,
and whom she considers as heretics and schismatics, while she herself
remains the only true and Christian church. The church of Christ is
called catholic, because it extends throughout the world, and endures
through all time.

2. CATHOLIC, _general_, Epistles. They are seven in number; namely, one
of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. They are called
catholic, because directed to Christian converts generally, and not to
any particular church. Hug, in his “Introduction to the New Testament,”
takes another view of the import of this term, which was certainly used
at an early period, as by Origen and others:--“When the Gospels and Acts
of the Apostles constituted one peculiar division, the works of Paul
also another, there still remained writings of different authors, which
might likewise form a collection of themselves, to which a name must be
given. It might most aptly be called _the common collection_, καθολικὸν
σύνταγμα, of the Apostles, and the treatises contained in it, κοιναὶ and
καθολικαὶ, which are commonly used by the Greeks as synonyms. For this
we find a proof even in the most ancient ecclesiastical language.
Clemens Alexandrinus calls the epistle which was despatched by the
assembly of the Apostles, Acts xv, 23, the ‘catholic epistle,’ as that
in which all the Apostles had a share, την ἐπιστολὴν καθολικὴν τῶν
Ἀποστόλων ἅπαντων. Hence our seven epistles are catholic, or epistles of
_all_ the Apostles who are authors.”

CAVES, or CAVERNS. The country of Judea, being mountainous and rocky, is
in many parts full of caverns, to which allusions frequently occur in
the Old Testament. At Engedi, in particular, there was a cave so large,
that David, with six hundred men, hid themselves in the sides of it, and
Saul entered the mouth of the cave without perceiving that any one was
there, 1 Sam. xxiv. Josephus tells us of a numerous gang of banditti,
who, having infested the country, and being pursued by Herod with his
army, retired into certain caverns, almost inaccessible, near Arbela in
Galilee, where they were with great difficulty subdued. “Beyond
Damascus,” says Strabo, “are two mountains, called Trachones, from which
the country has the name of Trachonitis; and from hence, toward Arabia
and Iturea, are certain rugged mountains, in which there are deep
caverns; one of which will hold four thousand men.” Tavernier, in his
“Travels in Persia,” speaks of a grotto between Aleppo and Bir, that
would hold near three thousand horse. And Maundrel assures us, that
“three hours distant from Sidon, about a mile from the sea, there runs
along a high rocky mountain, in the sides of which are hewn a multitude
of grottoes, all very little differing from each other. They have
entrances about two foot square. There are of these subterraneous
caverns two hundred in number. It may, with probability, at least, be
concluded that these places were contrived for the use of the living,
and not of the dead.” These extracts may be useful in explaining such
passages of Scripture as the following: “Because of the Midianites, the
children of Israel made them dens which are in the mountains, and caves,
and strong holds,” Judges vi, 2. To these they betook themselves for
refuge in times of distress and hostile invasion:--“When the men of
Israel saw that they were in a strait, for the people were distressed,
then the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in
rocks, and in high places, and in pits,” 1 Sam. xiii, 6. See also Jer.
xli, 9: “To enter into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the
earth,” became with the prophets a very proper and familiar image to
express a state of terror and consternation. Thus Isa. ii, 19: “They
shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth,
for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth
to shake terribly the earth.”

CEDAR, ארז. The cedar is a large and noble evergreen tree. Its lofty
height, and its far extended branches, afford spacious shelter and
shade, Ezek. xxxi, 3, 6, 8. The wood is very valuable; is of a reddish
colour, of an aromatic smell, and reputed incorruptible. This is owing
to its bitter taste, which the worms cannot endure, and to its resin,
which preserves it from the injuries of the weather. The ark of the
covenant, and much of the temple of Solomon, and that of Diana at
Ephesus, were built of cedar. The tree is much celebrated in Scripture.
It is called, “the glory of Lebanon,” Isa. lx, 13. On that mountain it
must in former times have flourished in great abundance. There are some
cedars still growing there which are prodigiously large. But the
travellers who have visited the place within these two or three
centuries, and who describe trees of vast size, inform us that their
number is diminished greatly; so that, as Isaiah says, “a child may
number them,” Isa. x, 19. Maundrell measured one of the largest size,
and found it to be twelve yards and six inches in girt, and yet sound;
and thirty-seven yards in the spread of its boughs. Gabriel Sionita, a
very learned Syrian Maronite, who assisted in editing the Paris
Polyglott, a man worthy of all credit, thus describes the cedars of
mount Lebanon, which he had examined on the spot: “The cedar grows on
the most elevated part of the mountain, is taller than the pine, and so
thick, that five men together could scarcely encompass one. It shoots
out its branches at ten or twelve feet from the ground: they are large
and distant from each other, and are perpetually green. The wood is of a
brown colour, very solid and incorruptible, if preserved from wet. The
tree bears a small cone like that of the pine.”

CELSUS. A Pagan philosopher of the second century, who composed a work
against Christianity, in which he so expressly refers to the facts of
the Gospels, and to the books of the New Testament, as to have furnished
important undesigned testimony to their antiquity and truth.

CEMETERY. See SEPULCHRE.

CENSER, a sacred instrument made use of in the religious rites of the
Hebrews. It was a vase which contained incense to be used in sacrifice.
When Aaron made an atonement for himself and his house, he was to take a
censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar of the Lord,
Lev. xvi, 12. And Solomon, when he provided furniture for the temple of
the Lord, made, among other things, censers of pure gold, 1 Kings vii,
50.

CENTURION, an officer in the Roman army, who, as the term indicates, had
the command of a hundred men, Matt. viii, 5, &c.

CEPHAS, Κηφᾶς, from כיפא, a _rock_. The Greek Πέτρος, and the Latin
_Petrus_, have the same signification. See PETER.

CEREMONY, an assemblage of several actions, forms, and circumstances,
serving to render a thing magnificent and solemn. Applied to religious
services, it signifies the external rites and manner in which the
ministers of religion perform their sacred functions, and direct or lead
the worship of the people. In 1646, M. Ponce, published a history of
ancient ceremonies, showing the rise, growth, and introduction of each
rite into the church, and its gradual advancement to superstition. Many
of them were borrowed from Judaism, but more from Paganism. In all
religions adapted to the nature of man there must be some positive
institutions for fixing the mind upon spiritual objects, and
counteracting that influence of material things upon habits and pursuits
which is, and must be, constantly exerted. Without such institutions,
religion might be preserved, indeed, by a few of superior understanding
and of strong powers of reflection; but among mankind in general all
trace of it would soon be lost. When the end for which they are
appointed is kept in view, and the simple examples of the New Testament
are observed, they are of vast importance to the production both of
pious feelings and of virtuous conduct; but there has constantly been a
propensity in the human race to mistake the means for the end, and to
consider themselves as moral and religious, when they scrupulously
observe what was intended to produce morality and religion. The reason
is obvious: ceremonial observances can be performed without any great
sacrifice of propensities and vices; they are palpable; when they are
observed by men who, in the tenor of public life, do not act immorally,
they are regarded by others as indicating high attainments in virtue;
and through that self-deceit which so wonderfully misleads the reason,
and inclines it to minister to the passions which it should restrain,
men have themselves become persuaded that their acknowledgment of divine
authority, implied in their respect to the ritual which that authority
is conceived to have sanctioned, may be taken as a proof that they have
nothing to apprehend from the violation of the law under which they are
placed. But, whatever be the causes of this, the fact itself is
established by the most extensive and the most incontrovertible
evidence. We find it, indeed, wherever mankind have had notions of
superior power, and of their obligation to yield obedience to the will
of the supreme Being.

Under the system of polytheism which prevailed in the most enlightened
nations previous to the publication of Christianity, this was carried so
far, that the connection between religion and morality was in a great
degree dissolved, rites and ceremonies, sacrifices and oblations, were
all that it was thought requisite to observe; when these were carefully
performed, there was no hesitation in ascribing piety to the persons who
did perform them, however deficient they might be in virtuous and pious
dispositions. Even under the Mosaical dispensation, proceeding as it
did, immediately from heaven, and adapted, as in infinite wisdom it was,
to the situation of those to whom it was given, the same evil early
began to be experienced; and although it was lamented and exposed by the
prophets, and the most enlightened men among the Jews, it was so far
from being eradicated, that it continued to acquire strength, till it
was exhibited in all its magnitude in the character prevalent among the
Pharisees at the period of Christ’s manifestation. With this highly
popular and revered class of men, religion was either merely a matter of
ceremony, or was employed, for base and interested purposes, to cast a
veil of sanctity over their actions. They said long prayers, but it was
for a show; they gave alms, but it was after they had sounded a trumpet,
that the eye of man might be fixed upon their beneficence; and, as to
the point now under review, they were most strikingly described by our
Saviour, when he said of them, “They pay tithe of mint, and anise, and
cummin, but they neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice, and
mercy, and truth.” The Christian religion not only expressly guards
against an evil which had become so prevalent, but its whole spirit is
at variance with it, its own ceremonial observances being few, and
obviously emblematical of whatever is excellent and holy. But still the
Gospel finds human nature as other religions found it; and
ecclesiastical history, even from the earliest periods, shows with what
astonishing perverseness, and with what wonderful ingenuity, men
departed from the simplicity of Christianity, and substituted in its
room the most childish, and often the most pernicious, practices and
observances. The _power_ of godliness was lost in _forms_; and the
innovations of a profane _will-worship_ became almost innumerable. The
effect was, that men regarded God as less concerned with the moral
conduct of his creatures, than with the _quantum_ of _service_ they
performed in his temples; and religion and morals were so disjoined,
that one became the substitute for the other, to the universal
corruption of the Christian world.

CERINTHIANS. Of Cerinthus, the founder of this sect, Dr. Burton gives
the following account: Cerinthus is said to have been one of those Jews
who, when St. Peter returned to Jerusalem, expostulated with him for
having baptized Cornelius, Acts xi, 2. He is also stated to have been
one of those who went down from Judea to Antioch, and said, “Except ye
be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved,” Acts xv,
1. According to the same account, he was one of the false teachers who
seduced the Galatians to Judaism; and he is also charged with joining in
the attack which was made upon St. Paul, for polluting the temple by the
introduction of Greeks, Acts xxi, 27, 28. I cannot find any older
authority for these statements than that of Epiphanius, who wrote late
in the fourth century, and is by no means worthy of implicit credit. He
asserts, also, that Cerinthus was one of the persons alluded to by St.
Luke, as having already undertaken to write the life of Jesus. But all
these stories I take to be entirely inventions; and there is no evidence
that Cerinthus made himself conspicuous at so early a period. Irenæus
speaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, as being considerably prior to
that of the Cerinthians. According to the same writer, Carpocrates also
preceded Cerinthus; and if it be true, as so many of the fathers assert,
that St. John wrote his Gospel expressly to confute this heresy, we can
hardly come to any other conclusion, than that it was late in the first
century when Cerinthus rose into notice. He appears undoubtedly to have
been a Jew; and there is evidence that, after having studied philosophy
in Egypt, he spread his doctrines in Asia Minor. This will account for
his embracing the Gnostic opinions, and for his exciting the notice of
St. John, who resided at Ephesus. He was certainly a Gnostic in his
notion of the creation of the world, which he conceived to have been
formed by angels; and his attachment to that philosophy may explain what
otherwise seems inconsistent, that he retained some of the Mosaic
ceremonies, such as the observance of Sabbaths and circumcision; though,
like other Gnostics, he ascribed the law and the prophets to the angel
who created the world. This adoption or rejection of different parts of
the same system was a peculiar feature of the Gnostic philosophy; and
the name of Cerinthus probably became eminent, because he introduced a
fresh change in the notion concerning Christ. The Gnostics, like their
leader, Simon Magus, had all of them been Docetæ, and denied the real
humanity; but Cerinthus is said to have maintained that Jesus had a real
body, and was the son of human parents, Joseph and Mary. In the other
points he agreed with the Gnostics, and believed that Christ was one of
the æons who descended on Jesus at his baptism. It is difficult to
ascertain who was the first Gnostic that introduced this opinion. Some
writers give the merit of it to Ebion; and yet it is generally said that
Cerinthus and Ebion agreed in their opinions concerning Christ, and that
Cerinthus preceded Ebion. Again Carpocrates is said to have held the
same sentiments; and he is placed by Irenæus before Cerinthus: so that
it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide the chronological
precedence of these heretics. Perhaps the safest inference to draw from
so many conflicting testimonies is this: that Carpocrates was the first
Gnostic of eminence who was not a Docetist; but that the notion of Jesus
being born of human parents was taught more explicitly and with more
success by Cerinthus. Carpocrates is reported to have been distinguished
by the gross immorality of his life; and whatever we may think of the
imputations cast upon the Gnostics in general, it seems impossible to
deny that this person, at least, professed and practised a perfect
liberty of action. There is also strong evidence that in this instance
Cerinthus followed his example.

There is a peculiar doctrine ascribed to this heretic, which, if it
originated with him, may well account for the celebrity of his name.
Cerinthus has been handed down as the first person who held the notion
of a millennium; and though the fathers undoubtedly believed that,
previous to the general resurrection, the earth would undergo a
renovation, and the just would rise to enjoy a long period of
terrestrial happiness, yet there was a marked and palpable difference
between the millennium of the fathers and that of Cerinthus. The fathers
conceived this terrestrial happiness to be perfectly pure and freed from
the imperfections of our nature; but Cerinthus is said to have promised
his followers a millennium of the grossest pleasures and the most
sensual gratifications. It is singular that all the three sources, to
which we may trace the Gnostic doctrines, might furnish some foundation
for this notion of a millennium. Thus Plato has left some speculations
concerning the “great year,” when, after the expiration of thirty-six
thousand years, the world was to be renewed, and the golden age to
return. It was the belief of the Persian magi, according to Plutarch,
that the time would come, when Ahreman, or the evil principle, would be
destroyed; when the earth would lose its impediments and inequalities,
and all mankind would be of one language, and enjoy uninterrupted
happiness. It was taught, in the Cabbala, that the world was to last six
thousand years, which would be followed by a period of rest for a
thousand years more. There appears in this an evident allusion, though
on a much grander scale, to the sabbatical years of rest. The
institution of the jubilee, and the glowing descriptions given by the
prophets of the restoration of the Jews, and the reign of the Messiah,
may have led the later Jews to some of their mystical fancies; and when
all these systems were blended together by the Gnostics, it is not
strange, if a millennium formed part of their creed long before the time
of Cerinthus. It seems probable, however, that he went much farther than
his predecessors in teaching that the millennium would consist in a
course of sensual indulgence; and it may have been his notions upon this
subject, added to those concerning the human nature of Christ, which led
him to maintain, contrary to the generality of Gnostics, that Christ had
not yet risen, but that he would rise hereafter. The Gnostics, as we
have seen, denied the resurrection altogether. Believing Jesus to be a
phantom, they did not believe that he was crucified; and they could not
therefore believe that he had risen. But Cerinthus, who held that Jesus
was born, like other human beings, found no difficulty in believing
literally that he was crucified; and he is said also to have taught that
he would rise from the dead at some future period. It is most probable
that this period was that of the millennium; and the words of St. John
in the Revelation would easily be perverted, where it is said of the
souls of the martyrs, that “they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years,” Rev. xx, 4.

CHALCEDONY, χαλκηδών, Rev. xxi, 19; a precious stone. Arethas, who has
written an account of Bithynia, says that it was so called from
Chalcedon, a city of that country, opposite to Byzantium; and it was in
colour like a carbuncle. Some have supposed this also to be the stone
called נפך, translated “emerald,” Exodus xxviii, 18.

CHALDEA, or Babylonia, the country lying on both sides of the Euphrates,
of which Babylon was the capital; and extending southward to the Persian
Gulf, and northward into Mesopotamia, at least as far as Ur, which is
called Ur of the Chaldees. This country had also the name of Shinar. See
BABYLON.

CHALDEAN PHILOSOPHY claims attention on account of its very high
antiquity. The most ancient people, next to the Hebrews, among the
eastern nations, who appear to have been acquainted with philosophy, in
its more general sense, were the Chaldeans; for though the Egyptians
have pretended that the Chaldeans were an Egyptian colony, and that they
derived their learning from Egypt, there is reason to believe that the
kingdom of Babylon, of which Chaldea was a part, flourished before the
Egyptian monarchy; and that the Egyptians were rather indebted to the
Chaldeans, than the Chaldeans to the Egyptians. Nevertheless, the
accounts that have been transmitted to us by the Chaldeans themselves,
of the antiquity of their learning, are blended with fable, and involved
in considerable uncertainty. There are other circumstances,
independently of the antiquity of the Chaldean philosophy, which render
our knowledge of it imperfect and uncertain. We derive our acquaintance
with it from other nations, and principally from the Greeks, whose
vanity led them to despise and misrepresent the pretended learning of
barbarous nations. The Chaldeans also adopted a symbolical mode of
instruction, and transmitted their doctrines to posterity under a veil
of obscurity, which it is not easy to remove. To all which, we may add
that, about the commencement of the Christian æra, a race of
philosophers sprung up, who, with a view of gaining credit to their own
wild and extravagant doctrines, passed them upon the world as the
ancient wisdom of the Chaldeans and Persians, in spurious books, which
they ascribed to Zoroaster, or some other eastern philosopher. Thus, the
fictions of these impostors were confounded with the genuine dogmas of
the ancient eastern nations. Notwithstanding these causes of
uncertainty, which perplex the researches of modern inquirers into the
distinguishing doctrines and character of the Chaldean philosophy, it
appears probable that the philosophers of Chaldea were the priests of
the Babylonian nation, who instructed the people in the principles of
religion, interpreted its laws, and conducted its ceremonies. Their
character was similar to that of the Persian magi, and they are often
confounded with them by the Greek historians. Like the priests in most
other nations, they employed religion in subserviency to the ruling
powers, and made use of imposture to serve the purposes of civil policy.
Accordingly, Diodorus Siculus relates, that they pretended to predict
future events by divination, to explain prodigies, and interpret dreams,
and to avert evils, or confer benefits, by means of augury and
incantations. For many ages, they retained a principal place among
diviners. In the reign of Marcus Antonius, when the emperor and his
army, who were perishing with thirst, were suddenly relieved by a
shower, the prodigy was ascribed to the power and skill of the Chaldean
soothsayers. Thus accredited for their miraculous powers, they
maintained their consequence in the courts of princes. The principal
instrument which they employed in support of their superstition, was
astrology. The Chaldeans were probably the first people who made regular
observations upon the heavenly bodies, and hence the appellation of
Chaldean became afterward synonymous with that of astronomer.
Nevertheless all their observations were applied to the sole purpose of
establishing the credit of judicial astrology; and they employed their
pretended skill in this art, in calculating nativities, foretelling the
weather, predicting good and bad fortune, and other practices usual with
impostors of this class. While they taught the vulgar that all human
affairs are influenced by the stars, and professed to be acquainted with
the nature and laws of their influence, and consequently to possess a
power of prying into futurity, they encouraged much idle superstition,
and many fraudulent practices. Hence other professors of these
mischievous arts were afterward called Chaldeans, and the arts
themselves were called Babylonian arts. Among the Romans these impostors
were so troublesome, that, during the time of the republic, it became
necessary to issue an edict requiring the Chaldeans, or mathematicians,
(by which latter appellation they were commonly known,) to depart from
Rome and Italy within ten days; and, afterward, under the emperors,
these soothsayers were put under the most severe interdiction.

The Chaldean philosophy, notwithstanding the obscurity that has rendered
it difficult of research, has been highly extolled, not only by the
orientals and Greeks, but by Jewish and Christian writers: but upon
recurring to authorities that are unquestionable, there seems to be
little or nothing in this branch of the barbaric philosophy which
deserves notice. The following brief detail will include the most
interesting particulars. From the testimony of Diodorus, and also from
other ancient authorities, collected by Eusebius, it appears, that the
Chaldeans believed in God, the Lord and Parent of all, by whose
providence the world is governed. From this principle sprung their
religious rites, the immediate object of which was a supposed race of
spiritual beings or demons, whose existence could not have been
imagined, without first conceiving the idea of a supreme Being, the
source of all intelligence. The belief of a supreme Deity, the fountain
of all the divinities which were supposed to preside over the several
parts of the material world, was the true origin of all religious
worship, however idolatrous, not excepting even that which consisted in
paying divine honours to the memory of dead men. Beside the supreme
Being, the Chaldeans supposed spiritual beings to exist, of several
orders; gods, demons, heroes: these they probably distributed into
subordinate classes, agreeably to their practice of theurgy or magic.
The Chaldeans, in common with the eastern nations in general, admitted
the existence of certain evil spirits, clothed in a vehicle of grosser
matter; and in subduing or counteracting these, they placed a great part
of the efficacy of their religious incantations. These doctrines were
the mysteries of the Chaldean religion, imparted only to the initiated.
Their popular religion consisted in the worship of the sun, moon,
planets, and stars, as divinities, after the general practice of the
east, Job xxxi, 27. From the religious system of the Chaldeans were
derived two arts, for which they were long celebrated; namely, magic and
astrology. Their magic, which should not be confounded with witchcraft,
or a supposed intercourse with evil spirits, consisted in the
performance of certain religious ceremonies or incantations, which were
supposed, by the interposition of good demons, to produce supernatural
effects. Their astrology was founded upon the chimerical principle, that
the stars have an influence, either beneficial or malignant, upon the
affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made the certain ground of
prediction, in particular cases; and the whole art consisted in applying
astronomical observations to this fanciful purpose, and thus imposing
upon the credulity of the vulgar.

CHAMBER. See UPPER ROOM.

CHAPTERS. The New Testament was early portioned out into certain
divisions, which appear under various names. The custom of reading it
publicly in the Christian assemblies after the law and the prophets,
would soon cause such divisions to be applied to it. The law and the
prophets were for this end already divided into _parashim_ and
_haptaroth_, and the New Testament could not long remain without being
treated in the same way. The distribution into church lessons was indeed
the oldest that took place in it. The Christian teachers gave the name
of _pericopes_, to the sections read as lessons by the Jews. Justin
Martyr avails himself of this expression, when he quotes prophetical
passages. Such is the case also in Clemens of Alexandria; but this
writer also gives the name of ϖερικόπαι to larger sections of the
Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles. _Pericopes_ therefore were nothing else
but ἀναγνώσματα, church lessons, or sections of the New Testament, which
were read in the assemblies after Moses and the Prophets. In the third
century another division also into κεφαλαία occurs. Dionysius of
Alexandria speaks of them in reference to the Apocalypse, and the
controversies respecting it. Some, says he, went through the whole book,
from chapter to chapter, to show that it bore no sense. In the fifth
century Euthalius produced again a division into chapters, which was
accounted his invention. He himself however lays claim to nothing more
than having composed τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἐκθεσίν, the summaries of the
contents of the chapters in the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic
Epistles. In the Epistles of St. Paul, not even these are his property;
but they are derived “from one of the wisest of the fathers, and
worshippers of Christ,” as he himself says, and he only incorporated
them into his stichometrical edition of the New Testament. The chapters
must, therefore, have been in existence before Euthalius, if the father
whom he mentions composed notices of their contents. But how old they
are cannot easily be known. The Euthalian κεφαλαία are distinguished
from the _pericopes_, or reading portions, by their extent. The Jews had
divided the law into fifty-three _parashim_, according to the number of
the Sabbaths, taking into account the leap year. Nearly so distributed
were the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul’s and the Catholic Epistles,
according to the Alexandrine ritual, which Euthalius follows in his
stichometrical edition, namely, into fifty-six _pericopes_; three more
than the number of κουριάκαι ἡμέραι, Sundays, probably for three
festivals, which might be observed at Christmas, Easter, and
Whitsuntide. The Gospels too had naturally in the same way many
_pericopes_. Such in older times was the practice in Asia also; for
Justin says, that the believers there assemble themselves for prayer and
reading on Sunday only, ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμερᾷ. Since then the whole New
Testament was distributed into so few sections, these must necessarily
have been great, and a _pericope_ in Euthalius sometimes includes in it
four, five, and even six chapters. We have spoken hitherto only of the
chapters of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. In the Gospels
there occur to us κεφαλαία of two sorts, the greater and the lesser. The
lesser are the Ammonian which Eusebius rejected, after which he composed
his ten canons in order to point out in the Monotessaron of Ammonius the
respective contents of every Evangelist. He has explained himself in the
Epistle to Carpianus on their use, and on the formation of his ten
canons, where he names his sections sometimes κεφαλαία, sometimes
ϖερικόπαι. Matthew has three hundred and fifty-five of these, Mark two
hundred and thirty-six, Luke three hundred and forty-two, and John two
hundred and thirty-two. The other chapters are independent of these,
which from their extent are also named the greater. Of these, Matthew
contains sixty-eight, Mark forty-nine, Luke eighty-three, and John only
eighteen. There are but very few manuscripts which have not both of them
together. As to the church lessons, to come back to them once more,
various alterations took place in them. As the festival days multiplied,
the old division could no longer subsist, and in many churches the
_pericopes_ were shortened. At last as the ritual of ceremonies was
enlarged, only certain portions were extracted from the Gospels, the
Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, which sometimes were very short.
A codex of this sort was termed ἐκλογάδιον; in reference to the Gospels
alone, εὐαγγελιϛάριον; and in respect to the other books, ϖραξαπόϛολος.
This seems to have taken place among the Latins much earlier than among
the Greeks. There are perfectly credible testimonies, which establish
such an arrangement among the former at the middle of the fifth century,
at which date nothing of the kind is perceptible among the latter. The
expression, ϖραξαπόϛολος, appears indeed frequently in the Typicum of
St. Sabas, who died in the beginning of the fifth century. But the
Greeks do not disavow, that this Typicum or monastic ritual was not by
himself, that it perished in the invasions of the barbarians, and was
composed anew by John of Damascus, with references _memoriter_, [from
memory,] to that of Sabas. He lived toward the middle of the eighth
century, and with an earlier notice of lectionaries among the Greeks we
are not acquainted. Finally, our present chapters come, as it is well
known, from Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher, who in the twelfth century
composed a concordance, and to this end distributed the Bible according
to his own discretion into smaller portions. They are now moreover
generally admitted in the editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The
verses, however, are from Robert Stephens, who first introduced them in
his edition of the New Testament, A. D. 1551. His son, Henry Stephens,
was the first to record this for the information of posterity, in the
preface to his Greek Concordance to the New Testament; in which he says,
that two facts connected with it equally demand our admiration: “The
first is, that my father, while travelling from Paris to Lyons, finished
this division of each chapter into verses, and indeed the greater part
of it [_inter equitandum_] when riding on his horse. The second fact is,
that, a short time prior to this journey, while he had the matter still
in contemplation, almost all those to whom he mentioned it told him
plainly that he was an indiscreet man, as though he had a wish to spend
his time and labour on an affair which would prove utterly useless, and
which would not obtain for him any commendation, but, on the contrary,
would expose him to much ridicule. But behold the result: in opposition
to the opinion which condemned and discountenanced my father’s
undertaking, as soon as his invention was published, every edition of
the New Testament, whether in the Greek, Latin, French, German, or in
any other language, which did not adopt it, was immediately discarded.”
It perhaps will not be unedifying to add, that this passage has yielded
mankind another proof that LEARNING is not always synonymous with
WISDOM: for the phrase respecting riding, which occurs in it, has
furnished matter of warm dispute to literary men; some of them
contending that _inter equitandum_ means, that Robert Stephens performed
the greater part of his task while actually on horseback; but others,
giving a more extended construction to the expression, assert that he
was engaged in this occupation only when stopping for refreshment at
inns on the road. Though the first interpretation would probably obtain
the greatest number of suffrages from really learned and impartial men;
yet it is quite sufficient for mankind to know, in either way, that this
division into verses was completed in the course of that journey.

CHARIOTS OF WAR. The Scripture speaks of two sorts of these chariots,
one for princes and generals to ride in, the other used to break the
enemies battalions, by letting them loose armed with iron, which made
dreadful havoc among the troops. The most ancient chariots of which we
have any notice are Pharaoh’s, which were overwhelmed in the Red Sea,
Exodus xiv, 7. The Canaanites, whom Joshua engaged at the waters of
Merom, had cavalry and a multitude of chariots, Joshua xi, 4. Sisera,
the general of Jabin, king of Hazor, had nine hundred chariots of iron
in his army, Judges iv, 3. The tribe of Judah could not get possession
of all the lands of their lot, because the ancient inhabitants of the
country were strong in chariots of iron. The Philistines, in the war
carried on by them against Saul, had thirty thousand chariots and six
thousand horsemen, 1 Sam. xiii, 5. David, having taken one thousand
chariots of war from Hadadezer, king of Syria, hamstrung the horses, and
burned nine hundred chariots, reserving only one hundred to himself, 2
Sam. viii, 4. Solomon had a considerable number of chariots, but we know
of no military expedition in which they were employed, 1 Kings x, 26. As
Judea was a very mountainous country, chariots could be of no great use
there, except in the plains; and the Hebrews often evaded them by
fighting on the mountains. The kings of the Hebrews, when they went to
war, were themselves generally mounted in chariots from which they
fought, and issued their orders; and there was always a second chariot
empty, which followed each of them, that if the first was broken he
might ascend the other, 2 Chron. xxxv, 24. Chariots were sometimes
consecrated to the sun; and the Scripture observes, that Josiah burned
those which had been dedicated to the sun by his predecessors, 2 Kings
xxiii, 11. This superstitious custom was borrowed from the Heathens, and
principally from the Persians.

CHARITY, considered as a Christian grace, ought in our translation, in
order to avoid mistake, to have been translated _love_. It is the love
of God, and the love of our neighbour flowing from the love of God; and
is described with wonderful copiousness, felicity, and even grandeur, by
St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii; a portion of Scripture which, as it shows the
habitual temper of a true Christian, cannot be too frequently referred
to for self-examination, and ought to be constantly present to us as our
rule. 2. In the popular sense, charity is almsgiving; a duty of
practical Christianity which is solemnly enjoined, and to which special
promises are annexed.

CHARM. See DIVINATION.

CHEBAR, a river of Chaldea, Ezek. i, 1. It is thought to have risen near
the head of the Tigris, and to have run through Mesopotamia, to the
south-west, and emptied itself into the Euphrates.

CHEDORLAOMER, a king of the Elamites, who were either Persians, or
people bordering upon the Persians. This was one of the four
confederated kings, who made war upon the five kings of the pentapolis
of Sodom; and who, after having defeated them, and made themselves
masters of a great booty, were pursued and dispersed by Abraham, Gen.
xiv.

CHEMARIM. This word occurs only once in our version of the Bible: “I
will cut off the remnant of Baal, and the name of the Chemarims
(Chemarim) with the priests,” Zeph. i, 4; but it frequently occurs in
the Hebrew, and is generally translated “priests of the idols,” or
“priests clothed in black,” because _chamar_ signifies _blackness_. By
this word the best commentators understand the priests of false gods,
and in particular the worshippers of fire, because they were, it is
said, dressed in black. Le Clerc, however, declares against this last
opinion. Our translators of the Bible would seem sometimes to understand
by this word the idols or objects of worship, rather than their priests.
This is also the opinion of Le Clerc. Calmet observes that _camar_ in
Arabic signifies _the moon_, and that Isis is the same deity. “Among the
priests of Isis,” says Calmet, “were those called _melanephori_, that
is, wearers of black; but it is uncertain whether this name was given
them by reason of their dressing wholly in black, or because they wore a
black shining veil in the processions of this goddess.”

CHEMOSH, כמוש, an idol of the Moabites, Numbers xxi, 29. The name is
derived from a root which in Arabic signifies _to hasten_. For this
reason, many believe Chemosh to be the sun, whose precipitate course
might well procure it the name of swift. Some identify Chemosh with
Ammon; and Macrobius shows that Ammon was the sun, whose rays were
denoted by his horns. Calmet is of opinion that the god Hamanus and
Apollo Chomeus, mentioned by Strabo and Ammianus Marcellinus, was
Chamos, or the sun. These deities were worshipped in many parts of the
east. Some, from the resemblance of the Hebrew Chamos with the Greek
Comos, have thought Chamos to signify Bacchus. Jerom and most
interpreters consider Chamosh and Peor as the same deity; but some think
that Baal-Peor was Tammuz, or Adonis. To Chemosh Solomon erected an
altar upon the Mount of Olives, 1 Kings xi, 7. As to the form of the
idol Chemosh, the Scripture is silent; but if, according to Jerom, it
were like Baal-Peor, it must have been of the beeve kind; as were,
probably, all the Baals, though accompanied with various insignia. There
can be little doubt that part of the religious services performed to
Chemosh, as to Baal-Peor, consisted in revelling and drunkenness,
obscenities and impurities of the grossest kinds. From Chemosh the
Greeks seem to have derived their Κῶμος, called by the Romans _Comus_,
the god of feasting and revelling.

CHERETHIM. כרתים. Cherethim, or Cherethites, are denominations for the
Philistines: “I will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and
will cut off the Cherethim, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast,”
Ezek. xxv, 16. Zephaniah, exclaiming against the Philistines, says, “Wo
unto the inhabitants of the sea coasts, the nation of the Cherethites,”
Zeph. ii, 5. It is said, 1 Sam. xxx, 14, that the Amalekites invaded the
south of the Cherethites; that is, of the Philistines. David, and some
of the kings, his successors, had guards called Cherethites and
Pelethites, 2 Sam. xv, 18; xx, 7. Calmet thinks that they were of the
country of the Philistines; but several expositors of our own country
are of a different opinion. “We can hardly suppose,” say the latter,
“that David would employ any of these uncircumcised people as his
body-guard, or that the Israelitish soldiers would have patiently seen
foreigners of that nation advanced to such places of honour and trust.”
It may, therefore, be inferred that guards were called Cherethites,
because they went with David into Philistia, where they continued with
him all the time he was under the protection of Achish. These were the
persons who accompanied David from the first, and who remained with him
in his greatest distresses; and it is no wonder, if men of such approved
fidelity should be chosen for his body-guard. Beside, it is not uncommon
for soldiers to derive their names, not from the place of their
nativity, but of their residence.

CHERUB. כרב, plural כרבים. It appears, from Gen. iii, 29, that this is a
name given to angels; but whether it is the name of a distinct class of
celestials, or designates the same order as the seraphim, we have no
means of determining. But the term _cherubim_ generally signifies those
figures which Moses was commanded to make and place at each end of the
mercy seat, or propitiatory, and which covered the ark with expanded
wings in the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. See
Exodus xxv, 18, 19. The original meaning of the term, and the shape or
form of these, any farther than that they were _alata animata_, “winged
creatures,” is not certainly known. The word in Hebrew is sometimes
taken for a calf or ox; and Ezekiel, x, 14, sets down the face of a
cherub as synonymous to the face of an ox. The word _cherub_, in Syriac
and Chaldee, signifies to till or plough, which is the proper work of
oxen. _Cherub_ also signifies strong and powerful. Grotius says they
were figures much like that of a calf; and Bochart, likewise, thinks
that they were more like the figure of an ox than any thing beside; and
Spencer is of the same mind. But Josephus says they were extraordinary
creatures of a figure unknown to mankind. The opinion of most critics,
taken, it seems, from Ezek. i, 9, 10, is, that they were figures
composed of parts of various creatures; as a man, a lion, an ox, an
eagle. But certainly we have no decided proof that the figures placed in
the holy of holies, in the tabernacle, were of the same form with those
described by Ezekiel. The contrary, indeed, seems rather indicated,
because they looked _down_ upon the mercy seat, which is an attribute
not well adapted to a four-faced creature, like the emblematical
cherubim seen by Ezekiel.

The cherubim of the sanctuary were two in number; one at each end of the
mercy seat; which, with the ark, was placed exactly in the middle,
between the north and south sides of the tabernacle. It was here that
atonement was made, and that God was rendered propitious by the high
priest sprinkling the blood upon and before the mercy seat, Lev. xvi,
14, 15. Here the glory of God appeared, and here he met his high priest,
and by him his people, and from hence he gave forth his oracles; whence
the whole holy place was called דביר, _the oracle_. These cherubim, it
must be observed, had feet whereon they stood, 2 Chron. iii, 13; and
their feet were joined, in one continued beaten work, to the ends of the
mercy seat which covered the ark: so that they were wholly over or above
it. Those in the tabernacle were of beaten gold, being but of small
dimensions, Exod. xxv, 18; but those in the temple of Solomon were made
of the wood of the olive tree overlaid with gold; for they were very
large, extending their wings to the whole breadth of the oracle, which
was twenty cubits, 1 Kings vi, 23–28; 2 Chron. iii, 10–13. They are
called “cherubim of glory,” not merely or chiefly on account of the
matter or formation of them, but because they had the glory of God, or
the glorious symbol of his presence, “the Shekinah,” resting between
them. As this glory abode in the inward tabernacle, and as the figures
of the cherubim represented the angels who surround the manifestation of
the divine presence in the world above, that tabernacle was rendered a
fit image of the court of heaven, in which light it is considered every
where in the Epistle to the Hebrews. See chapters iv, 14; viii, 1; ix,
8, 9, 23, 24; xii, 22, 23.

The cherubim, it is true, have been considered by the disciples of Mr.
Hutchinson as designed emblems of Jehovah himself, or rather of the
Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, with man taken into the divine
essence. But that God, who is a pure Spirit, without parts or passions,
perfectly separate and remote from all matter, should command Moses to
make material and visible images or emblematical representations of
himself, is utterly improbable: especially, considering that he had
repeatedly, expressly, and solemnly forbidden every thing of this kind
in the second commandment of the moral law, delivered from Mount Sinai,
amidst thunder and lightning, “blackness, darkness, and tempest,”
pronouncing with an audible and awful voice, while “the whole mount
quaked greatly, and the sound of the trumpet waxed louder and louder,
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor the likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water
under the earth.” Hence the solemn caution of Moses, Deut. iv, 15, &c:
“Take ye good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude
on the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the
fire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the
similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, of any beast
that is on the earth, of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, of any
thing that creepeth on the ground, of any fish that is in the waters.”
Hence God’s demand by his prophet: “To what will ye liken me, or shall I
be equal, saith the Holy One?” And hence the censure of the inspired
penman, Psalm cvi, 20: “They changed their glory into the similitude of
an ox that eateth grass.” Add to this, that in most or all of the places
where the cherubim are mentioned in the Scriptures, God is expressly
distinguished from them. Thus, “He,” the Lord, “placed at the east of
the garden cherubim, and a flaming sword,” Gen. iii, 24. “He rode on a
cherub and did fly,” Psalm xviii, 10. “He sitteth between the cherubim,”
Psalm xcix, 1. “He dwelleth between the cherubim,” Psalm lxxx, 1. We
also read of “the glory of the God of Israel going up, from the cherub
whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house,” Ezek. ix, 3. And
again, “The glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and the court was
full of the brightness of the Lord’s glory,” Ezek. x, 4. And again, “The
glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold, and stood over the
cherubim,” Ezek. x, 18. In all these passages the glory of the Lord,
that is, the Shekinah, the glorious symbol of his presence, is
distinguished from the cherubim; and not the least intimation is given
in these passages, or any others, of the Scripture, that the cherubim
were images or emblematical representations of him. Mr. Parkhurst’s
laborious effort to establish Mr. Hutchinson’s opinion on the subject of
the cherubim, in his Hebrew Lexicon, _sub voce_, is so obviously
fanciful and contradictory, that few will be converted to this strange
opinion. It seems much more probable that, as most eminent divines have
supposed, the cherubim represented the angels who surround the divine
presence in heaven. Accordingly, they had their faces turned toward the
mercy seat, where God was supposed to dwell, whose glory the angels in
heaven always behold, and upon which their eyes are continually fixed;
as they are also upon Christ, the true propitiatory, which mystery of
redemption they “desire,” St. Peter tells us, “to look into,” 1 Peter i,
12: a circumstance evidently signified by the faces of the cherubim
being turned inward, and their eyes fixed on the mercy seat. We may here
also observe that, allowing St. Peter in this passage to allude to the
cherubic figures, which, from his mode of expression, can scarcely be
doubted, this amounts to a strong presumption that the cherubim
represented, not so much one order, as “the angels” in general, all of
whom are said to “desire to look into” the subjects of human redemption,
and to all whose orders, “the principalities and powers in heavenly
places, the manifold wisdom of God is made known by the church.” In
Ezekiel, the cherubic figures are evidently connected with the
dispensations of providence; and they have therefore appropriate forms,
emblematical of the strength, wisdom, swiftness, and constancy, with
which the holy angels minister in carrying on God’s designs: but in the
sanctuary they are connected with the administration of grace; and they
are rather adoring beholders, than actors, and probably appeared under
forms more simple. As to the living creatures, improperly rendered
“beasts” in our translation, Rev. iv, 7, some think them a
hieroglyphical representation, not of the qualities of angels, but of
those of real Christians; especially of those in the suffering and
active periods of the church. The first a lion, signifying their
undaunted courage, manifested in meeting with confidence the greatest
sufferings; the second a calf or ox, emblematical of unwearied patience;
the third with the face of a man representing prudence and compassion;
the fourth a flying eagle, signifying activity and vigour. The four
qualities thus emblematically set forth in these four living creatures,
namely, undaunted courage, unwearied patience under sufferings, prudence
united with kindness, and vigorous activity, are found, more or less, in
the true members of Christ’s church in every age and nation. But others
have imagined that this representation might be intended to intimate
also that these qualities would especially prevail in succeeding ages of
the church, in the order in which they are here placed: that is, that in
the first age true Christians would be eminent for the courage,
fortitude, and success, wherewith they should spread the Gospel; that in
the next age they would manifest remarkable patience in bearing
persecution, when they should be “killed all the day,” like calves or
oxen appointed for the slaughter; that in the subsequent age or ages,
when the storms of persecution were blown over, and Christianity was
generally spread through the whole Roman empire, knowledge and wisdom,
piety and virtue, should increase, and the church should wear the face
of a man, and excel in prudence, humanity, love, and good works; and
that in ages still later, being reformed from various corruptions in
doctrine and practice, and full of vigour and activity, it should carry
the Gospel, as upon the wings of a flying eagle, to the remotest nations
under heaven, “to every kindred, and tongue, and people.” This is a
thought which deserves some consideration. The four great monarchies of
the earth had their prophetic emblems, taken both from metals and from
beasts and birds; and it is not unreasonable to look for prophetic
emblems of the one kingdom of Christ, in its varied and successive
states. Perhaps, however, the most reasonable conclusion is, that, like
the “living creatures” in the vision of Ezekiel, they are emblematical
of the ministrations of angels in what pertains to those providential
events which more particularly concern the church.

CHESNUT TREE, ערמון. This tree, which is mentioned only in Gen. xxx, 37,
and Ezek. xxxi, 8, is by the Septuagint and Jerom rendered _plane tree_;
and Drusius, Hiller, and most of the modern interpreters render it the
same. The name is derived from a root which signifies _nakedness_; and
it is often observed of the plane tree that the bark peels off from the
trunk, leaving it naked, which peculiarity may have been the occasion of
its Hebrew name. The son of Sirach says, “I grew up as a plane tree by
the water,” Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14.

CHILD. Mothers, in the earliest times, suckled their offspring
themselves, and that from thirty to thirty-six months. The day when the
child was weaned was made a festival, Gen. xxi, 8; Exod. ii, 7, 9; 1
Sam. i, 22–24; 2 Chron. xxxi, 16; 2 Mac. vii, 27, 28; Matt, xxi, 16.
Nurses were employed, in case the mother died before the child was old
enough to be weaned, and when from any circumstances she was unable to
afford a sufficient supply of milk for its nourishment. In later ages,
when matrons had become more delicate, and thought themselves too infirm
to fulfil the duties which naturally devolved upon them, nurses were
employed to take their place, and were reckoned among the principal
members of the family. They are, accordingly, in consequence of the
respectable station which they sustained, frequently mentioned in sacred
history, Gen. xxxv, 8; 2 Kings xi, 2; 2 Chron. xxii, 11. The sons
remained till the fifth year in the care of the women; they then came
into the father’s hands, and were taught not only the arts and duties of
life, but were instructed in the Mosaic law, and in all parts of their
country’s religion, Deut, vi, 20–25; vii, 19; xi, 19. Those who wished
to have them farther instructed, provided they did not deem it
preferable to employ private teachers, sent them away to some priest or
Levite, who sometimes had a number of other children to instruct. It
appears from 1 Sam. i, 24–28, that there was a school near the holy
tabernacle, dedicated to the instruction of youth. There had been many
other schools of this kind, which had fallen into decay, but were
restored again by the Prophet Samuel; after whose time, the members of
the seminaries in question, who were denominated by way of distinction
“the sons of the prophets,” acquired no little notoriety. Daughters
rarely departed from the apartments appropriated to the females, except
when they went out with an urn to draw water. They spent their time in
learning those domestic and other arts, which are befitting a woman’s
situation and character, till they arrived at that period in life when
they were to be sold, or, by a better fortune, given away in marriage,
Prov. xxxi, 13; 2 Sam. xiii, 7.

2. In Scripture, disciples are often called children or sons, Solomon,
in his Proverbs, says,to his disciple, “Hear, my son.” The descendants
of a man, how remote soever, are denominated his sons or children; as
“the children of Edom,” “the children of Moab,” “the children of
Israel.” Such expressions as “the children of light,” “the children of
darkness,” “the children of the kingdom,” signify those who follow
truth, those who remain in error, and those who belong to the church.
Persons arrived at almost the age of maturity are sometimes called
“children.” Thus, Joseph is termed “the child,” though he was at least
sixteen years old, Gen. xxxvii, 30; and Benjamin, even when above
thirty, was so denominated, xliv, 20. By the Jewish law, children were
reckoned the property of their parents, who could sell them for seven
years to pay their debts. Their creditors had also the power of
compelling them to resort to this measure. The poor woman, whose oil
Elisha increased so much as enabled her to pay her husband’s debts,
complained to the prophet, that, her husband being dead, the creditor
was come to take away her two sons to be bondmen, 2 Kings iv, 1.
“Children, or sons of God,” is a name by which the angels are sometimes
described: “There was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord,” Job i, 6; ii, 1. Good men, in opposition to
the wicked, are also thus denominated; the children of Seth’s family, in
opposition to those of Cain: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men,”
Gen. vi, 2. Judges, magistrates, priests, are also termed children of
God: “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are the children of the
Most High,” Psa. lxxxii, 6. The Israelites are called “sons of God,” in
opposition to the Gentiles, Hosea i, 10; John xi, 52. In the New
Testament, believers are commonly called “children of God” by virtue of
their adoption. St. Paul, in several places, extols the advantages of
being adopted sons of God, Rom. viii, 14; Gal. iii, 26. “Children, or
sons of men,” is a name given to Cain’s family before the deluge, and,
in particular, to the giants who were violent men, and had corrupted
their ways. Afterward, the impious Israelites were thus called: “O ye
sons of men, how long will ye love vanity?” Psa. iv, 2. “The sons of
men, whose teeth are spears and arrows,” lvii, 4.

CHILD BIRTH. In oriental countries child birth is not an event of much
difficulty; and mothers at such a season were originally the only
assistants of their daughters, as any farther aid was deemed
unnecessary, Exod. i, 19. In cases of more than ordinary difficulty,
those matrons who had acquired some celebrity for skill and expertness
on occasions of this kind, were invited in; and in this way there
eventually rose into notice that class of women denominated midwives.
The child was no sooner born, than it was washed in a bath, rubbed with
salt, and wrapped in swaddling clothes, החתל, Ezek. xvi, 4. It was the
custom at a very ancient period, for the father, while music in the mean
while was heard to sound, to clasp the new born child to his bosom, and
by this ceremony was understood to declare it to be his own, Gen. l, 23;
Job iii, 12; Psa. xxii, 11. This practice was imitated by those wives
who adopted the children of their maids, Gen. xvi, 2; xxx, 3–5. The
birth day of a son, especially, was made a festival, and on each
successive year was celebrated with renewed demonstrations of festivity
and joy, Gen. xl, 20; Job i, 4; Matt. xiv, 6. The messenger, who brought
the news of the birth of a son, was received with joy, and rewarded with
presents, Job iii, 3; Jer. xx, 15. This is the case at the present day
in Persia.

CHISLEU, the third month of the Jewish civil year, and the ninth of
their sacred, answering to our November and December, Nehem. i, 1. It
contains thirty days.

CHITTIM, the country, or countries, implied by this name in Scripture,
are variously interpreted by historians and commentators. Chittim has
been taken, by Hales and Lowth, for all the coasts and islands of the
Mediterranean; which appears most consonant with the general use of the
word by the different inspired writers.

CHRIST, an appellation synonymous with Messiah. The word Χριϛὸς,
signifies _anointed_, from χρίω, _I anoint_. Sometimes the word Christ
is used singly, by way of _autonomasis_, to denote a person sent from
God, as an anointed prophet, king, or priest. “Christ,” says Lactantius,
“is no proper name, but one denoting power; for the Jews used to give
this appellation to their kings, calling them Christ, or anointed, by
reason of their sacred unction.” But he adds, “The Heathens, by mistake,
call Jesus Christ, Chrestus.” Accordingly, Suetonius, speaking of
Claudius, and of his expelling the Jews from Rome, says that “he
banished them because they were continually promoting tumults, under the
influence of one Chrestus:” “_Judæos, impulsore Chresto, assiduè
tumultuantes, Româ expulit_,” taking Christ to be a proper name. The
names of Messiah and Christ were originally derived from the ceremony of
anointing, by which the kings and the high priests of God’s people, and
sometimes the prophets, 1 Kings xix, 16, were consecrated and admitted
to the exercise of their functions; for all these functions were
accounted holy among the Israelites. But the most eminent application of
the word is to that illustrious personage, typified and predicted from
the beginning, who is described by the prophets, under the character of
God’s Anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. As to the use of the term in
the New Testament, were we to judge by the common version, or even by
most versions into modern tongues, we should receive it rather as a
proper name, than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of
it only as our Lord’s surname. To this mistake our translators have
contributed, by too seldom prefixing the article before Christ. The word
Christ was at first as much an appellative as the word Baptist, and the
one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our
translators, who would always say “the Baptist,” have, it should seem,
studiously avoided saying “the Christ.” The article, in such expressions
as occur in Acts xvii, 3; xviii, 5, 28, adds considerable light to them,
and yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey
to every reader who understands his language. It should therefore be,
“Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,” or the Messiah,
&c. Many other similar instances occur. Should it be asked, Is the word
Christ never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but
always as having a direct reference to the office or dignity? it may be
replied, that this word came at length, from the frequency of
application to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a
proper name. It would also very much accelerate this effect, that the
name Jesus was common among the Jews at that time, and this rendered an
addition necessary for distinguishing the person. To this purpose,
Grotius remarks, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much
dropped, and Christ, which had never been used before as the proper name
of any person, and was, for that reason, a better distinction, was
substituted for it; insomuch that, among the Heathens, our Lord came to
be more known by the latter than by the former. This use seems to have
begun soon after his ascension. During his life, it does not appear that
the word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from
several passages of the Gospels. The evangelists wrote some years after
the period above mentioned; and therefore they adopted the practice
common among Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a
surname for the sake of distinction. See Matt. i, 1, 18; Mark i, 1.

CHRISTIAN, a follower of the religion of Christ. It is probable that the
name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the
disciples of our Lord in reproach or contempt. What confirms this
opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts xi, 26, where they
were first called Christians, are observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and
Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have
indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves;
others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of
which cases surely we should have met with it in the subsequent history
of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written
some years after; whereas it is found but in two more places in the New
Testament, Acts xxvi, 28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Pet. iv,
16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed upon them
by their enemies. The word used, Acts xi, 26, signifies simply to be
called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take it to _imply_
a divine appointment, they disregard the _usus loquendi_ [established
acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The
words of Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero,
are remarkable, “_vulgus Christianos appellabat_,” “the vulgar called
them Christians.” Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans,
either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more probable,
from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated
Christians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given
reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to
Christ, and they soon generally assumed it.

CHRISTIANITY, the religion of Christians. By Christianity is here meant,
not that religious system as it may be understood and set forth in any
particular society calling itself Christian; but as it is contained in
the sacred books acknowledged by all these societies, or churches, and
which contained the only authorized rule of faith and practice.

2. The lofty profession which Christianity makes as a religion, and the
promises it holds forth to mankind, entitle it to the most serious
consideration of all. For it may in truth be said, that no other
religion presents itself under aspects so sublime, or such as are
calculated to awaken desires and hopes so enlarged and magnificent. It
not only professes to be from God, but to have been taught to men by the
Son of God incarnate in our nature, the Second Person in the adorable
trinity of divine Persons, “the same in substance, equal in power and
glory.” It declares that this divine personage is the appointed Redeemer
of mankind from sin, death, and misery; that he was announced as such to
our first parents upon their lapse from the innocence and blessedness of
their primeval state; that he was exhibited to the faith and hope of the
patriarchs in express promises; and, by the institution of sacrifices,
as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that man
might be reconciled to God through Him, and restored to his forfeited
inheritance of eternal life. It represents all former dispensations of
true religion, all revelations of God’s will, and all promises of grace
from God to man, as emanating from the anticipated sacrifice and
sacerdotal intercession of its Author, and as all preparatory to the
introduction of his perfect religion; and that as to the great political
movements among the nations of antiquity, the rise and fall of empires
were all either remotely or proximately connected with the designs of
his advent among men. It professes to have completed the former
revelations of God’s will and purposes; to have accomplished ancient
prophecies; fulfilled ancient types; and taken up the glory of the
Mosaic religion into its own “glory that excelleth;” and to contain
within itself a perfect system of faith, morals, and acceptable worship.
It not only exhibits so effectual a sacrifice for sin, that remission of
all offences against God flows from its merits to all who heartily
confide in it; but it proclaims itself to be a remedy for all the moral
disorders of our fallen nature; it casts out every vice, implants every
virtue, and restores man to “the image of God in which he was created,”
even to “righteousness and true holiness.”

3. Its promises both to individuals and to society are of the largest
kind. It represents its Founder as now exercising the office of the High
Priest of the human race before God, and as having sat down at his right
hand, a mediatorial and reconciling government being committed to him,
until he shall come to judge all nations, and distribute the rewards of
eternity to his followers, and inflict its never-terminating punishments
upon those who reject him. By virtue of this constitution of things, it
promises pardon to the guilty, of every age and country, who seek it in
penitence and prayer, comfort to the afflicted and troubled, victory
over the fear of death, a happy intermediate state to the disembodied
spirit, and finally the resurrection of the body from the dead, and
honour and immortality to be conferred upon the whole man glorified in
the immediate presence of God. It holds out the loftiest hopes also as
to the world at large. It promises to introduce harmony among families
and nations, to terminate all wars and all oppressions, and ultimately
to fill the world with truth, order, and purity. It represents the
present and past state of society, as in contest with its own principles
of justice, mercy, and truth; but teaches the final triumph of the
latter over every thing contrary to itself. It exhibits the ambition,
the policy, and the restlessness of statesmen and warriors, as but the
overruled instruments by which it is working out its own purposes of
wisdom and benevolence; and it not only defies the proudest array of
human power, but professes to subordinate it by a secret and
irresistible working to its own designs. Finally, it exhibits itself as
enlarging its plans, and completing its designs, by moral suasion, the
evidence of its truth, and the secret divine influence which accompanies
it. Such are the professions and promises of Christianity, a religion
which enters into no compromise with other systems; which represents
itself as the only religion now in the world having God for its author;
and in his name; and by the hope of his mercy, and the terrors of his
frown, it commands the obedience of faith to all people to whom it is
published upon the solemn sanction, “He that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned.”

4. Corresponding with these professions, which throw every other
religion that pretends to offer hope to man into utter insignificance,
it is allowed that the evidences of its truth ought to be adequate to
sustain the weight of so vast a fabric, and that men have a right to
know that they are not deluded with a grand and impressive theory, but
are receiving from this professed system of truth and salvation “the
true sayings of God.” Such evidence it has afforded in its splendid
train of miracles; in its numerous appeals to the fulfilment of ancient
PROPHECIES; in its own powerful INTERNAL EVIDENCE; in the INFLUENCE
which it has always exercised, and continues to exert, upon the
happiness of mankind; and in various collateral circumstances. Under the
heads of _Miracles_ and _Prophecy_, those important branches of evidence
will be discussed, and to them the reader is referred. It is only
necessary here to say, that the miracles to which Christianity appeals
as proofs of its divine authority, are not only those which were wrought
by Christ and his Apostles, but also those which took place among the
patriarchs, under the law of Moses, and by the ministry of the Prophets;
for the religion of those ancient times was but Christianity in its
antecedent revelations. All these miracles, therefore, must be taken
collectively, and present attestations of the loftiest kind, as being
manifestly the work of the “finger of God,” wrought under circumstances
which precluded mistake, and exhibiting an immense variety, from the
staying of the very wheels of the planetary system,--as when the sun and
moon paused in their course, and the shadow on the dial of Ahaz went
backward,--to the supernatural changes wrought upon the elements of
matter, the healing of incurable diseases, the expulsion of tormenting
demons, and the raising of the dead. Magnificent as this array of
miracles is, it is equalled by the prophetic evidence, founded upon the
acknowledged principle, that future and distant contingencies can only
be known to that Being, one of whose attributes is an absolute
prescience. And here, too, the variety and the grandeur presented by the
prophetic scheme exhibit attestations to the truth of Christianity
suited to its great claims and its elevated character. Within the range
of prophetic vision all time is included, to the final consummation of
all things; and the greatest as well as the smallest events are seen
with equal distinctness, from the subversion of mighty empires and
gigantic cities, to the parting of the raiment of our Lord, and the
casting of the lot for his robe by the Roman guard stationed at his
cross.

5. These subjects are discussed under the articles assigned to them; as
also the INTERNAL EVIDENCE of the truth of Christianity, which arises
from the excellence and beneficial tendency of its doctrines. Of its
just and sublime conceptions and exhibitions of the divine character; of
the truth of that view of the moral state of man upon which its
disciplinary treatment is founded; of the correspondence that there is
between its views of man’s mixed relation to God as a sinful creature,
and yet pitied and cared for, and that actual mixture of good and evil,
penalty and forbearance, which the condition of the world presents; of
the connection of its doctrine of atonement with hope; of the adaptation
of its doctrine of divine influence to the moral condition of mankind
when rightly understood, and the affecting benevolence and condescension
which it implies; and of its noble and sanctifying revelations of the
blessedness of a future life, much might be said:--they are subjects
indeed on which volumes have been written, and they can never be
exhausted. But we confine ourselves to the MORAL TENDENCY, and the
consequent BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE, of Christianity. No where except in the
Scriptures have we a perfect system of morals; and the deficiencies of
Pagan morality only exalt the purity, the comprehensiveness, the
practicability of ours. The character of the Being acknowledged as
supreme must always impress itself upon moral feeling and practice; the
obligation of which rests upon his will. The God of the Bible is “holy,”
without spot; “just,” without partiality; “good,” boundlessly benevolent
and beneficent; and his law is the image of himself, “holy, just, and
good.” These great moral qualities are not made known to us merely in
the abstract, so as to be comparatively feeble in their influence: but
in the person of Christ, our God, incarnate, they are seen exemplified
in action, displaying themselves amidst human relations, and the actual
circumstances of human life. With Pagans the authority of moral rules
was either the opinion of the wise, or the tradition of the ancient,
confirmed, it is true, in some degree, by observation and experience;
but to us, they are given as commands immediately issuing from the
supreme Governor, and ratified as his by the most solemn and explicit
attestations. With them many great moral principles, being indistinctly
apprehended, were matters of doubt and debate; to us, the explicit
manner in which they are given excludes both: for it cannot be
questioned, whether we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves;
to do to others as we would that they should do to us, a precept which
comprehends almost all relative morality in one plain principle; to
forgive our enemies; to love all mankind; to live righteously and
soberly, as well as godly; that magistrates must be a terror only to
evil doers, and a praise to them that do well; that subjects are to
render honour to whom honour, and tribute to whom tribute, is due; that
masters are to be just and merciful, and servants faithful and obedient.
These, and many other familiar precepts, are too explicit to be
mistaken, and too authoritative to be disputed; two of the most powerful
means of rendering law effectual. Those who never enjoyed the benefit of
revelation, never conceived justly and comprehensively of that moral
state of the heart from which right and beneficent conduct alone can
flow; and therefore when they speak of the same virtues as those
enjoined by Christianity, they are to be understood as attaching to them
a lower idea. In this the infinite superiority of Christianity displays
itself. The principle of obedience is not only a sense of duty to God,
and the fear of his displeasure; but a tender love, excited by his
infinite compassions to us in the gift of his Son, which shrinks from
offending. To this influential motive as a _reason_ of obedience, is
added another, drawn from its _end_: one not less influential, but which
Heathen moralists never knew,--the testimony that we please God,
manifested in the acceptance of our prayers, and in spiritual and
felicitous communion with him. By Christianity, impurity of thought and
desire is restrained in an equal degree as are their overt acts in the
lips and conduct. Humanity, meekness, gentleness, placability,
disinterestedness, and charity are all as clearly and solemnly enjoined
as the grosser vices are prohibited; and on the unruly tongue itself is
impressed “the law of kindness.” Nor are the injunctions feeble; they
are strictly LAW, and not mere advice and recommendations: “Without
holiness no man shall see the Lord;” and thus our entrance into heaven,
and our escape from perdition, are made to depend upon this preparation
of mind. To all this is added possibility, nay certainty, of attainment,
if we use the appointed means. A Pagan could draw, though not with lines
so perfect, a _beau ideal_ of virtue, which he never thought attainable;
but the “full assurance of hope” is given by the religion of Christ to
all who are seeking the moral renovation of their nature; because “it is
God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

6. When such is the moral nature of Christianity, how obvious is it that
its tendency both as to individuals and to society must be in the
highest sense beneficial! From every passion which wastes, and burns,
and frets, and enfeebles the spirit, the individual is set free, and his
inward peace renders his obedience cheerful and voluntary: and we might
appeal to infidels themselves, whether, if the moral principles of the
Gospel were wrought into the hearts, and embodied in the conduct, of all
men, the world would not be happy; whether if governments ruled, and
subjects obeyed, by the laws of Christ; whether if the rules of strict
justice which are enjoined upon us regulated all the transactions of
men, and all that mercy to the distressed which we are taught to feel
and to practise came into operation; and whether, if the precepts which
delineate and enforce the duties of husbands, wives, masters, servants,
parents, children, did, in fact, fully and generally govern all these
relations,--whether a better age than that called _golden_ by the poets,
would not then be realized, and Virgil’s

            _Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna_,
            [Now Astraea returns, and the Saturnian reign,]

be far too weak to express the mighty change? [It was in the reign of
Saturn that the Heathen poets fixed the golden age. At that period,
according to them, Astraea, (the goddess of justice,) and many other
deities lived on earth; but being offended with the wickedness of men,
they successively fled to heaven. Astraea staid longest, but at last
retired to her native seat, and was translated into the sign Virgo, next
to Libra, who holds her balance. Such is the tendency of Christianity.
On immense numbers of individuals it has superinduced these moral
changes; all nations, where it has been fully and faithfully exhibited,
bear, amidst their remaining vices, the impress of its hallowing and
benevolent influence: it is now in active exertion in many of the
darkest and worst parts of the earth, to convey the same blessings; and
he who would arrest its progress, were he able, would quench the only
hope which remains to our world, and prove himself an enemy, not only to
himself, but to all mankind. What then, we ask, does all this prove, but
that the Scriptures are worthy of God, and propose the very ends which
rendered a revelation necessary? Of the whole system of practical
religion which it contains we may say, as of that which is embodied in
our Lord’s sermon on the mount, in the words of one, who, in a course of
sermons on that divine composition, has entered most deeply into its
spirit, and presented a most instructive delineation of the character
which it was intended to form: “Behold Christianity in its native form,
as delivered by its great Author. See a picture of God, as far as he is
imitable by man, drawn by God’s own hand. What beauty appears in the
whole! How just a symmetry! What exact proportion in every part! How
desirable is the happiness here described! How venerable, how lovely is
the holiness!” “If,” says Bishop Taylor, “wisdom, and mercy, and
justice, and simplicity, and holiness, and purity, and meekness, and
contentedness, and charity, be images of God, and rays of divinity, then
that doctrine, in which all these shine so gloriously, and in which
nothing else is ingredient, must needs be from God. If the holy Jesus
had come into the world with less splendour of power and mighty
demonstrations, yet the excellency of what he taught makes him alone fit
to be the Master of the world;” and agreeable to all this, has been its
actual influence upon mankind. Although, says Bishop Porteus,
Christianity has not always been so well understood, or so honestly
practised, as it ought to have been; although its spirit has been often
mistaken, and its precepts misapplied, yet, under all these
disadvantages, it has gradually produced a visible change in those
points which most materially concern the peace and quiet of the world.
Its beneficent spirit has spread itself through all the different
relations and modifications of life, and communicated its kindly
influence to almost every public and private concern of mankind. It has
insensibly worked itself into the inmost frame and constitution of civil
states. It has given a tinge to the complexion of their governments, to
the temper and administration of their laws. It has restrained the
spirit of the prince, and the madness of the people. It has softened the
rigours of despotism, and tamed the insolence of conquest. It has, in
some degree, taken away the edge of the sword, and thrown even over the
horrors of war a veil of mercy. It has descended into families; has
diminished the pressure of private tyranny; improved every domestic
endearment; given tenderness to the parent, humanity to the master,
respect to superiors, to inferiors ease; so that mankind are, upon the
whole, even in a temporal view, under infinite obligations to the mild
and pacific temper of the Gospel, and have reaped from it more
substantial worldly benefits than from any other institution upon earth.
As one proof of this, among many others, consider only the shocking
carnage made in the human species by the exposure of infants, the
gladiatorial shows, which sometimes cost Rome twenty or thirty lives in
a month; and the exceedingly cruel usage of slaves allowed and practised
by the ancient Pagans. These were not the accidental and temporary
excesses of a sudden fury, but were legal and established, and constant
methods of murdering and tormenting mankind. Had Christianity done
nothing more than brought into disuse, as it confessedly has done, the
two former of these inhuman customs entirely, and the latter to a very
great degree, it has justly merited the title of the benevolent
religion. But this is far from being all. Throughout the more
enlightened parts of Christendom there prevails a gentleness of manners
widely different from the ferocity of the most civilized nations of
antiquity; and that liberality with which every species of distress is
relieved, is a virtue peculiar to the Christian name. But we may ask
farther, What success has it had on the mind of man, as it respects his
eternal welfare? How many thousands have felt its power, rejoiced in its
benign influence, and under its dictates been constrained to devote
themselves to the glory and praise of God! Burdened with guilt,
incapable of finding relief from human resources, the mind has here
found peace unspeakable in beholding that sacrifice which alone could
atone for transgression. Here the hard and impenitent heart has been
softened, the impetuous passions restrained, the ferocious temper
subdued, powerful prejudices conquered, ignorance dispelled, and the
obstacles to real happiness removed. Here the Christian, looking round
on the glories and blandishments of this world, has been enabled, with a
noble contempt, to despise all. Here death itself, the king of terrors,
has lost his sting; and the soul, with a holy magnanimity, has borne up
in the agonies of a dying hour, and sweetly sung itself away to
everlasting bliss. In respect to its future spread, we have reason to
believe that all nations shall feel its happy effects. The prophecies
are pregnant with matter as to this belief. It seems that not only a
nation, or a country, but the whole habitable globe, shall become the
kingdom of our God, and of his Christ. And who is there that has ever
known the excellency of this system; who is there that has ever
experienced its happy efficacy; who is there that has ever been
convinced of its divine origin, its delightful nature and peaceful
tendency, but must join the benevolent and royal poet in saying, “Let
the whole earth be filled with its glory? Amen and amen!”

7. Among the collateral proofs of the truth and divine origin of
Christianity, its rapid and wonderful success justly holds an important
place. Of its early triumphs, the history of the Acts of the Apostles is
a splendid record; and in process of time it made a wonderful progress
through Europe, Asia, and Africa. In the third century there were
Christians in the camp, in the senate, and in the palace; in short,
every where, as we are informed, except in the temples and the theatres:
they filled the towns, the country, and the islands. Men and women of
all ages and ranks, and even those of the first dignity, embraced the
Christian faith; insomuch that the Pagans complained that the revenues
of their temples were ruined. They were in such great numbers in the
empire, that, as Tertullian expresses it, if they had retired into
another country, they would have left the Romans only a frightful
solitude. (See the next article.) For the illustration of this argument,
we may observe, that the Christian religion was introduced every where
in opposition to the sword of the magistrate, the craft and interest of
the priests, the pride of the philosophers, the passions and prejudices
of the people, all closely combined in support of the national worship,
and to crush the Christian faith, which aimed at the subversion of
Heathenism and idolatry. Moreover, this religion was not propagated in
the dark, by persons who tacitly endeavoured to deceive the credulous;
nor delivered out by little and little, so that one doctrine might
prepare the way for the reception of another; but it was fully and
without disguise laid before men all at once, that they might judge of
the whole under one view. Consequently mankind were not deluded into the
belief of it, but received it upon proper examination and conviction.
Beside, the Gospel was first preached and first believed by multitudes
in Judea, where Jesus exercised his ministry, and where every individual
had the means of knowing whether the things that were told him were
matters of fact; and in this country, the scene of the principal
transactions on which its credibility depended, the history of Christ
could never have been received, unless it had been true, and known to
all as truth. Again: the doctrine and history of Jesus were preached and
believed in the most noted countries and cities of the world, in the
very age when he is said to have lived. On the fiftieth day after our
Lord’s crucifixion, three thousand persons were converted in Jerusalem
by a single sermon of the Apostles; and a few weeks after this, five
thousand who believed were present at another sermon preached also in
Jerusalem, Acts ii, 41; iv, 4; vi, 7; viii, 1; ix, 1, 20. About eight or
ten years after our Lord’s death, the disciples were become so numerous
at Jerusalem and in the adjacent country, that they were objects of
jealousy and alarm to Herod himself, Acts xii, 1. In the twenty-second
year after the crucifixion, the disciples in Judea are said to have been
many myriads, Acts xxi, 20. The age in which Christianity was introduced
and received, was famous for men whose faculties were improved by the
most perfect state of social life, but who were good judges of the
evidence offered in support of the facts recorded in the Gospel history.
For it should be recollected, that the success of the Gospel was not
restricted to Judea; but it was preached in all the different provinces
of the Roman empire. The first triumphs of Christianity were in the
heart of Greece itself, the nursery of learning and the polite arts; for
churches were planted at a very early period at Corinth, Ephesus, Beræa,
Thessalonica, and Philippi. Even Rome herself, the seat of wealth and
empire, was not able to resist the force of truth at a time when the
facts related were recent, and when they might, if they had been false,
have easily been disproved. From Greece and Rome, at a period of
cultivation and refinement, of general peace, and extensive intercourse,
when one great empire united different nations and distant people, the
confutation of these facts would very soon have passed from one country
to another, to the utter confusion of the persons who endeavoured to
propagate the belief of them. Nor ought it to be forgotten that the
religion to which such numbers were proselyted, was an exclusive one. It
denied, without reserve, the truth of every article of Heathen
mythology, and the existence of every object of their worship. It
accepted no compromise; it admitted of no comprehension. If it prevailed
at all, it must prevail by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and
temple in the world. It pronounced all other gods to be false, and all
other worship vain. These are considerations which must have
strengthened the opposition to it; augmented the hostility which it must
encounter; and enhanced the difficulty of gaining proselytes: and more
especially when we recollect, that among the converts to Christianity in
the earliest age, a number of persons remarkable for their station,
office, genius, education, and fortune, and who were personally
interested by their emoluments and honours in either Judaism or
Heathenism, appeared among the Christian proselytes. Its evidences
approved themselves, not only to the multitude, but to men of the most
refined sense and most distinguished abilities; and it dissolved the
attachments which all powerful interest and authority created and
upheld. Among the proselytes to Christianity we find Nicodemus, and
Joseph of Arimathea, members of the senate of Israel; Jairus, a ruler of
the synagogue; Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans at Jericho; Apollos,
distinguished for eloquence; Paul, learned in the Jewish law; Sergius
Paulus, governor of the island of Cyprus; Cornelius, a Roman captain;
Dionysius, a judge and senator of the Athenian areopagus; Erastus,
treasurer of Corinth; Tyrannus, a teacher of grammar and rhetoric at
Corinth; Publius, governor of Malta; Philemon, a person of considerable
rank at Colosse; Simon, a noted sophist in Samaria; Zenas, a lawyer; and
even the domestics of the emperor himself. These are noticed in the
sacred writings; and the Heathen historians also mention some persons of
great note who were converted at an early period. To all the preceding
circumstances we may add a consideration of peculiar moment, which is,
that the profession of Christianity led all, without exception, to
renounce the pleasures and honours of the world, and to expose
themselves to the most ignominious sufferings. And now, without adding
any more to this argument, we may ask, How could the Christian religion
have thus prevailed had it not been introduced by the power of God and
of truth? And it has been supported in the world by the same power
through a course of many ages, amidst the treachery of its friends, the
opposition of its enemies, the dangers of prosperous periods, and the
persecutions and violence of adverse circumstances; all which must have
destroyed it, if it had not been founded in truth, and guarded by the
protection of an almighty Providence.

CHRISTIANITY: _Sketch of its History_. The Christian religion was
published by its great Author in Judea, a short time before the death of
Herod the Great, and toward the conclusion of the long reign of
Augustus. While other religions had been accommodated to the peculiar
countries in which they had taken their origin, and had indeed generally
grown out of incidents connected with the history of those to whom they
were addressed, Christianity was so framed as to be adapted to the whole
human race; and although, for the wisest reasons, it was first announced
to the Jews, who had peculiar advantages for forming an accurate
judgment with regard to it, it was early declared that, in conformity to
predictions which had long been known, and long interpreted, as
referring to a new communication of the divine will, it was to be a
light to lighten the Gentiles, and was to carry salvation to the ends of
the earth. Although Christianity originated in Judea, it was not long
confined within the narrow limits of the Holy Land. The open manner in
which it was announced, the length of time during which its Author
publicly addressed his countrymen, the innumerable miracles which he
performed, and, above all, the report of the resurrection under
circumstances which must have been communicated to the imperial
government at Rome, excited the deep attention of the numerous Jews and
proselytes who, from surrounding nations, regularly went up to
Jerusalem, and of whom vast numbers were actually in that city when the
resurrection must have been the subject of universal discussion. They
very naturally carried to the different countries in which they usually
resided, the astonishing intelligence with which they had been
furnished; and provision was soon made for fulfilling the prediction
which Jesus had uttered, that his Gospel would, before the destruction
of Jerusalem, be circulated and embraced by many through the wide extent
of the Roman empire. The Apostle Peter, in consequence of what he knew
to be a solemn injunction from Heaven, communicated to a Gentile the
truths of Christianity. St. Paul, who had distinguished himself by his
enmity to the Christians, and by the cruelty with which he had
persecuted them, having been converted, devoted himself to lay the
foundations of the Gospel through a large portion of the most
enlightened part of the world; and the miraculous gift of tongues, by
which humble and illiterate men found themselves at once able to speak
the languages of different nations, left no doubt that they were bound
to preach their faith as extensively as had been marked out to them by
the last instructions which they had received from their Master. They
had to struggle with the most formidable difficulties in prosecuting
this undertaking; for which, had they trusted merely to their own
strength, and their own natural endowments, they were wholly
unqualified.

2. The Roman empire at the period of their commencing the attempt,
comprehended almost the whole of the civilized world, and thus included
within it nations whose habits, customs, and sentiments essentially
differed, and whom it required the most dexterous policy to unite in one
community, or to subject to one government. The most effectual method by
which, during the commonwealth, and at the rise of the empire, this had
been accomplished, was a politic respect to the religious opinions which
all these nations entertained. Not only were their modes of worship
treated with scrupulous reverence, but their gods, in conformity with
the genius of Paganism, were incorporated or associated with the deities
of Rome, and they were thus joined to their conquerors by the strongest
ties by which the affections can be secured. At all times religion had
been an object of prominent interest with the Romans: at the foundation
of the city, Romulus had professed to be directed by Heaven: during the
whole period of the republic, the most sacred attention had been paid to
the rites and ceremonies sanctioned by the prevailing superstition, the
prosperity of the state was invariably ascribed to the protection of the
gods, and the most impressive solemnities, combined with the richest
splendour and magnificence, cast around polytheism a mysterious
sanctity, which even the philosophers affected to revere. Precautions
accordingly had been early taken to prevent innovations upon the
established ritual; foreign rites were prohibited till they had obtained
the sanction of the senate; and when the solicitation of this sanction
was neglected, the persons guilty of the neglect were frequently
punished. From the nature of Paganism, it was perfectly consistent with
its spirit to conjoin, with any particular mode of it, the forms which
elsewhere prevailed. These additions left all which had been previously
honoured in unimpaired vigour and influence, and, in fact, only
increased the appearance of profound regard for religion, which the
Romans so long assumed. But this part of the political constitution,
lightly as it affected other religions, at once struck at the root of
Christianity, which, unlike the prevailing modifications of idolatry,
prohibited the worship of all the deities before whose altars mankind
had for ages bent, and required, as essential for obtaining the divine
favour, that they who believed in it should pay undivided homage to the
one God, whose existence it revealed. The extension of the Gospel thus
necessarily carried with it opposition to the most ancient and most
revered law of the empire, and it was impossible for those who judged of
it merely from this circumstance, without investigating its nature and
tendency, to hesitate in directing against it the statutes which the
zeal of their fathers had provided, to prevent such a revolution as
would be produced by so thorough and so alarming a change in their
religious principles. No sooner, however, had the message of salvation
been addressed indiscriminately to all men, and, from the evidence by
which it was accompanied, had brought numbers to acknowledge the
heavenly source from which it is derived, than the detestation of it
previously entertained burst forth in all its violence; and it is
apparent that this had been widely and openly expressed before any
imperial edicts were directed against the Christians. Tacitus, in the
celebrated passage in which he mentions the disciples of Jesus, and
which refers to a period not more than thirty years distant from the
ascension, represents it as notorious in Rome, that Christ, during the
reign of Tiberius, had been put to death as a criminal; he asserts that
his adherents had long been odious on account of their enormities; he
laments that their destructive superstition had found its way to the
capital of the empire; and he attributes the melancholy fate to which
they were condemned to the general persuasion, that they were actuated
by hatred to the whole human race. It is necessary to keep this fact
steadily in view, to form an accurate idea of that opposition which
Christianity had to encounter. This opposition is not to be estimated
merely by reference to particular statutes, or even to be considered as
fully exhibited when we have gathered together the public proceedings
which have been recorded in history, or deplored in the writings of
those who sought to avert them. It is to be remembered that even when
the laws which the frantic zeal of some of the emperors had enacted were
repealed, the general law of the empire was still in force; that it was
competent for every one who had the cruelty to do so, to turn it against
the Christians; and that the firm, though mistaken, conviction that the
Christian profession involved in it the most revolting impiety, the most
tremendous guilt, and the most dangerous hostility to the best interests
of the state, would lead numbers to indulge their antipathy, when little
notice was taken of the sufferers, and would keep the disciples of the
hated faith in a state of unceasing alarm. (See _Persecution_.) What was
the effect of this depressing situation? Did it check the dissemination
of the Gospel, or confine it to the men by whom it was preached? So far
was this from being the case, that from the period of the death, and, as
it must here he termed, the alleged resurrection of Jesus, it was
embraced by immense numbers in all the countries to which it was
conveyed; and even while they were contemplating the sacrifices and the
trials to which, by attaching themselves to it, they would be exposed,
they did not hesitate to relinquish the religion in which they had been
educated, and to exchange for misery and death all the comforts which
the strongest feelings and propensities of our nature lead men to value
and to pursue. Finally, imperial Rome bowed to the religion it had
persecuted, and the emperor Constantine became a Christian.

3. The propagation of Christianity assumes a new aspect after it became
the religion of the empire, and was guarded by the protection and
surrounded by the munificence of imperial power. The causes which, in
the first stage of its existence, had most powerfully acted against it,
were now turned to its support; and all the motives by which men are
usually guided led them to enter with, at least, apparent conviction
into its sanctuaries. Not only was persecution, after the reign of
Constantine, at an end, but with the exception of the short reign of
Julian, who, having apostatized from Christianity, and become
intoxicated with the fascinating speculations of the Platonic
philosophy, was eager to raise the temples which his predecessor had
laid in ruins, promotion and wealth and honour could be most effectually
secured by transferring to the Gospel the zeal which had been in vain
exhausted to preserve the sinking fabric of Paganism and idolatry. The
emperors, who had displayed their zeal and their attachment to the
religion of Jesus, by forcing their own subjects to profess it,
conceived it to be their duty to communicate so great a blessing to all
the nations which they could influence; and when they found it necessary
to declare war against the savage tribes which pressed upon the
frontiers, or forced themselves within the precincts of the empire, they
carried on hostilities with the view of rendering these instrumental no
less to the diffusion of their religious tenets, than to the vindication
of their authority, and the security of their dominions. The vanquished
invaders felt little reluctance to purchase the forbearance or the
clemency of their conquerors, by submitting to receive their religion;
and this species of conversion, so little connected with the great
objects which revelation was designed to accomplish, leaving, in fact,
all the gross superstitious practices and all the immoral abominations
which had previously existed, was boastfully held forth as a decisive
proof of the triumph of the Gospel.

4. The foundation of the empire, not long after the days of Constantine,
began to be shaken: and it experienced numberless assaults and
convulsions, till it was finally divided into the eastern and western
empires. The luxury and wealth which had enervated their possessors, and
destroyed the heroism and intrepidity by which their ancestors had been
distinguished, presented the most powerful temptations to the lawless
bands which, driven from the sterile regions of the north of Europe, had
pressed forward to seek for new and more favoured habitations. The
feeble attempts to turn aside, by bribery, these ferocious barbarians
increased the danger which they were intended to remove; and the history
of Europe presents, for several ages, the disgusting spectacle of war,
conducted with an atrocity eclipsing the stern virtues which sometimes
were strikingly displayed. But although the insubordination of this
turbulent and sanguinary period was little favourable to the mild
influence of genuine Christianity, it did not prove so fatal to it as
might have been apprehended; and it was even instrumental in extending
its nominal dominion. Mankind, when scarcely emerged from barbarism, and
attached to no particular country, but seeking wherever it can be found
the food necessary for themselves and the flocks upon which they in a
great measure depend, although they entertain those sentiments with
regard to religion which seem almost interwoven with our nature, feel
little attachment to any one system of superstition, and are open to the
reception of new doctrines, which an association with what they value
may have led them to venerate. When, accordingly, the tribes which
finally overran the Roman empire had ceased from the destructive
contests by which they got possession of the regions that had long been
blessed with civilization and enlightened by science, they surveyed with
amazement and with admiration the people whom they had conquered; they
were delighted with the luxuries which abounded among them; they were
charmed with their manners and customs; and they eagerly conformed to
institutions from which they hoped that they should reap what the
original inhabitants of their settlement had enjoyed. The religion of
the vanquished they contemplated with reverence; they connected it with
the wealth, the refinement, and the power which they saw spread around
them; and they easily exchanged the rude and careless worship of their
native deities, for the polished and splendid devotional rites, which,
with the most imposing solemnity, were celebrated by the Christians.
Hence, they soon embraced the religion by which it was believed that
these rites were prescribed; and they communicated it to the nations
with whom they still maintained an alliance. There is no doubt that
motives very little connected with the conviction of the understanding
led to the progress of Christianity now described; and, in fact, that
progress was occasioned by causes so different from those which should
have produced it, that, had circumstances been changed, and had the
religion of Jesus been continued to be persecuted by the most powerful
states, multitudes who affected to revere it would, upon the same ground
on which their veneration rested, have exerted themselves to deride its
tenets, and to exterminate its professors.

5. But it was not the secular arm alone that was stretched forth to lead
men to the reception of Christianity. The church, after it had been
firmly established, and had, amidst the riches and honours with which it
was endowed, forgotten that it should not have been of this world,
conceived it incumbent, as an evidence of its zeal, or, as was too often
the case, for extending its power and its influence, to make attempts to
substitute the cross of Christ for the emblems of Paganism. In
accomplishing this object, it employed different means. But although the
conversions which took place, from the establishment of Christianity
till the restoration of learning, or the reformation, which forms a new
æra in the dissemination of the Gospel, were often unfortunately very
far from planting the word of life in the hearts of those to whom it was
conveyed, they were very extensive. They reached to almost every country
in Europe; to Arabia, China, Judea, and many other parts of Asia; and
the obscure tribes, to whom no missionaries were despatched, gradually
conformed to the religion of those more powerful states upon which they
depended, or to which they looked with respect or veneration.

6. Mohammedanism, however, arrested the progress of Christianity in some
of these countries, and humbled it and oppressed it in others; but since
the reformation, and especially within the last century, it has been
extended, not so much by conquest, as by the legitimate means of
colonization, and by missions and education, to the most distant and
important parts of the world, to China, India, Africa, the American
Islands, and those of the Pacific Ocean. The zeal, self-denial, and
successes, of those missionaries, who have been sent forth within a few
years by various Protestant societies, and their great successes form,
indeed, a splendid section in the modern history of the church. They
have sown the seed in almost every land, and the fruit has spread itself
throughout the world.

CHRONICLES, _Books of_. This name is given to two historical books of
Scripture, which the Hebrews call _Dibri-Jamim_, “Words of Days,” that
is, “Diaries,” or “Journals.” They are called in the LXX,
_Paralipomena_, which signifies, “things omitted;” as if these books
were a supplement of what had been omitted, or too much abridged, in the
books of Kings, and other historical books of Scripture. And, indeed, we
find in them many particulars which are not extant elsewhere: but it
must not be thought that these are the records, or books of the acts, of
the kings of Judah and Israel, so often referred to. Those ancient
registers were much more extensive than these are; and the books of
Chronicles themselves refer to those original memoirs, and make long
extracts from them. They were compiled, and probably by Ezra, from the
ancient chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel just now mentioned,
and they may be considered as a kind of supplement to the preceding
books of Scripture. The former part of the first book of Chronicles
contains a great variety of genealogical tables, beginning with Adam;
and in particular gives a circumstantial account of the twelve tribes,
which must have been very valuable to the Jews after their return from
captivity. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, from all
of whom it was predicted that the Saviour of the world should be born,
are here marked with precision. These genealogies occupy the first nine
chapters, and in the tenth is recorded the death of Saul From the
eleventh chapter to the end of the book, we have a history of the reign
of David, with a detailed statement of his preparation for the building
of the temple, of his regulations respecting the priests and Levites,
and his appointment of musicians for the public service of religion. The
second book of Chronicles contains a brief sketch of the Jewish history,
from the accession of Solomon to the return from the Babylonian
captivity, being a period of four hundred and eighty years; and in both
these books we find many particulars not noticed in the other historical
books of Scripture.

CHRYSOLITE, Rev. xxi, 20, a precious stone of a golden colour. Schroder
says it is the gem now called the Indian topaz, which is of a yellowish
green colour, and very beautiful.

CHRYSOPRASUS, Rev. xxi, 20, a precious stone, which Pliny classes among
the beryls; the best of which, he says, are of a sea-green colour; after
these he mentions the chrysoberyls, which are a little paler, inclining
to golden colour; and next, a sort still paler, and by some reckoned a
distinct species, and called chrysoprasus.

CHURCH. The Greek word ἐκκλησία, so rendered, denotes an assembly met
about business, whether spiritual or temporal, Acts xix, 32, 39. It is
understood also of the collective body of Christians, or all those over
the face of the earth who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge
him to be the Saviour of mankind; this is called the visible church. But
by the word _church_, we are more strictly to understand the whole body
of God’s true people, in every period of time: this is the invisible or
spiritual church. The people of God on earth are called the church
militant, and those in heaven the church triumphant. It has been
remarked by Dr. John Owen, that sin having entered into the world, God
was pleased to found his church (the catholic or universal church) in
the promise of the Messiah given to Adam; that this promise contained in
it something of the nature of a covenant, including the grace which God
designed to show to sinners in the Messiah, and the obedience which he
required from them; and that consequently, from its first promulgation,
that promise became the sole foundation of the church and of the whole
worship of God therein. Prior to the days of Abraham, this church,
though scattered up and down the world, and subject to many changes in
its worship through the addition of new revelations, was still but one
and the same, because founded in the same covenant, and interested
thereby in all the benefits or privileges that God had granted, or would
at any time grant. In process of time, God was pleased to restrict his
church, as far as visible acknowledgment went, in a great measure, to
the seed of Abraham. With the latter he renewed his covenant, requiring
that he should walk before him and be upright. He also constituted him
the father of the faithful, or of all them that believe, and the “heir
of the world.” So that since the days of Abraham, the church has, in
every age, been founded upon the covenant made with that patriarch, and
on the work of redemption which was to be performed according to that
covenant. Now wheresoever this covenant made with Abraham is, and with
whomsoever it is established, with them is the church of God, and to
them all the promises and privileges of the church really belong. Hence
we may learn that at the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church
taken away and another set up in its room; but the church continued the
same, in those that were the children of Abraham, according to the
faith. It is common with divines to speak of the Jewish and the
Christian churches, as though they were two distinct and totally
different things; but that is not a correct view of the matter. The
Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was
before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and
interested in the same covenant. Great alterations indeed were made in
the outward state and condition of the church, by the coming of the
Messiah. The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation from
other nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with that
also their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. The
ordinances of worship suited to that state of things then expired, and
came to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suitable to
the new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the church. The
Gentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the Jews, being made
joint partakers with them in his blessing. But none of these things, nor
the whole collectively, did make such an alteration in the church, but
that it was still one and the same. The olive tree was still the same,
only some branches were broken off, and others grafted into it. The Jews
fell, and the Gentiles came in their room. And this may enable us to
determine the difference between the Jews and Christians relative to the
Old Testament promises. They are all made to the church. No individual
has any interest in them except by virtue of his membership with the
church. The church is, and always was, one and the same. The Jewish
plea, is, that the church is with them, because they are the children of
Abraham according to the flesh. Christians reply, that their privilege
on that ground was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the
Messiah: that the church of God, unto whom all the promises belong, are
only those who are heirs of the faith of Abraham, believing as he did,
and are consequently interested in his covenant. These are Zion,
Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple, or church of God.

2. By a particular church we understand an assembly of Christians united
together, and meeting in one place, for the solemn worship of God. To
this agrees the definition given by the compilers of the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England: “A congregation of faithful men, in
which the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered according to Christ’s ordinances, in all those things that
of necessity are requisite to the same,” Acts ix, 31; xx, 17; Gal. i, 2,
22; 1 Cor. xiv, 34; Col. iv, 15. The word is now also used to denote any
particular denomination of Christians, distinguished by particular
doctrines, ceremonies, &c, as the Romish church, the Greek church, the
English church, &c.

3. On the subject of the church, opinions as opposite or varying as
possible have been held, from that of the Papists, who contend for its
visible unity throughout the world under a visible head, down to that of
the Independents, who consider the universal church as composed of
congregational churches, each perfect in itself, and entirely
independent of every other. The first opinion is manifestly contradicted
by the language of the Apostles, who, while they teach that there is but
one church, composed of believers throughout the world, think it not at
all inconsistent with this to speak of “the churches of Judea,” “of
Achaia,” “the seven churches of Asia,” “the church at Ephesus,” &c.
Among themselves the Apostles had no common head; but planted churches
and gave directions for their government, in most cases without any
apparent correspondence with each other. The Popish doctrine is
certainly not found in their writings; and so far were they from making
provision for the government of this one supposed church, by the
appointment of one visible and exclusive head, that they provide for the
future government of the respective churches raised up by them in a
totally different manner, that is, by the ordination of ministers for
each church, who are indifferently called bishops, and presbyters, and
pastors. The only unity of which they speak is the unity of the whole
church in Christ, the invisible head, by faith; and the unity produced
by “fervent love toward each other.” Nor has the Popish doctrine of the
visible unity of the church any countenance from early antiquity. The
best ecclesiastical historians have showed, that, through the greater
part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of
each other. “Each Christian assembly,” says Mosheim, “was a little state
governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least
approved, by the society. But in process of time, all the churches of a
province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like
confederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate
about the common interests of the whole.” So far indeed this union of
churches appears to have been a wise and useful arrangement, although
afterward it was carried to an injurious extreme, until finally it gave
birth to the assumptions of the bishop of Rome, as universal bishop; a
claim, however, which, when most successful, was but partially submitted
to, the eastern churches having, for the most part, always maintained
their independence. No very large association of churches of any kind
existed till toward the close of the second century, which sufficiently
refutes the papal argument from antiquity. The independence of the early
Christian churches does not, however, appear to have resembled that of
the churches which, in modern times, are called Independent. During the
lives of the Apostles and Evangelists they were certainly subject to
their counsel and control, which proves that the independency of
separate societies was not the first form of the church. It may, indeed,
be allowed, that some of the smaller and more insulated churches might,
after the death of the Apostles and Evangelists, retain this form for
some considerable time; but the larger churches, in the chief cities,
and those planted in populous neighbourhoods, had many presbyters, and,
as the members multiplied, they had several separate assemblies or
congregations, yet all under the same common government. And when
churches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment
of _chorepiscopi_, or country bishops, and of visiting presbyters, both
acting under the presbytery of the city, with the bishop at its head, is
sufficiently in proof, that the ancient churches, especially the larger
and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern
times, we should call a religious connection, subject to a common
government. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of
the increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians;
and it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first
discipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the
churches were independent, but remained under the government of those
who had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place
themselves under a common inspection, and to unite the weak with the
strong, and the newly converted with those who were “in Christ before
them.” There was also in this, greater security afforded both for the
continuance of wholesome doctrine, and of godly discipline.

4. Church members are those who compose or belong to the visible church.
As to the real church, the true members of it are such as come out from
the world, 2 Cor. vi, 17; who are born again, 1 Peter i, 23; or made new
creatures, 2 Cor. v, 17; whose faith works by love to God and all
mankind, Gal. v, 6; James ii, 14, 26; who walk in all the ordinances of
the Lord blameless. None but such are members of the true church; nor
should any be admitted into any particular church without some evidence
of their earnestly seeking this state of salvation.

5. Church fellowship is the communion that the members enjoy one with
another. The ends of church fellowship are, the maintenance and
exhibition of a system of sound doctrine; the support of the ordinances
of evangelical worship in their purity and simplicity; the impartial
exercise of church government and discipline; the promotion of holiness
in all manner of conversation. The more particular duties are, earnest
study to keep peace and unity; bearing of one another’s burdens, Gal.
vi, 1, 2; earnest endeavours to prevent each other’s stumbling, 1 Cor.
x, 23–33; Heb. x, 24–27; Rom. xiv, 13; steadfast continuance in the
faith and worship of the Gospel, Acts ii, 42; praying for and
sympathizing with each other, 1 Sam. xii, 23; Eph. vi, 18. The
advantages are, peculiar incitement to holiness; the right to some
promises applicable to none but those who attend the ordinances of God,
and hold communion with the saints, Psalm xcii, 13; cxxxii, 13, 16;
xxxvi, 8; Jer. xxxi, 12; the being placed under the watchful eye of
pastors, Heb. xiii, 7; that they may restore each other if they fall,
Gal. vi, 1; and the more effectually promote the cause of true religion.

6. As to church order and discipline, without entering into the
discussion of the many questions which have been raised on this subject,
and argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally
to observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and permanent
society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey certain rules, the
existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious
rites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a
directive and controlling power. Again: all laws are nugatory without
enforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and
all enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of
admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates,
and administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord’s Supper
must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the
qualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed
in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again
there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration;
if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and
preachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship
of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and
credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing
discipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily
from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and
since this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it
is not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and
if they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of
mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government
in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by
becoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to
whom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by
the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly
spiritual:--“My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.” The
church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for
the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the
religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus
determined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot
employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the
church is faith; to which there can be no compulsion;--“he that
believeth and is baptized” becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and
penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments;
for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is
comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and, finally,
“excision from the society.” The last will be better understood, if we
consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each
other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body,
and are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the
conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of
“one judgment;” they are brethren, and they are to love one another as
such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good
will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore
to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except
in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to
keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good
unto all men, but “especially to them that are of the household of
faith;” and they are forbidden “to eat” at the Lord’s table with immoral
persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian
profession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of
Christians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent
duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that
extreme discipline which is vested in the church. “Persons who will not
hear the church” are to be held “as Heathen men and publicans,” as those
who are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it,
and regarded as of “the world,” quite out of the range of the above
mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent
duties; but still, like “Heathen men and publicans” they are to be the
objects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline
to be hastily inflicted before “a first and second admonition,” nor
before those who are “spiritual” have attempted “to restore a brother
overtaken by a fault;” and when the “wicked person” is “put away,” still
the door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The
true excommunication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and
considerate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of
Christians, without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. “Now we
command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which ye have received from us,” 2 Thess. iii, 6.
“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,” 1 Cor.
v, 7. “But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not
to eat,” 1 Cor. v, 11. This then is the moral discipline which is
imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally
defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the
disabilities and penalties which established churches in different
places have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no
countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the
spiritual character and ends of the Christian association.

7. As to the _persons_ to whom the government of the church is
committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of
the primitive church, as stated in the New Testament. A full enunciation
of these offices we find in Ephesians iv, 11: “And he gave some,
Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Of these, the office
of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately
commissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his
resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of
Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by
miracles wrought by themselves. If by “prophets” we are to understand
persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very
nature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the
other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with
others, we understand that these prophets were extraordinary teachers
raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified
instructors; still the office was temporary. The “Evangelists” are
generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under
their especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and
Titus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or
presbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain
successors to themselves in their particular office as Evangelists, it
is clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of
extraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of
Christianity. Whether by “pastors and teachers” two offices be meant, or
one, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to
favour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and
St. Augustine; but the point is of little consequence. A pastor was a
teacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases
his office might be one of subordinate instruction, whether as an
expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of
those who as yet were unacquainted with the first principles of the
Gospel of Christ. The term _pastor_ implies the duties both of
instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of
Christ; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several
churches, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by
St. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these
are the “pastors” spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that
they were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church; and that
with them both the government of the church and the performance of its
leading religious services were deposited. Deacons had the charge of the
gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from
Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly
oblations as being deposited with the chief minister, and distributed by
him. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called BISHOPS and
PRESBYTERS, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless,
deposited; not without checks and guards, the principal of which,
however, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern
churches which have no support from the magistracy, or are made
independent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the
association. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the
Apostles to exist among Christians; no compulsion of the civil power is
any where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions;
no binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join
another, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of
sufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism.
It was this which created a natural and competent check upon the
ministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the
churches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which
gave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing,
upon sufficient and well-weighed grounds, their communion with it, and
of kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by
forming a separate association, bearing its testimony against errors in
doctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had
this simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated
through subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt,
or with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall.
This ancient Christian liberty has happily been restored in a few parts
of Christendom. See EPISCOPACY and PRESBYTERIANISM.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND and IRELAND is that established by law in England and
Ireland, where it forms a part of the common law of the land, or
constitution of the country.

1. When and by whom Christianity was first introduced into Britain,
cannot at this distance of time be exactly ascertained. Eusebius,
indeed, positively declares that it was by the Apostles and their
disciples; Bishops Jewel and Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave, and others, insist
that it was by St. Paul; and Baronius affirms, on the authority of an
ancient manuscript in the Vatican Library, that the Gospel was planted
in Britain by Simon Zelotes, the Apostle, and Joseph of Arimathea; and
that the latter came over A. D. 35, or about the twenty-first year of
Tiberius, and died in this country. According to Archbishop Usher, the
British churches had a school of learning in the year 182, to provide
them with proper teachers; and it would appear that they flourished,
without dependence on any foreign church, till the arrival of Austin the
monk, in the latter part of the sixth century.

2. Episcopacy was early established in this country; and it ought to be
remembered, to the honour of the British bishops and clergy, that during
several centuries they withstood the encroachments of the see of Rome.
Popery, however, was at length introduced into England, and, as some
say, by Austin, the monk; and we find its errors every where prevalent
during several ages preceding the reformation, till they were refuted by
Wickliffe. The seed which Wickliffe had sown ripened after his death,
and produced a glorious harvest. However, it was not till the reign of
Henry VIII, that the reformation in England in reality commenced. When
Luther declared war against the pope, Henry wrote his treatise on the
seven sacraments against Luther’s book, “Of the Captivity of Babylon,”
and was repaid by the pontiff with the title of “Defender of the Faith.”
This title, in a sense diametrically opposite, and by a claim of higher
desert, was transmitted by Henry with his crown, and now belongs to his
successors. Henry’s affections being estranged from his queen Catharine,
and fixed on Anne Boleyn, he requested a divorce from his wife; but the
pope hesitating, the archbishop of Canterbury annulled his former
marriage. The sentence of the archbishop was condemned by the pope,
whose authority Henry therefore shook off, and was declared by
parliament “supreme head of the church.” In the year 1800, when the
kingdoms of Britain and Ireland were united, the churches of England and
Ireland, which had always been the same in government, faith, and
worship, became one united church.

3. The acknowledged standards of the faith and doctrines of the united
church are, after the Scriptures, the Book of Homilies and the
Thirty-nine Articles. Her liturgy is also doctrinal, as well as
devotional. The homilies were composed by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley,
men of unexceptionable learning and orthodoxy; or, according to others,
the first book was written principally by Cranmer, and the second by
Jewel. They were appointed to be read in churches at the beginning of
the reformation, when, by reason of the scarcity of learned divines, few
ministers were found who could safely be trusted to preach their own
compositions. The first draught of the Articles was composed by
Archbishop Cranmer, assisted by Bishop Ridley, in the year 1551; and
after being corrected by the other bishops, and approved by the
convocation, they were published in Latin and English in 1553, and
amounted to forty-two in number. In 1562 they were revised and
corrected. Being then reduced to thirty-nine, they were drawn up in
Latin only; but in 1571 they were subscribed by the members of the two
houses of convocation, both in Latin and English; and therefore the
Latin and English copies are to be considered as equally authentic. The
original manuscripts, subscribed by the houses of convocation, were
burned in the fire of London; but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldest
copies now extant, in which it appears that there are no variations of
any importance. During the last century, disputes arose among the clergy
respecting the propriety of subscribing to any human formulary of
religious sentiments. Parliament, in 1772, was applied to for the
abolition of the subscription, by certain clergymen and others, whose
petition received the most ample discussion, but was rejected by a large
majority. It has been generally held by most, if not all, Calvinists,
both in and out of the church, that the doctrinal parts of our Articles
are Calvinistic. This opinion, however, has been warmly controverted. It
is no doubt nearer the truth to conclude that the Articles are framed
with comprehensive latitude; and that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism
was intended to be exclusively established. In this view such liberal
sentiments as the following, from the _Apology of the Church of
England_, in 1732, are not of uncommon occurrence: “This, I know, I am
myself an Anti-Calvinian; and yet, were I to compile articles for the
church, I would abhor the thoughts of forming them so fully according to
my own scheme of thinking, or of descending so minutely into all the
particular branches of it, that none but Arminians should be able to
subscribe, or that the church should lose the credit and service of such
valuable men as the Abbots, Davenant, Usher, and other Calvinists
undoubtedly were. And since our reformers were men of temper and
moderation, it seems but justice, I am sure it is but reasonable, to
think they intended such a latitude as I contend for, so that both
parties, the followers of Arminius as well as of Calvin, might
subscribe.” In a subsequent page, however, the same author says, “But
what, if there was not so entire a harmony among the compilers or
imposers, as was before supposed? What if several of them were
Anti-Calvinian? This will incline the balance still more in our favour,
and enlarge the probability of _the articles being drawn up in a
moderate, indefinite way_. The divines who fled for refuge, in Queen
Mary’s reign, to Geneva, Zurich, and other places beyond sea, (where, by
conceiving a great veneration for Calvin, they were mightily changed in
their sentiments and ways of thinking,) began to propagate his notions
soon after their return in the next reign: and this seems to have been
the prime occasion of Calvinism taking any considerable root in this
kingdom. In King Edward’s time it doth not appear to have prevailed,
except among a few ‘gospelers,’ and how they were reflected on by Bishop
Latimer and Hooper has been already observed. When the articles were
formed in 1552, I do not find that any deference was paid to Calvin’s
judgment or authority: instead of that, the assistance he offered was,
to his no little grief and dissatisfaction, refused. Next to the
Scriptures and the doctrine of the primitive church, the compilers had
an eye to the Augustan Confession, as appears from the identity of many
of the articles; to the writings of Melancthon, whose assistance they
desired, and whom King Edward invited over hither; the works of Erasmus;
and the _Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man_. This
last book was published by King Henry’s authority in 1543; and because
it then had the approbation of most of those who compiled the Articles
nine years afterward, it will be of consequence to see how it stands
affected toward Calvinism. It teaches the cardinal point of universal
redemption in several places; which strikes directly at the root of the
Calvinian system, and, as Dr. Whitby expresses it, ‘draws all the rest
after it, on which side soever the truth lies.’” This judicious
amplitude has received much elucidation in Dr. Puller’s _Moderation of
the Church of England considered_, 1679; and in other works of more
recent date.

4. In this church, divine service is conducted by a liturgy, which was
composed in 1547, and has undergone several alterations, the last of
which took place in 1661, in the reign of Charles II. Many applications
have been since made for a review; and particular alterations were
proposed in 1689, by several learned and excellent divines, in the
number of whom were Archbishops Tillotson and Tenison, and Bishops
Patrick, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Kidder, &c. This subject has been
recently revived; and it is believed that some changes are under
consideration. To this liturgy every clergyman promises at his
ordination to conform in his public ministrations.

5. Ever since the reign of Henry VIII, the sovereigns of England have
been styled “supreme heads of the church,” as well as “defenders of the
faith;” but this title is said to convey no spiritual meaning; or, in
other words, it only substitutes the king in place of the pope, with
respect to temporalities, and the external economy of the church. The
church of England is governed by two archbishops and twenty-four
bishops, beside the bishop of Sodor and Man. The benefices of the
bishops were converted by William the Conqueror into temporal baronies;
and, therefore, all of them, except the bishop of Man, are barons or
lords of parliament, and sit and vote in the house of lords, where they
represent the clergy. The bishops’ representatives and assistants are
the archdeacons, of whom there are sixty in England. The other
dignitaries of the church are the deans, prebendaries, canons, &c; and
the inferior clergy are the rectors, vicars, and curates. The united
church knows only three orders of ministers; bishops, priests, and
deacons: but in these orders are comprehended archbishops, bishops,
deans, archdeacons, rectors, vicars, and curates. The church of Ireland
is governed by four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Since the union of
Britain and Ireland, one archbishop and three bishops sit alternately in
the house of peers, by rotation of sessions.

CILICIA, a country in the south-east of Asia Minor, and lying on the
northern coast, at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea: the capital
city thereof was Tarsus, the native city of St. Paul, Acts xxi, 39.

CINNAMON, קינמון, an agreeable aromatic; the inward bark of the
_canella_, a small tree of the height of the willow. It is mentioned,
Exodus xxx, 23, among the materials in the composition of the holy
anointing oil; and in Proverbs vii, 17; Canticles iv, 14; Ecclesiasticus
xxiv, 15; and Revelation xviii, 13, among the richest perfumes. This
spice is now brought from the east Indies; but as there was no traffic
with India in the days of Moses, it was then brought, probably, from
Arabia, or some neighbouring country. We learn, however, from Pliny,
that a species of it grew in Syria.

CINNEROTH, or CINNERETH, a city on the north-western side of the sea of
Galilee; which, from it, is frequently called in the Old Testament the
sea of Cinneroth: from which word, that of Genesaret, in the New
Testament, is conjectured by Dr. Wells to have been framed.

CIRCUMCISION is from the Latin, _circumcidere_, “to cut all round,”
because the Jews, in circumcising their children, cut off after this
manner the skin which covers the prepuce. God enjoined Abraham to use
circumcision, as a sign of his covenant. In obedience to this order,
Abraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised: also his son
Ishmael, and all the males of his property, Gen. xvii, 10. God repeated
the precept of circumcision to Moses: he ordered that all who were to
partake of the paschal sacrifice should receive circumcision; and that
this rite should be performed on children, on the eighth day after their
birth. The Jews have always been very exact in observing this ceremony,
and it appears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt. But Moses,
while in Midian with Jethro his father-in-law, did not circumcise his
two sons born in that country; and during the journey of the Israelites
in the wilderness, their children were not circumcised. Circumcision was
practised among the Arabians, Saracens, and Ishmaelites. These people,
as well as the Israelites, sprung from Abraham. Circumcision was
introduced with the law of Moses among the Samaritans and Cutheans. The
Idumeans, though descended from Abraham and Isaac, were not circumcised
till subdued by John Hircanus. Those who assert that the Phenicians were
circumcised, mean, probably, the Samaritans; for we know, from other
authority, that the Phenicians did not observe this ceremony. As to the
Egyptians, circumcision never was of general and indispensable
obligation on the whole nation; certain priests only, and particular
professions, were obliged to it. Circumcision is likewise the ceremony
of initiation into the Mohammedan religion. There is, indeed, no law in
the Koran which enjoins it, and they have the precept only in tradition.
They say that Mohammed commanded it out of respect to Abraham, the head
of his race. They have no fixed day for the performance of this rite,
and generally wait till the child is five or six years of age.

CIRCUMCISION, _Covenant of_. That the covenant with Abraham, of which
circumcision was made the sign and seal, Genesis xvii, 7–14, was the
general covenant of grace, and not wholly, or even chiefly, a political
and national covenant, may be satisfactorily established. The first
engagement in it was, that God would “greatly bless” Abraham; which
promise, although it comprehended temporal blessings, referred, as we
learn from St. Paul, more fully to the blessing of his justification by
the imputation of his faith for righteousness, with all the spiritual
advantages consequent upon the relation which was thus established
between him and God, in time and eternity. The second promise in the
covenant was, that he should be “the father of many nations;” which we
are also taught by St. Paul to interpret more with reference to his
spiritual seed, the followers of that faith whereof cometh
justification, than to his natural descendants. “That the promise might
be sure to all the seed, not only to that which is by the law, but to
that also which is by _the faith_ of Abraham, who is the father of _us
all_,”--of all believing Gentiles as well as Jews. The third stipulation
in God’s covenant with the patriarch, was the gift to Abraham and to his
seed of “the land of Canaan,” in which the temporal promise was
manifestly but the type of the higher promise of a heavenly inheritance.
Hence St. Paul says, “By _faith_ he sojourned in the land of promise,
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the
same promise;” but this “faith” did not respect the fulfilment of the
temporal promise; for St. Paul adds, “they looked for a city which had
foundations, whose builder and maker is God,” Heb. xi, 19. The next
promise was, that God would always be “a God to Abraham and to his seed
after him,” a promise which is connected with the highest spiritual
blessings, such as the remission of sins, and the sanctification of our
nature, as well as with a visible church state. It is even used to
express the felicitous state of the church in heaven, Rev. xxi, 3. The
final engagement in the Abrahamic covenant was, that in Abraham’s “seed,
all nations of the earth should be blessed;” and this blessing, we are
expressly taught by St. Paul, was nothing less than the justification of
all nations, that is, of all believers in all nations, by faith in
Christ: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Heathen by faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee
shall all nations be blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed
with believing Abraham;” they receive the same blessing, justification,
by the same means, faith, Gal. iii, 8, 9. This covenant with Abraham,
therefore, although it respected a natural seed, Isaac, from whom a
numerous progeny was to spring; and an earthly inheritance provided for
this issue, the land of Canaan; and a special covenant relation with the
descendants of Isaac, through the line of Jacob, to whom Jehovah was to
be “a God,” visibly and specially, and they a visible and “peculiar
people;” yet was, under all these temporal, earthly, and external
advantages, but a higher and spiritual grace embodying itself under
these circumstances, as types of a dispensation of salvation and eternal
life, to all who should follow the faith of Abraham, whose justification
before God was the pattern of the justification of every man, whether
Jew or Gentile, in all ages. Now, of this covenant, in its spiritual as
well as in its temporal provisions, circumcision was most certainly the
sacrament, that is the “sign” and the “seal;” for St. Paul thus explains
the case: “And he received the SIGN of circumcision, a SEAL of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.” And as
this rite was enjoined upon Abraham’s posterity, so that every
“uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin was not circumcised
on the eighth day,” was to be “cut off from his people,” by the special
judgment of God, and that because “he had broken God’s _covenant_,” Gen.
xvii, 14; it therefore follows that this rite was a constant publication
of God’s covenant of grace among the descendants of Abraham, and its
repetition a continual confirmation of that covenant, on the part of
God, to all practising it in that faith of which it was the ostensible
expression.

2. As the covenant of grace made with Abraham was bound up with temporal
promises and privileges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the
covenant in both its parts,--its spiritual and its temporal, its
superior and inferior provisions. The spiritual promises of the covenant
continued unrestricted to all the descendants of Abraham, whether by
Isaac or by Ishmael; and still lower down, to the descendants of Esau as
well as to those of Jacob. Circumcision was practised among them all by
virtue of its divine institution at first; and was extended to their
foreign servants, and to proselytes, as well as to their children; and
where-ever the sign of the covenant of grace was by divine appointment,
there it was as a _seal_ of that covenant, to all who believingly used
it; for we read of no restriction of its spiritual blessings, that is,
its saving engagements, to one line of descent from Abraham only. But
over the _temporal_ branch of the covenant, and the _external_ religious
privileges arising out of it, God exercised a rightful sovereignty, and
expressly restricted them first to the line of Isaac, and then to that
of Jacob, with whose descendants he entered into special covenant by the
ministry of Moses. The temporal blessings and external privileges
comprised under general expressions in the covenant with Abraham, were
explained and enlarged under that of Moses, while the spiritual
blessings remained unrestricted as before. This was probably the reason
why circumcision was reënacted under the law of Moses. It was a
confirmation of the temporal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, now,
by a covenant of peculiarity, made over to them, while it was still
recognized as a consuetudinary rite which had descended to them from
their fathers, and as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, made
with Abraham and with all his descendants without exception. This double
reference of circumcision, both to the authority of Moses and to that of
the patriarchs, is found in the words of our Lord, John vii, 22: “Moses
therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of
the fathers;” or, as it is better translated by Campbell, “Moses
instituted circumcision among you, (not that it is from Moses, but from
the patriarchs,) and ye circumcise on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a
child receive circumcision, that the _law of Moses_ may not be
violated,” &c.

3. From these observations, the controversy in the Apostolic churches
respecting circumcision will derive much elucidation. The covenant with
Abraham prescribed circumcision as an act of faith in its promises, and
as a pledge to perform its conditions on the part of his descendants.
But the object on which this faith rested, was “the Seed of Abraham,” in
whom the nations of the earth were to be blessed: which Seed, says St.
Paul, “is Christ,”--Christ as promised, not yet come. When the Christ
had come, so as fully to enter upon his redeeming offices, he could no
longer be the object of faith, as still to come; and this leading
promise of the covenant being accomplished, the sign and seal of it
vanished away. Nor could circumcision be continued in _this view_ by
any, without an implied denial that Jesus was the Christ, the expected
Seed of Abraham. Circumcision also as an institution of Moses, who
continued it as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant both in its
spiritual and temporal provisions, but with respect to the latter made
it also a sign and seal of the restriction of its temporal blessings and
peculiar religious privileges to the descendants of Israel, was
terminated by the entrance of our Lord upon his office of Mediator, in
which office all nations were to be blessed in him. The Mosaic edition
of the covenant not only guaranteed the land of Canaan, but the
peculiarity of the Israelites, as the people and visible church of God
to the exclusion of others, except by proselytism. But when our Lord
commanded the Gospel to be preached to “all nations,” and opened the
gates of the “common salvation” to all, whether Gentiles or Jews,
circumcision, as the sign of a covenant of peculiarity and religious
distinction, was also done away. It had not only no reason remaining,
but the continuance of the rite involved the recognition of exclusive
privileges which had been terminated by Christ. This will explain the
views of the Apostle Paul on this great question. He declares that in
Christ there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; that neither
circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but “faith that
worketh by love;” faith in the Seed of Abraham already come and already
engaged in his mediatorial and redeeming work; faith, by virtue of which
the Gentiles came into the church of Christ on the same terms as the
Jews themselves, and were justified and saved. The doctrine of the
non-necessity of circumcision, he applies to the Jews as well as to the
Gentiles, although he specially resists the attempts of the Judaizers to
impose this rite upon the Gentile converts; in which he was supported by
the decision of the Holy Spirit when the appeal upon this question was
made to “the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem,” from the church at
Antioch. At the same time it is clear that he takes two different views
of the practice of circumcision, as it was continued among many of the
first Christians. The first is that strong one which is expressed in
Gal. v, 2–4, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify again to every man that
is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is made
of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are
fallen from grace.” The second is that milder view which he himself must
have had when he circumcised Timothy to render him more acceptable to
the Jews; and which also appears to have led him to abstain from all
allusion to this practice when writing his epistle to the believing
Hebrews, although many, perhaps most of them, continue to circumcise
their children, as did the Jewish Christians for a long time afterward.
These different views of circumcision, held by the same person, may be
explained by considering the different principles on which circumcision
might be practised after it had become an obsolete ordinance.

(1.) It might be taken in the simple view of its first institution, as
the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant; and then it was to be
condemned as involving a denial that Abraham’s Seed, the Christ, had
already come, since, upon his coming, every old covenant gave place to
the new covenant introduced by him.

(2.) It might be practised and enjoined as the sign and seal of the
Mosaic covenant, which was still the Abrahamic covenant with its
spiritual blessings, but with restriction of its temporal promises and
special ecclesiastical privileges to the line of Jacob, with a law of
observances which was obligatory upon all entering that covenant by
circumcision. In that case it involved, in like manner, the notion of
the continuance of an old covenant, after the establishment of the new;
for thus St. Paul states the case in Galatians iii, 19: “Wherefore then
serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed
should come.” After that therefore it had no effect:--it had waxed old,
and had vanished away.

(3.) Again: circumcision might imply an obligation to observe all the
ceremonial usages and the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, along with a
general belief in the mission of Christ, as necessary to justification
before God. This appears to have been the view of those among the
Galatian Christians who submitted to circumcision, and of the Jewish
teachers who enjoined it upon them; for St. Paul in that epistle
constantly joins circumcision with legal observances, and as involving
an obligation to do “the whole law,” in order to justification.--“I
testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to
do the whole law; whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are
fallen from grace.” “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Gal. ii, 16. To all
persons therefore practising circumcision in this view it was obvious,
that “Christ was become of none effect,” the very principle of
justification by faith alone in him was renounced even while his divine
mission was still admitted.

(4.) But there are two grounds on which circumcision maybe conceived to
have been innocently, though not wisely, practised, among the Christian
Jews. The first was that of preserving an ancient national distinction
on which they valued themselves; and were a converted Jew in the present
day disposed to perform that rite upon his children for this purpose
only, renouncing in the act all consideration of it as a sign and seal
of the old covenants, or as obliging to ceremonial acts in order to
justification, no one would censure him with severity. It appears clear
that it was under some such view that St. Paul circumcised Timothy,
whose mother was a Jewess; he did it because of “the Jews which were in
those quarters,” that is, because of their national prejudices, “for
they knew that his father was a Greek.” The second was a lingering
notion, that, even in the Christian church, the Jews who believed would
still retain some degree of eminence, some superior relation to God; a
notion which, however unfounded, was not one which demanded direct
rebuke, when it did not proudly refuse spiritual communion with the
converted Gentiles, but was held by men who “rejoiced that God had
granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” These considerations may
account for the silence of St. Paul on the subject of circumcision in
his Epistle to the Hebrews. Some of them continued to practise that
rite, but they were probably believers of the class just mentioned; for
had he thought that the rite was continued among them on any principle
which affected the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, he would no
doubt have been equally prompt and fearless in pointing out that
apostasy from Christ which was implied in it, as when he wrote to the
Galatians.

Not only might circumcision be practised with views so opposite that one
might be wholly innocent, although an infirmity of prejudice; the other
such as would involve a rejection of the doctrine of justification by
faith in Christ; but some other Jewish observances also stood in the
same circumstances. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, a part of
his writings from which we obtain the most information on these
questions, grounds his “doubts” whether the members of that church were
not seeking to be “justified by the law” upon their observing “days, and
months, and times, and years.” Had he done more than “doubt,” he would
have expressed himself more positively. He saw their danger on this
point; he saw that they were taking steps to this fatal result, by such
an observance of these “days,” &c, as had a strong leaning and dangerous
approach to that dependence upon them for justification, which would
destroy their faith in Christ’s solely sufficient sacrifice; but his
very doubting, not of the fact of their being addicted to these
observances, but of the _animus_ with which they regarded them, supposes
it possible, however dangerous this Jewish conformity might be, that
they might be observed for reasons which would still consist with their
entire reliance upon the merits of Christ for salvation. Even he
himself, strongly as he resisted the imposition of this conformity to
Jewish customs upon the converts to Christianity as a matter of
necessity, yet in practice must have conformed to many of them, when no
sacrifice of principle was understood; for, in order to gain the Jews,
he became “as a Jew.” See ABRAHAM, and BAPTISM.

CISLEU, the ninth month of the ecclesiastical, and the third of the
civil, year among the Hebrews. It answers nearly to our November.

CISTERN, a reservoir chiefly for rain water. Numbers of these are still
to be seen in Palestine, some of which are a hundred and fifty paces
long, and sixty broad. The reason of their being so large was, that
their cities were many of them built in elevated situations; and the
rain falling only twice in the year, namely, spring and autumn, it
became necessary for them to collect a quantity of water, as well for
the cattle as for the people. A broken cistern would of course be a
great calamity to a family, or in some cases even to a town; and with
reference to this we may see the force of the reproof, Jer. ii, 13.

CITIES. By referring to some peculiarities in the building, fortifying,
&c, of eastern cities we shall the better understand several allusions
and expressions of the Old Testament. It is evident that the walls of
fortified cities were sometimes partly constructed of combustible
materials; for the Prophet, denouncing the judgments of God upon Syria
and other countries, declares, “I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza,
which shall devour the palaces thereof,” Amos i, 7. The walls of Tyre
and Rabbah seem to have been of the same perishable materials; for the
Prophet adds, “I will send a fire upon the wall of Tyrus, which shall
devour the palaces thereof;” and again, “I will kindle a fire in the
walls of Rabbah, and it shall devour the palaces thereof with shouting
in the day of battle,” verses 10, 14. One method of securing the gates
of fortified places, among the ancients, was to cover them with thick
plates of iron; a custom which is still used in the east, and seems to
be of great antiquity. We learn from Pitts, that Algiers has five gates,
and some of these have two, some three, other gates within them; and
some of them are plated all over with thick iron. The place where the
Apostle was imprisoned seems to have been secured in the same manner;
for, says the inspired historian, “When they were past the first and
second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city;
which opened to them of its own accord,” Acts xii, 10. Pococke, speaking
of a bridge not far from Antioch, called the iron bridge, says, there
are two towers belonging to it, the gates of which are covered with iron
plates; which he supposes is the reason of the name it bears. Some of
their gates are plated over with brass; such are the enormous gates of
the principal mosque at Damascus, formerly the church of John the
Baptist. To gates like these, the Psalmist probably refers in these
words: “He hath broken the gates of brass,” Psalm cvii, 16; and the
Prophet, in that remarkable passage, where God promises to go before
Cyrus his anointed, and “break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in
sunder the bars of iron,” Isa. xlv, 2. But, conscious that all these
precautions were insufficient for their security, the orientals employed
watchmen to patrol the city during the night, to suppress any disorders
in the streets, or to guard the walls against the attempts of a foreign
enemy. To this custom Solomon refers in these words: “The watchmen that
went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the
keepers of the wall took away my veil from me,” Song v, 7. This custom
may be traced to a very remote antiquity; so early as the departure of
Israel from the land of Egypt, the morning watch is mentioned, certainly
indicating the time when the watchmen were commonly relieved. In Persia,
the watchmen were obliged to indemnify those who were robbed in the
streets; which accounts for the vigilance and severity which they
display in the discharge of their office, and illustrates the character
of watchman given to Ezekiel, and the duties he was required to perform.
If the wicked perished in his iniquities without warning, the Prophet
was to be accountable for his blood; but if he duly pointed out his
danger, he delivered his own soul, Ezek. xxxiii, 2. They were also
charged, as with us, to announce the progress of the night to the
slumbering city: “The burden of Dumah; he calls to me out of Seir,
Watchman, what of the night? watchman, what of the night? The watchman
said, The morning cometh, and also the night,” Isa. xxi, 11. This is
confirmed by an observation of Chardin upon these words of Moses: “For a
thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as
a watch in the night:” that “as the people of the east have no clocks,
the several parts of the day and of the night, which are eight in all,
are announced. In the Indies, the parts of the night are made known, as
well by instruments of music, in great cities, as by the rounds of the
watchmen, who, with cries and small drums, give them notice that a
fourth part of the night is past. Now, as these cries awaked those who
had slept all that quarter part of the night, it appeared to them but as
a moment.” It is evident the ancient Jews knew, by some public notice,
how the night watches passed away; but, whether they simply announced
the termination of the watch, or made use of trumpets, or other sonorous
instruments, in making the proclamation, it may not be easy to
determine; and still less what kind of chronometers the watchmen used.
The probability is, that the watches were announced with the sound of a
trumpet; for the Prophet Ezekiel makes it a part of the watchman’s duty,
at least in time of war, to blow the trumpet, and warn the people. The
watchman, in a time of danger, seems to have taken his station in a
tower, which was built over the gate of the city.

The fortified cities in Canaan, as in some other countries, were
commonly strengthened with a citadel, to which the inhabitants fled when
they found it impossible to defend the place. The whole inhabitants of
Thebez, unable to resist the repeated and furious assaults of Abimelech,
retired into one of these towers, and bid defiance to his rage: “But
there was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men
and women, and all they of the city, and shut it to them, and gat them
up to the top of the tower.” The extraordinary strength of this tower,
and the various means of defence which were accumulated within its
narrow walls, may be inferred from the violence of Abimelech’s attack,
and its fatal issue: “And Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought
against it, and went hard unto the door of the tower, to burn it with
fire. And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech’s
head, and all to break his skull,” Judges ix, 52. The city of Shechem
had a tower of the same kind, into which the people retired, when the
same usurper took it and sowed it with salt, Judges ix, 46. These strong
towers which were built within a fortified city, were commonly placed on
an eminence, to which they ascended by a flight of steps. Such was the
situation of the city of David, a strong tower upon a high eminence at
Jerusalem; and the manner of entrance, as described by the sacred
writer: “But the gate of the fountain repaired Shallum, unto the stairs
that go down from the city of David,” Nehemiah iii, 15.

CITIES OF REFUGE. See REFUGE.

CLAUDIUS, a Roman emperor; he succeeded Caius Caligula, A. D. 41, and
reigned thirteen years, eight months, and nineteen days, dying A. D. 54.
King Agrippa was the principal means of persuading Claudius to accept
the empire, which was tendered him by the soldiers. As an acknowledgment
for this service, he gave Agrippa all Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis
to his brother Herod. He put an end to the dispute which had for some
time existed between the Jews of Alexandria and the other freemen of
that city, and confirmed the Jews in the possession of their right of
freedom, which they had enjoyed from the beginning, and every where
maintained them in the free exercise of their religion. But he would not
permit them to hold any assemblies at Rome. King Agrippa dying A. D. 44,
the emperor again reduced Judea into a province, and sent Cuspius Fadus
to be governor. About the same time the famine happened which is
mentioned Acts xi, 28–30, and was foretold by the Prophet Agabus.
Claudius, in the ninth year of his reign, published an edict for
expelling all Jews out of Rome, Acts xviii, 2. It is very probable that
the Christians, who were at that time confounded with the Jews, were
banished likewise.

2. CLAUDIUS FELIX, successor of Cumanus in the government of Judea.
Felix found means to solicit and engage Drusilla, sister of Agrippa the
Younger, to leave her husband Azizus, king of the Emessenians, and to
marry him, A. D. 53. Felix sent to Rome Eleazar, son of Dinæus, captain
of a band of robbers, who had committed great ravages in Palestine; he
procured the death of Jonathan, the high priest, who sometimes freely
represented to him his duty; he defeated a body of three thousand men,
whom an Egyptian, a false prophet, had assembled upon the Mount of
Olives. St. Paul being brought to Cesarea, where Felix usually resided,
was well treated by this governor, who permitted his friends to see him,
and render him services, hoping the Apostle would procure his redemption
by a sum of money. He however neither condemned Paul, nor set him at
liberty, when the Jews accused him; but adjourned the determination of
this affair till the arrival of Lysias, who commanded the troops at
Jerusalem, where he had taken Paul into custody, and who was expected at
Cesarea, Acts xxiii, 26, 27, &c; xxiv, 1–3, &c.

While the Apostle was thus detained, Felix, with his wife Drusilla, who
was a Jewess, sent for him, and desired him to explain the religion of
Jesus Christ. The Apostle spoke with his usual boldness, and discoursed
to them on justice, temperance, and the last judgment. Felix trembled
before this powerful exhibition of truths so arousing to his conscience;
but he remanded St. Paul to his confinement. He farther detained him two
years at Cesarea, in compliance with the wishes of the Jews, and in
order to do something to propitiate them, because they were extremely
dissatisfied with his government. Being recalled to Rome, A. D. 60; and
many Jews going thither to complain of the extortions and violence
committed by him in Judea, he would have been put to death, if his
brother Pallas, who had been Claudius’s slave, and was now his freedman,
had not preserved him. Felix was succeeded in the government of Judea by
Porcius Festus.

CLAY, חמר, is often mentioned in Scripture, nor is it necessary to
explain the various references to what is so well known. It may be
remarked, however, that clay was used for scaling doors. Norden and
Pococke observe, that the inspectors of the granaries in Egypt, after
closing the door, put their seal upon a handful of clay, with which they
cover the lock. This may help to explain Job xxxviii, 14, in which the
earth is represented as assuming form and imagery from the brightness of
the rising sun, as rude clay receives a figure from the impression of a
seal or signet.

CLEOPAS, according to Eusebius and Epiphanius, was brother of Joseph,
both being sons of Jacob. He was the father of Simeon, of James the
Less, of Jude, and Joseph or Joses. Cleopas married Mary, sister to the
blessed virgin. He was therefore uncle to Jesus Christ, and his sons
were first cousins to him. Cleopas, his wife, and sons, were disciples
of Christ. Having beheld our Saviour expire upon the cross, he, like the
other disciples, appears to have lost all hopes of seeing the kingdom of
God established by him on earth. The third day after our Saviour’s
death, on the day of his resurrection, Cleopas, with another disciple,
departed from Jerusalem to Emmaus; and in the way discoursed on what had
lately happened. Our Saviour joined them, appearing as a traveller; and,
taking up their discourse, he reasoned with them, convincing them out of
the Scriptures, that it was necessary the Messiah should suffer death,
previously to his being glorified. At Emmaus, Jesus seemed as if
inclined to go farther; but Cleopas and his companion detained him, and
made him sup with them. While they were at table, Jesus took bread,
blessed it, brake, and gave it to them, and by this action their eyes
were opened, and they knew him. Upon his disappearing they instantly
returned to Jerusalem, to announce the fact to the Apostles, who in
their turn declared that “the Lord was risen indeed and had appeared to
Peter.” In our translation of Luke xxiv, 31, it is said that Jesus
“vanished out of their sight;” but the original is more properly
rendered, “He suddenly went away from them,” the word being often
applied by the Greek writers to those who in any way, but especially
suddenly and abruptly, withdraw from any one’s company. No other actions
of Cleopas are known. It is the opinion of Jerom, that his residence was
at Emmaus, and that he invited our Saviour into his own house. Supposing
Cleopas to have been the brother of Joseph, and father of James, &c,
Calmet thinks it more probable that as he was a Galilean, he dwelt in
some city of Galilee.

CLOUD, a collection of vapours suspended in the atmosphere. When the
Israelites had left Egypt, God gave them a pillar of cloud to direct
their march, Exod. xiii, 21, 22. According to Jerom, in his Epistle to
Fabiola, this cloud attended them from Succoth; or, according to others,
from Rameses; or, as the Hebrews say, only from Ethan, till the death of
Aaron; or, as the generality of commentators are of opinion, to the
passage of Jordan. This pillar was commonly in front of the Israelites;
but at Pihahiroth, when the Egyptian army approached behind them, it
placed itself between Israel and the Egyptians, so that the Egyptians
could not come near the Israelites all night, Exod. xiv, 19, 20. In the
morning, the cloud moving on over the sea, and following the Israelites
who had passed through it, the Egyptians pressing after were drowned.
From that time, this cloud attended the Israelites; it was clear and
bright during night, in order to afford them light; but in the day it
was thick and gloomy, to defend them from the excessive heats of the
deserts. “The angel of God which went before the camp of Israel, removed
and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their
face, and stood behind them,” Exod. xiv, 19. Here we may observe, that
the angel and the cloud made the same motion, as it would seem, in
company. The cloud by its motions gave the signal to the Israelites to
encamp or to decamp. Where, therefore, it stayed, the people stayed till
it rose again; then they broke up their camp, and followed it till it
stopped. It was called a pillar, by reason of its form, which was high
and elevated. Some interpreters suppose that there were two clouds, one
to enlighten, the other to shade, the camp.

The Lord appeared at Sinai in the midst of a cloud, Exod. xix, 9; xxiv,
5; and after Moses had built and consecrated the tabernacle, the cloud
filled the court around it, so that neither Moses nor the priests could
enter, Exodus xl, 34, 35. The same happened at the dedication of the
temple of Jerusalem by Solomon, 2 Chronicles v, 13; 1 Kings viii, 10.
When the cloud appeared upon the tent, in front of which were held the
assemblies of the people in the desert, it was then indicated that God
was present; for the tent was a sign of God’s presence. The angel
descended in the cloud, and thence spoke to Moses, without being seen by
the people, Exod. xvi, 10; Num. xi, 25; xvi, 5. It is common in
Scripture, when mentioning God’s appearing, to represent him as
encompassed with clouds, which serve as a chariot, and contribute to
veil his dreadful majesty, Job xxii, 14; Isaiah xix, 1; Matt. xvii, 5;
xxiv, 30, &c; Psalm xviii, 11, 12; xcvii, 2; civ, 3. Cloud is also used
for morning mists: “Your goodness is as a morning cloud; and as the
early dew it goeth away,” Hosea vi, 4; xiii, 3. Job, speaking of the
chaos, says, that God had confined the sea or the water, as it were with
a cloud, and covered it with darkness, as a child is wrapped in its
blankets. The author of Ecclesiasticus, xxiv, 6, used the same
expression. The Son of God, at his second advent, is described as
descending upon clouds, Matt. xxiv, 30; Luke xi, 27; Rev. xiv, 14–16.

COCCEIANS, the disciples of John Cocceius, a celebrated Dutch divine,
born at Bremen, in 1608, where he was appointed professor of Hebrew, at
the age of twenty-seven, and afterward filled the theological chair at
Leyden, where he died in 1669. His works make ten volumes in folio. He
was a man of good learning, and a vivid imagination. He considered the
Old Testament as a mirror, which held forth figuratively the
transactions and events that were to happen in the church under the
dispensation of the New Testament, and unto the end of the world. He
maintained, that by far the greater part of the ancient prophecies
related to Christ’s ministry and mediation, and the rise, progress, and
revolutions of the church; not only under the figure of typical persons
and transactions, but in a more direct manner; and that Christ was,
indeed, as much the substance of the Old Testament as of the New.
Cocceius also taught, that the covenant made between God and the Jews
was of the same nature as the new covenant by Jesus Christ; that the law
was promulgated by Moses, not merely as a rule of obedience, but also as
a representation of the covenant of grace; that when the Jews had
provoked the Deity by their various transgressions, particularly by the
worship of the golden calf, the severe yoke of the ceremonial law was
added as a punishment; that this yoke, which was painful in itself,
became doubly so on account of its typical signification; since it
admonished the Israelites from day to day of the imperfection of their
state, filled them with anxiety, and was a perpetual proof that they had
merited the righteous judgment of God, and could not expect, before the
coming of the Messiah, the entire remission of their iniquities; that
indeed good men, under the Mosaic dispensation, were, after death, made
partakers of glory; but that, nevertheless, during the whole course of
their lives they were far removed from that assurance of salvation,
which rejoices the believer under the dispensation of the Gospel; and
that their anxiety flowed from this consideration, that their sins,
though they remained unpunished, were not yet pardoned; because Christ
had not as yet offered himself up to make an atonement for them.
Cocceius was also a millennarian, and expected a personal reign of
Christ on earth in the last days. Many of his opinions were afterward
adopted by the Hutchinsonians.

COCK, ἀλέκτωρ, a well known domestic fowl. Some derive the Greek name
from α, and λέκτρον, _a bed_, because the crowing of cocks rouses men
from their beds; but Mr. Parkhurst asks, “May not this name be as
properly deduced from the Hebrew אור הלכת, _the coming of the light_, of
which this ‘bird of dawning,’ as Shakspeare calls him, gives such
remarkable notice, and for doing which he was, among the Heathen, sacred
to the sun, who in Homer is himself called ἀλέκτωρ?” In Matt. xxvi, 34,
our Lord is represented as saying, that before cock-crow Peter should
deny him thrice; so Luke xxii, 34, and John xiii, 39. But according to
Mark xiv, 30, he says, “Before the cock crow _twice_ thou shalt deny me
thrice.” These texts may be very satisfactorily reconciled, by
observing, that ancient authors, both Greek and Latin, mention two
cock-crowings, the one of which was soon after midnight, the other about
three o’clock in the morning; and this latter being most noticed by men
as the signal of their approaching labours, was called by way of
eminence, the cock-crowing; and to this alone, Matthew, giving the
general sense of our Saviour’s warning to Peter, refers; but Mark,
recording his very words, mentions the two cock-crowings.

The rabbies tell us that cocks were not permitted to be kept in
Jerusalem on account of the holiness of the place; and that for this
reason some modern Jews cavil against this declaration of the
Evangelists; but the cock is not among the birds prohibited in the law
of Moses. If there was any restraint in the use and domestication of the
animal, it must have been an arbitrary practice of the Jews, and could
not have been binding on foreigners, of whom many resided at Jerusalem
as officers or traders. Strangers would not be willing to forego an
innocent kind of food in compliance with a conquered people; and the
trafficking spirit of the Jews would induce them to supply aliens, if it
did not expressly contradict the letter of their law. This is sufficient
to account for fowl of this kind being there, even admitting a customary
restraint. The celebrated Reland admits that it was not allowed to breed
cocks in the city, but that the Jews were not prohibited from buying
them to eat, and that therefore the cock mentioned in the Gospel might
be in the house of a Jew who designed to kill it for his own table; or
may have been kept in the precincts of Pilate, or of a Roman officer or
soldier.

During the time of our Saviour, the night was divided into four watches,
a fourth watch having been introduced among the Jews from the Romans,
who derived it from the Greeks. The second and third watches are
mentioned in Luke xii, 38; the fourth, in Matthew xiv, 25; and the four
are all distinctly mentioned in Mark xiii, 35: “Watch, therefore; for ye
know not when the master of the house cometh; at _even_,” ὀψὲ, or the
late watch, “or at _midnight_,” μεσονυκτίου, “or at the _cock-crowing_,”
ἀλεκτοροφωνίας, “or in the _morning_,” ϖρωΐ, the early watch. Here, the
first watch was at even, and continued from six till nine; the second
commenced at nine, and ended at twelve, or midnight; the third watch,
called by the Romans _gallicinium_, lasted from twelve to three; and the
morning watch closed at six.

COCKATRICE, צפען, or צפעי, Proverbs xxiii, 32; Isaiah xi, 8; xiv, 29;
lix, 5; Jer. viii, 17. A venomous serpent. The original Hebrew word has
been variously rendered, the _aspic_, the _regulus_, the _hydra_, the
_hemorhoos_, the _viper_, and the _cerastes_. In Isaiah xi, 8, this
serpent is evidently intended for a proportionate advance in malignity
beyond the _peten_ which precedes it; and in xiv, 29, it must mean a
worse kind of serpent than the _nahash_. In lix, 5, it is referred to as
oviparous. In Jer. viii, 17, Dr. Blayney, after Aquila, retains the
rendering of basilisk. Bochart, who thinks it to be the regulus or
basilisk, says that it may be so denominated by an onomatopœia from
its hissing; and accordingly it is hence called in Latin _sibilus_, “the
hisser.” So the Arabic _saphaa_ signifies “flatu adurere,” [to scorch
with a blast.] The Chaldee paraphrast, the Syriac, and the Arabic,
render it the _hurman_ or _horman_; which rabbi Selomo on Gen. xlix, 17,
declares to be the _tziphoni_ of the Hebrews: “_Hurman vocatur species,
cujus morsus est insanabilis. Is est Hebræis_ tziphoni, _et Chaldaicè
dicitur_ hurman, _quia omnia facit_ חרם _vastationem; id est, quia omnia
vastat, et ad internecionem destruit._” [The species is called _hurman_,
whose bite is incurable. It is the _tziphoni_ of the Hebrews, and is
called in Chaldee _hurman_, because it makes all things חרם--a waste;
that is, because it lays waste and utterly destroys every thing.]

COCKLE, באשה. This word occurs only in Job xxxi, 40. By the Chaldee it
is rendered _noxious herbs_; by Symmachus, ἀτελεσφόρητα, _plants of
imperfect fruit_; by the Septuagint, βάτος, _the blackberry bush_; by
Castelio, _ebulus_, “dwarf elder;” by Celsius, _aconite_; and by Bishop
Stock and Dr. Good, _the night-shade_. M. Michaëlis maintains, after
Celsius, that both this word and ֻּבאשִים, Isaiah v, 2, 4, denote the
_aconite_, a poisonous plant, growing spontaneously and luxuriantly on
sunny hills, such as are used for vineyards. He says that this
interpretation is certain, because, as Celsius had observed, ביש, in
Arabic, denotes the _aconite_; and he intimates that it best suits Job
xxxi, 40, where it is mentioned as growing instead of barley. The word
appears to import a weed not only noxious, but of a fetid smell.

CŒLO-SYRIA, _hollow_ or _depressed_ Syria, Syria in the vale, 1 Macc.
xiii, 10. This name imports the hollow land, or region, situated between
two long ridges of mountains; and those mountains have been always
understood to be Libanus and Anti-libanus. As these ridges run parallel
for many leagues, they contain between them a long, extensive, and
extremely fruitful valley.

COLOSSE, a city of Phrygia Minor, which stood on the river Lyceus, at an
equal distance between Laodicea and Hierapolis. These three cities, says
Eusebius, were destroyed by an earthquake, in the tenth of Nero, or
about two years after the date of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians.
Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse were at no great distance from each
other; which accounts for the Apostle Paul, when writing to his
Christian brethren in the latter of these places, mentioning them all in
connection with each other, Col. iv, 13. Of these cities, however,
Laodicea was the greatest, for it was the metropolis of Phrygia, though
Colosse is said to have been a great and wealthy place. The inhabitants
of Phrygia, says Dr. Macknight, were famous for the worship of Bacchus,
and of Cybele the mother of the gods; whence the latter was called
Phrygia mater, by way of eminence. In her worship, as well as in that of
Bacchus, both sexes practised every species of debauchery in speech and
action, with a frantic rage which they pretended was occasioned by the
inspiration of the deities whom they worshipped. These were the orgies,
from ὀργὴ, _rage_, of Bacchus and Cybele, so famed in antiquity, the
lascivious rites of which being perfectly adapted to the corruptions of
the human heart, were performed by both sexes without shame or remorse.
Hence as the Son of God came into the world to destroy the works of the
devil, it appeared, in the eye of his Apostle, a matter of great
importance to carry the light of the Gospel into countries where these
abominable impurities were not only practised, but even dignified with
the honourable appellation of religious worship; especially as nothing
but the heaven-descended light of the Gospel could dispel such a
pernicious infatuation. That this salutary purpose might be effectually
accomplished, Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, went at different
times into Phrygia, and preached the Gospel in many cities of that
country with great success; but it is thought by many persons, that the
Epistle to the Colossians contains internal marks of his never having
been at Colosse when he wrote it. This opinion rests principally upon
the following passage: “For I would that ye knew what great conflict I
have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have _not
seen my face_ in the flesh,” Col. ii, 1: but these words, if they prove
any thing upon this question, prove that St. Paul had never been either
at Laodicea or Colosse; but surely it is very improbable that he should
have travelled twice into Phrygia for the purpose of preaching the
Gospel, and not have gone either to Laodicea or Colosse, which were the
two principal cities of that country; especially as in the second
journey into those parts it is said, that he “went over all the country
of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples;” and moreover,
we know that it was the Apostle’s practice to preach at the most
considerable places of every district into which he went. Dr. Lardner,
after arguing this point, says, “From all these considerations, it
appears to me very probable that the church at Colosse had been planted
by the Apostle Paul, and that the Christians there were his friends,
disciples, and converts.”

The Epistle greatly resembles that to the Ephesians, both in sentiment
and expression. After saluting the Colossian Christians in his own name,
and that of Timothy, St. Paul assures them, that since he had heard of
their faith in Christ Jesus, and of their love to all Christians, he had
not ceased to return thanks to God for them, and to pray that they might
increase in spiritual knowledge, and abound in every good work; he
describes the dignity of Christ, and declares the universality of the
Gospel dispensation, which was a mystery formerly hidden, but now made
manifest; and he mentions his own appointment, through the grace of God,
to be the Apostle of the Gentiles; he expresses a tender concern for the
Colossians and other Christians of Phrygia, and cautions them against
being seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, by the subtlety of
Pagan philosophers, or the superstition of Judaizing Christians; he
directs them to set their affections on things above, and forbids every
species of licentiousness; he exhorts to a variety of Christian virtues,
to meekness, veracity, humility, charity, and devotion; he enforces the
duties of wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, and masters; he
inculcates the duty of prayer, and of prudent behaviour toward
unbelievers; and after adding the salutations of several persons then at
Rome, and desiring that this epistle might be read in the church of
their neighbours the Laodiceans, he concludes with a salutation from
himself, written, as usual, with his own hand.

COMFORTER, one of the titles by which the Holy Spirit is designated in
the New Testament, John xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26. The name has no doubt a
reference to his peculiar office in the economy of redemption; namely,
that of imparting consolation to the hearts of Christ’s disciples, which
he effects by “taking of the things that are Christ’s,” and explaining
them; or, in other words, by illuminating their minds as to the meaning
of the Scriptures, assuring them of the Saviour’s love, bringing to
their recollection his consolatory sayings, and filling their souls with
peace and joy in believing them.--The word has also been rendered
_Advocate_, _Helper_, _Monitor_, _Teacher_, &c. The first does not apply
to the office of the Spirit; and the others are not so well supported by
the connection of our Lord’s discourse, which favours the translation,
_Comforter_; because whatever gracious offices the Holy Spirit was to
perform for the disciples, the great end of all was to remove that
sorrow which the approach of the departure of Christ had produced, and
to render their joy full and complete.

COMMERCE. Merchandise, in its various branches, was carried on in the
east at the earliest period of which we have any account; and it was not
long before the traffic between nations, both by sea and land, was very
considerable. Accordingly, frequent mention is made of public roads,
fords, bridges, and beasts of burden; also of ships for the
transportation of property, of weights, measures, and coin, both in the
oldest books of the Bible, and in the most ancient profane histories.
The Phenicians anciently held the first rank as a commercial nation.
They were in the habit of purchasing goods of various kinds throughout
all the east. They then carried them in ships down the Mediterranean, as
far as the shores of Africa and Europe, brought back in return
merchandise and silver, and disposed of these again in the more eastern
countries. The first metropolis of the Phenicians was Sidon: afterward
Tyre became the principal city. Tyre was built two hundred and forty
years before the temple of Solomon, or twelve hundred and fifty-one
before Christ. The Phenicians had ports of their own in almost every
country; the most distinguished of which were Carthage and Tarshish, or
Tartessus, in Spain. The ships from the latter place undertook very
distant voyages: hence, any vessels that performed distant voyages were
called “ships of Tarshish,” אנות תרשיש. Something is said of the
commerce of the Phenicians in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth
chapters of Ezekiel, and the twenty-third chapter of Isaiah. The
inhabitants of Arabia Felix carried on a commerce with India. They
carried some of the articles which they brought from India through the
straits of Babelmandel into Abyssinia and Egypt; some they transported
to Babylon through the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates; and some by the
way of the Red Sea to the port of Eziongeber. They thus became rich;
though it is possible their wealth may have been too much magnified by
the ancients. The eminence of the Egyptians, as a commercial nation,
commences with the reign of Necho. Their commerce, nevertheless, was not
great, till Alexander had destroyed Tyre and built Alexandria.

2. The Phenicians sometimes received the goods of India by way of the
Persian Gulf, where they had colonies in the islands of Dedan, Arad, and
Tyre. Sometimes they received them from the Arabians, who either brought
them by land through Arabia, or up the Red Sea to Eziongeber. In the
latter case, having landed them at the port mentioned, they transported
them through the country by the way of Gaza to Phenicia. The Phenicians
increased the amount of their foreign goods by the addition of those
which they themselves fabricated; and were thus enabled to supply all
parts of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians at first received their goods
from the Phenicians, Arabians, Africans, and Abyssinians; in all of
which countries there are still the remains of large trading towns; but
in a subsequent age, they imported goods from India in their own
vessels; and eventually carried on an export trade with various ports on
the Mediterranean. Oriental commerce, however, was chiefly carried on by
land: accordingly, vessels are hardly mentioned in the Bible, except in
Psalm cvii, 23–30, and in passages where the discourse turns upon the
Phenicians, or upon the naval affairs of Solomon and Jehoshaphat. The
two principal routes from Palestine into Egypt were, the one along the
shores of the Mediterranean from Gaza to Pelusium, and the other from
Gaza by the way of Mount Sinai and the Elanitic branch of the Red Sea.

3. The merchants transported their goods upon camels; animals which are
patient of thirst, and are easily supported in the deserts. For the
common purpose of security against depredations, the oriental merchants
travelled in company, as is common in the east at the present day. A
large travelling company of this kind is called a _caravan_ or _carvan_,
a smaller one was called _kafile_ or _kafle_, Job vi, 18–20; Gen.
xxxvii, 25; Isa. xxi, 13; Jer. ix, 2; Judges v, 6; Luke ii, 44. The
furniture carried by the individuals of a caravan consisted of a
mattress, a coverlet, a carpet for sitting upon, a round piece of
leather, which answered the purpose of a table, a few pots and kettles
of copper covered with tin; also a tin-plated cup, which was suspended
before the breast under the outer garment, and was used for drinking, 1
Sam. xxvi, 11, 12, 16: leathern bags for holding water, tents, lights,
and provisions in quality and abundance as each one could afford. Every
caravan had a leader to conduct it through the desert, who was
acquainted with the direction of its route, and with the cisterns and
fountains. These he was able to ascertain, sometimes from heaps of
stones, sometimes by the character of the soil, and, when other helps
failed him, by the stars, Num. x, 29–32; Jer. xxxi, 21; Isa. xxi, 14.
When all things are in readiness, the individuals who compose the
caravan assemble at a distance from the city. The commander of the
caravan, who is a different person from the conductor or leader, and is
chosen from the wealthiest of its members, appoints the day of their
departure. A similar arrangement was adopted among the Jews, whenever
they travelled in large numbers to the city of Jerusalem. The caravans
start very early, sometimes before day. They endeavour to find a
stopping place or station to remain at during the night, which shall
afford them a supply of water, Job vi, 15–20. They arrive at their
stopping place before the close of the day; and, while it is yet light,
prepare every thing that is necessary for the recommencement of their
journey. In order to prevent any one from wandering away from the
caravan, and getting lost during the night, lamps or torches are
elevated upon poles and carried before it. The pillar of fire answered
this purpose for the Israelites, when wandering in the wilderness.
Sometimes the caravans lodge in cities; but when they do not, they pitch
their tents so as to form an encampment; and during the night keep watch
alternately for the sake of security. In the cities there are public
inns, called _Chan_ and _Carvanserai_, in which the caravans are lodged
without expense. They are large square buildings, in the centre of which
is an area, or open court. Carvanserais are denominated in the Greek of
the New Testament, ϖανδοχεῖον, κατάλυσις and κατάλυμα, Luke ii, 7; x,
34. The first mention of one in the Old Testament is in Jer. xli, 17,
גרות כמהם. It was situated near the city of Bethlehem.

4. Moses enacted no laws in favour of commerce, although there is no
question that he saw the situation of Palestine to be very favourable
for it. The reason of this was, that the Hebrews, who were designedly
set apart to preserve the true religion, could not mingle with foreign
idolatrous nations without injury. He therefore merely inculcated good
faith and honesty in buying and selling, Lev. xix, 36, 37; Deut. xxv,
13–16; and left all the other interests of commerce to a future age. By
the establishment, however, of the three great festivals, he gave
occasion for some mercantile intercourse. At these festivals all the
adult males of the nation were yearly assembled at one place. The
consequence was, that those who had any thing to sell brought it; while
those who wished to buy articles came with the expectation of having an
opportunity. As Moses, though he did not encourage, did not interdict
foreign commerce, Solomon, at a later period, not only carried on a
traffic in horses, as already stated, but sent ships from the port of
Eziongeber through the Red Sea to Ophir, probably the coast of Africa, 1
Kings ix, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 21. This traffic, although a source of
emolument, appears to have been neglected after the death of Solomon.
The attempt made by Jehoshaphat to restore it was frustrated, by his
ships being dashed upon the rocks and destroyed, 1 Kings xxii, 48, 49; 2
Chron. xx, 36. Joppa, though not a very convenient one, was properly the
port of Jerusalem; and some of the large vessels which went to Spain
sailed from it, Jonah i, 3. In the age of Ezekiel, the commerce of
Jerusalem was so great, that it gave an occasion of envy even to the
Tyrians themselves, Ezek. xxvi, 2. After the captivity, a great number
of Jews became merchants, and travelled for the purpose of traffic into
all countries. About the year 150 B. C. prince Simon rendered the port
at Joppa more convenient than it had hitherto been. In the time of
Pompey the Great, there were so many Jews abroad on the ocean, even in
the character of pirates, that King Antigonus was accused before him of
having sent them out on purpose. A new port was built by Herod at
Cesarea.

COMMUNION, in a religious sense, refers chiefly to the admission of
persons to the Lord’s Supper. This is said to be open, when all are
admitted who apply, as in the Church of England; to be strict, when
confined to the members of a single society, or, at least, to members of
the same denomination; and it is mixed, when persons are admitted from
societies of different denominations, on the profession of their faith,
and evidence of their piety. The principal difficulty on this point
arises between the strict Baptists and Pædo-Baptists.

CONCUBINE, פילגש. This term, in western authors, commonly signifies, a
woman, who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his
wife; but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in
another sense; meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the
ceremonies and solemnities of matrimony; a wife of the second rank,
inferior to the first wife, or mistress of the house. Children of
concubines did not inherit their father’s fortune; but he might provide
for, and make presents to, them. Thus Abraham, by Sarah his wife, had
Isaac, his heir; but, by his two concubines, Hagar and Keturah, he had
other children, whom he did not make equal to Isaac. As polygamy was
tolerated in the east, it was common to see in every family, beside
lawful wives, several concubines. Since the abrogation of polygamy by
Jesus Christ, and the restoration of marriage to its primitive
institution, concubinage is ranked with adultery or fornication.

CONEY, שפן, Levit. xi, 5; Deut. xiv, 7; Psalm civ, 8; and Prov. xxx, 26.
Bochart and others have supposed the _shaphan_ of the Scriptures to be
the jerboa; but Mr. Bruce proves that the ashkoko is intended. This
curious animal is found in Ethiopia, and in great numbers on Mount
Lebanon, &c. Instead of holes, they seem to delight in more airy places,
in the mouths of caves, or clefts in the rock. They are gregarious, and
frequently several dozens of them sit upon the great stones at the
mouths of caves, and warm themselves in the sun, or come out and enjoy
the freshness of the summer evening. They do not stand upright upon
their feet, but seem to steal along as in fear, their belly being nearly
close to the ground; advancing a few steps at a time, and then pausing.
They have something very mild, feeble-like, and timid, in their
deportment; are gentle and easily tamed, though, when roughly handled at
the first, they bite very severely. Many are the reasons to believe this
to be the animal called _saphan_ in Hebrew, and erroneously by our
translators, “the coney,” or rabbit. The latter are gregarious indeed,
and so far resemble the other, as also in size; but they seek not the
same place of retreat; for the rabbit burrows most generally in the
sand. Nor is there any thing in the character of rabbits that denotes
excellent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any
remarkable sagacity. The _saphan_, then, is not the rabbit; which last,
unless it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never
saw.

Let us now apply the characters of the ashkoko to the _saphan_. “He is
above all other animals so much attached to the rocks, that I never
once,” says Mr. Bruce, “saw him on the ground, or from among large
stones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant residence. He lives
in families or flocks. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and
consequently must have been familiar to Solomon. David describes him
very pertinently, and joins him to other animals perfectly known: ‘The
hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the _saphan_:’
and Solomon says that ‘they are exceeding wise,’ that they are ‘but a
feeble folk, yet make their houses in the rocks.’ Now this, I think,
very obviously fixes the ashkoko to be the _saphan_; for his weakness
seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes
in the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. From their tenderness these
are very liable to be excoriated or hurt; notwithstanding which, they
build houses in the rocks more inaccessible than those of the rabbit,
and in which they abide in greater safety, not by exertion of strength,
for they have it not, but are truly, as Solomon says, ‘a feeble folk,’
but by their own sagacity and judgment; and are therefore justly
described as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that
some of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say that the _saphan_ has no
tail, that it is less than a cat, that it lives in houses or nests,
which it builds of straw, in contradistinction to the rabbit and the
rat, and those animals that burrow in the ground.”

CONFESSION signifies a public acknowledgment of any thing as our own:
thus Christ will confess the faithful in the day of judgment, Luke xii,
8. 2. To own and profess the truths of Christ, and to obey his
commandments, in spite of opposition and danger from enemies, Matt. x,
32. 3. To utter or speak the praises of God, or to give him thanks. 4.
To acknowledge our sins and offences to God, either by private or public
confession; or to our neighbour whom we have wronged; or to some pious
persons from whom we expect to receive comfort and spiritual
instruction; or to the whole congregation when our fault is published,
Psalm xxxii, 5; Matt. iii, 6; James v, 16; 1 John i, 9. 5. To
acknowledge a crime before a judge, Josh. vii, 19.

2. In the Jewish ceremony of annual expiation, the high priest confessed
in general his own sins, the sins of other ministers of the temple, and
those of all the people. When an Israelite offered a sacrifice for sin,
he put his hand on the head of the victim, and confessed his faults,
Lev. iv. On the day of atonement, the Jews still make a private
confession of their sins, which is called by them _cippur_, and which is
said to be done in the following manner: Two Jews retire into a corner
of the synagogue. One of them bows very low before the other, with his
face turned toward the north. He who performs the office of confessor
gives the penitent nine-and-thirty blows on the back with a leathern
strap, repeating these words, “God, being full of compassion, forgave
their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his
anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.” As there are only
thirteen words in this verse recited in the Hebrew, he repeats it three
times, and at every word strikes one blow; which makes nine-and-thirty
words, and as many lashes. In the meantime, the penitent declares his
sins, and at the confession of every one beats himself on his breast.
This being finished, he who has performed the office of confessor
prostrates himself on the ground, and receives in turn from his penitent
nine-and-thirty lashes.

3. The Romish church not only requires confession as a duty, but has
advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament. These confessions are made in
private to the priest, who is not to reveal them under pain of the
highest punishment. The council of Trent requires “secret confession to
the priest alone, of all and every mortal sin, which, upon the most
diligent search and examination of our consciences, we can remember
ourselves to be guilty of since our baptism; together with all the
circumstances of those sins, which may change the nature of them;
because, without the perfect knowledge of these, the priest cannot make
a judgment of the nature and quality of men’s sins, nor impose fitting
penance for them.” This is the confession of sins which the same council
confidently affirms “to have been instituted by our Lord, and by the law
of God, to be necessary to salvation, and to have been always practised
in the catholic church.” It is, however, evident, that such confession
is unscriptural. St. James, indeed, says, “Confess your faults one to
another,” James v, 16; but priests are not here mentioned, and the word
_faults_ seems to confine the precept to a mutual confession among
Christians, of those offences by which they may have injured each other.
Certain it is, that from this passage the necessity of auricular
confession, and the power of priestly absolution, cannot be inferred.
Though many of the early ecclesiastical writers earnestly recommend
confession to the clergy, yet they never recommend it as essential to
the pardon of sin, or as having connection with a sacrament. They only
urge it as entitling a person to the prayers of the congregation; and as
useful for supporting the authority of wholesome discipline, and for
maintaining the purity of the Christian church. Chrysostom condemns all
secret confession to men, as being obviously liable to great abuses; and
Basil, Hilary, and Augustine, all advise confession of sins to God only.
It has been proved by M. Daillé, that private, auricular, sacramental
confession of sins was unknown in the primitive church. But, though
private auricular confession is not of divine authority, yet, as
Archbishop Tillotson properly observes, there are many cases in which
men, under the guilt and trouble of their sins, can neither appease
their own minds, nor sufficiently direct themselves, without recourse to
some pious and prudent guide. In these cases, men certainly do very
well, and many times prevent a great deal of trouble and perplexity to
themselves, by a timely discovery of their condition to some faithful
minister, in order to their direction and satisfaction. To this purpose
a general confession is for the most part sufficient; and where there is
occasion for a more particular discovery, there is no need of raking
into the minute and foul circumstances of men’s sins to give that advice
which is necessary for the cure and ease of the penitent. Auricular
confession is unquestionably one of the greatest corruptions of the
Romish church. It goes upon the ground that the priest has power to
forgive sins; it establishes the tyrannical influence of the priesthood;
it turns the penitent from God who only can forgive sins, to man who is
himself a sinner; and it tends to corrupt both the confessors and the
confessed by a foul and particular disclosure of sinful thoughts and
actions of every kind without exception.

CONFESSIONS OF FAITH, simply considered, is the same with _creed_, and
signifies a summary of the principal articles of belief adopted by any
individual or society. In its more common acceptation, it is restricted
to the summaries of doctrine published by particular Christian churches,
with the view of preventing their religious sentiments from being
misunderstood or misrepresented, or, by requiring subscription to them,
of securing uniformity of opinion among those who join their communion.
Except a single sentence in one of the Ignatian Epistles, (A. D. 180,)
which relates exclusively to the reality of Christ’s personality and
sufferings in opposition to the _Docetæ_, the earliest document of this
kind is to be found in the writings of Irenæus, who flourished toward
the end of the second century of the Christian æra. In his treatise
against heresies, this father affirms that “the faith of the church
planted throughout the whole world,” consisted in the belief of “one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and sea, and all
that are in them; and one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; and one Holy Spirit, who foretold, through
the Prophets, the dispensations and advents, and the generation by the
virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
ascension in the flesh into heaven, of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord,
and his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to unite
together all things under one head, and to raise every individual of the
human race; that unto Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and Saviour and
King, every knee may bow, and every tongue confess; that he may
pronounce just sentence upon all.” In various parts of Tertullian’s
writings similar statements occur, (A. D. 200,) which it is unnecessary
particularly to quote. We shall only remark, that in one of them, the
miraculous conception of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost is
distinctly mentioned; that in another, he declares it to have been the
uniform doctrine from the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was born
of the virgin, both man and God, _ex eâ natum hominem et Deum_; and that
in each of these, faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, is recognised as
essential to Christianity. The following passage we cite, for the
purpose of marking its coincidence with the Apostles’ Creed, to which we
shall have occasion soon to advert: “This,” says he, “is the sole,
immovable, irreformable rule of faith; namely, to believe in the only
God Almighty, maker of the world; and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the
virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day raised from
the dead, received into heaven, now sitting at the right hand of the
Father, about to come and judge the quick and the dead, by the
resurrection also of the flesh.” The summaries contained in the works of
Origen (A. D. 520) nearly resemble the preceding; any difference between
them being easily accounted for, from the tenets of the particular
heresies against which they were directed. In his “Commentary on St.
John’s Gospel,” he thus writes: “We believe that there is one God, who
created all things, and framed and made all things to exist out of
nothing. We must also believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in all the
truth concerning his Deity and humanity; and we must likewise believe in
the Holy Spirit; and that, being free agents, we shall be punished for
the things in which we sin, and rewarded for those in which we do well.”
According to Cyprian, the formula, to which assent was required from
adults at their baptism, was in these terms: “Dost thou believe in God
the Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, and
eternal life, through the holy church?” This was called by him _symboli
lex_, “the law of the creed;” and by Novatian, _regula veritatis_, “the
rule of truth.”

2. From these and similar sources, the different clauses of what is
commonly called the Apostles’ Creed appear to have sprung. For, though
it was long believed to be the composition of the Apostles, its claims
to such an inspired origin are now universally rejected. Of its great
antiquity, however, there can be no doubt; the whole of it, as it stands
in the English liturgy, having been generally received as an
authoritative confession in the fourth century. Toward the end of that
century, Rufinus wrote a commentary on it, which is still extant, in
which he acknowledges that the clause respecting Christ’s descent into
hell was not admitted into the creeds either of the western or the
eastern churches. We learn also that the epithet _catholic_ was not at
that time applied in it to the church. Its great simplicity and
conciseness, beside, prove it to have been considerably earlier than the
council of Nice, when the heretical speculations of various sects led
the defenders of the orthodox faith to fence the interests of religion
with more complicated and cumbrous barriers.

This confession of faith was then preëminently named _symbolum_; which
might be understood in the general acceptation of _sign_, as the
characteristic, representative sign of the Christian faith; or, in a
more restricted sense, in reference to the σύμϐολον ϛρατιωτικὸν, or
_tessera militaris_, the watch word of the Christian soldier,
communicated to each man at his first entrance into the service of
Christ. Perhaps this word, at first, only denoted the formula of
baptism, and was afterward transferred to the confession of faith.

3. In the celebrated council of Nice, (A. D. 325,) in which Arianism was
not only condemned, but proscribed, the confession established as the
universal standard of truth and orthodoxy runs thus: “I believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus, the only begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father, before all worlds, God of God, Light of
Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance
with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for
our salvation, descended from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy
Ghost, of the virgin Mary; and was made man, was crucified for us under
Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose
again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth
on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to
judge both the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no
end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets; and one
catholic, and Apostolical church. I acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come.”

It were endless to specify the particular shades of difference by which
the Arian confessions (the number of which amounted nearly to twenty in
the space of a very few years) were distinguished from each other:
suffice it to say, that while they agreed generally in substance,
especially in rejecting the Nicene term, ὁμοούσιος, as applied to the
Son, their variations of expression concerning the nature of his
subordination to the Father were so astonishingly minute, as almost to
bid defiance to any attempt which might be made, at this distance of
time, to determine in what their real and essential differences
consisted.

4. “The Book of Armagh,” a very ancient collection of interesting
national documents, which have recently been published by Sir William
Betham in the second part of his curious “Irish Antiquarian Researches,”
contains the Confession of St. Patrick; who has been supposed, from
several collateral circumstances, to have flourished some years prior to
the time of St. Jerom, or about the commencement of the fourth century.
The subjoined are the first two paragraphs in it, and will be admired
for the orthodoxy, artlessness, and Christian experience which they
exhibit:--“I, PATRICK, a sinner, the rudest, the least, and the most
insignificant of the faithful, had Calphurnius, a deacon, for my father,
who was the son of Potitus, heretofore a priest, the son of Odissus, who
lived in the village of Banavem Taberniæ. For he had a little farm
adjacent, where I was captured. I was then almost sixteen years of age;
but I knew not God, and was led into captivity by the Irish, with many
thousand men, as we deserved, because we estranged ourselves from God,
and did not keep his laws, and were disobedient to our pastors, who
admonished us with respect to our salvation: and the Lord brought down
upon us the anger of his Spirit, and dispersed us among many nations,
even to the extremity of the earth, where my meanness was conspicuous
among foreigners, and where the Lord discovered to me a sense of my
unbelief; that late I should remember my transgressions, and that I
should be converted with my whole heart to the Lord my God, who had
respect to my humiliation, and pitied my youth and ignorance, even
before I knew him, and before I was wise, or could distinguish between
right and wrong, and strengthened me, and cherished me, as a father
would a son. From which time I could not remain silent; nor, indeed, did
he cease to bless me with many acts of kindness; and so great was the
favour of which he thought me worthy in the land of my captivity. For
this is my retribution, that, after my rebuking, punishment, and
acknowledgment of God, I should exalt him, and confess his wonderful
acts before every nation which is under the whole heaven; because there
is no other God, nor ever was before, nor will be after him, except God,
the unbegotten Father, without beginning, possessing all things, as we
have said, and his Son Jesus Christ, who, we bear witness, was always
with the Father, before the formation of the world, in spirit (or
spiritually) with the Father, inexpressibly begotten before all
beginning, through whom visible things were made: he became man, having
overcome death, and was received into heaven. And God has given to him
all power ‘above every name, as well of the inhabitants of heaven as of
the earth and of the powers below, that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord and God;’ whom we believe, and whose coming we
expect, as presently about to be Judge of the living and dead, who will
render unto every man according to his actions, and has poured upon us
abundantly the gift of his Holy Spirit, and the pledge of immortality;
who makes us that believe and are obedient to be the sons of God and
joint heirs of Christ; whom we believe and adore, one God in the Trinity
of the sacred name. For he spoke by the Prophet, ‘Call upon me in the
day of tribulation, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.’
And again he says, ‘It is an honourable thing to reveal and confess the
works of God.’”

5. Macedonius having denied not only the divinity but the personality of
the Holy Spirit, maintaining that he is only a divine energy diffused
throughout the universe, a general council was called at Constantinople,
A. D. 381, in order to crush this rising heresy. The confession
promulgated on this occasion, and which “gave the finishing touch to
what the council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full and
determinate manner, the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is still received
among the generality of Christians,” exactly coincides with the Nicene
confession, except in the article respecting the Spirit, which it thus
extends: “And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life,
who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, together with the
Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified.”

6. Subsequent to this, and probably toward the middle of the fifth
century, the creed which bears the name of Athanasius appears to have
been composed. That it was not the work of this distinguished opposer of
Arianism is established by the most satisfactory evidence. No traces of
it are to be found in any of his writings, though they relate chiefly to
the very subject of which it is an exposition; and so far from its being
ascribed to him, not the least notice is taken of it by any of his
contemporaries. Its language, beside, concerning the Spirit is so
similar to that of the council of Constantinople, but still more precise
and explicit, that there can be no doubt of its having been written
posterior to the time of that assembly. Yet Athanasius died in the year
373. Accordingly, it has been, with great probability of truth,
attributed, particularly by Dr. Waterland, to Hilary, bishop of Arles,
who is said by one of his biographers to have composed an Exposition of
the Creed: a title which certainly is more appropriate and
characteristic of it than that of Creed simply, by which it is now so
universally known. The damnatory clauses in this creed have frequently
been made subjects of reprehension; and some clergymen of the church of
England have scrupled to read them as directed by the Rubric. The
following is an apology for those clauses, by the late venerable
Archdeacon Dodwell, who seems to have felt none of those misgivings
which troubled his doubting brethren:--“The form, as well as the
substance, of this creed, and the very introduction to the main article,
has been objected to: ‘Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic faith;’ to which is added, ‘Which
faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he
shall perish everlastingly.’ This, with a like condemnatory sentence in
the conclusion of the creed, wherein a possibility of salvation is
denied to him who does not cordially embrace this doctrine, is
pronounced _unreasonable_, _uncharitable_, _unchristian_, with every
other aggravating appellation that can be used. But the ground of this
charge, and the whole of the difficulty suggested in it, from the
variety of the circumstances of different persons, depends upon the
interpretation of the phrase of ‘being saved.’ The meaning of this term
in its primary signification, and as it is applied to common subjects in
common discourse, means a preservation from threatening perils, or from
threatened punishment. But, in an evangelical sense, and as it occurs in
the New Testament, it includes much more: it means the whole Christian
scheme of redemption and justification by the Son of God, with all the
glorious privileges and promises contained in that scheme. It means not
merely a hope of deliverance from danger or from vengeance, but a
federal title to positive happiness, purchased by the merits, and
declared to mankind by the Gospel of Christ Jesus our Lord. St. Paul
calls it ‘_the obtaining the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with
eternal glory_,’ 2 Tim. ii, 10. ‘Whosoever,’ then, says the creed,
‘will’ thus ‘be saved,’ will be desirous to secure the glorious promises
of the Gospel, must pursue it upon the terms which that Gospel proposes,
and particularly must embrace the doctrines which it reveals. The creed
speaks of those only to whom the evidence of the Gospel has been fully
set forth, and the importance of it fully explained. We are to justify
it only to professed believers, and of them only. The state and lot of
the Heathen world are quite out of the question. Neither common sense
nor Scripture will permit us to interpret it of those who still ‘_sit in
darkness and the shadow of death_,’ and never had the means of grace and
the hope of glory proposed to them. Even with respect to those to whom
the Gospel is preached, there is no necessity of interpreting the words
here used in the harshest and strictest sense. There are many
distinctions and limitations, which are always understood and supposed
in such cases, though they are not expressly mentioned. General rules
are laid down as such, are true as such; while excepted cases are
referred to the judgment of those who are qualified to judge of them,
and are not particularly pointed out; as for other reasons, so lest they
should be extended too far, and defeat the general rule. Sufficient
capacity in the persons to whom it is applied, and sufficient means of
information and conviction, are always presupposed, where faith is
spoken of as necessary. Where either of these is wanting, the case is
(where it should be) in the hands of God. The creed is laid down as a
rule of judgment to men, not to their Maker. We may learn from thence on
what terms alone we can claim a title to the promises of the Gospel; but
we do not learn from thence how far uncovenanted favour may be extended
to particular persons. It is not intended to exclude the mercy of God to
Heathens or heretics; it being his prerogative, and his alone, to judge
how far the error or ignorance of any one is his wilful fault, or his
unavoidable infirmity. But it is intended to establish the terms on
which WE may now claim acceptance, and, in consequence of his gracious
promise, may say, that ‘_God is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins_.’ The creed relates only to the covenant of salvation; and any
expression which, used separately without this view and connection,
might be thought to bear a stronger and more absolute sense, yet is
limited by this relative coherence, and is to be interpreted by it.
‘Perishing everlastingly,’ in other discourses, may sometimes be
understood of everlasting damnation; but here it means the being for
ever excluded from the only stated claim of promised mercy. And ‘without
doubt,’ he who does not embrace the truths proposed by revelation, has
no title to those hopes which that revelation, and that only, offers to
mankind. And even when such expressions of terror are used in the
strongest sense, and threatened to unbelief or disobedience, they
universally imply such exceptions as these,--‘Unless personal
disabilities lessen the guilt, or repentance intervene to prevent the
punishment.’ In short, no objection can be made against this assertion
in the creed, but what would hold as strongly against that declaration
of our blessed Lord, ‘_He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned_,’ Mark xvi, 15.
Indeed, this condemnatory sentence in this form by human authority is
plainly founded on and borrowed from that divine authority in the
Gospel; and whatever distinctions and limitations are allowed in that
case are equally applicable to this, and will fully justify both. The
necessity of a true belief in all whom Providence has blessed with the
means and opportunities of learning it, in order to entitle them
federally to eternal salvation, being thus established upon Scripture
proof, the creed goes on very regularly to declare what is that true
belief so indispensably necessary.” This is, perhaps, all that can be
said in favour of these comminations; but few will think it quite
satisfactory. The effect of them has doubtless been, to induce many to
fly to the opposite extreme of laxity on the subject of fundamental
doctrines.

Before leaving the ancient formulas of Christian doctrine, it may be
stated, that both in the council of Ephesus against the Nestorians, held
A. D. 431; and in that of Chalcedon, against the Eutychians, in 451; it
was solemnly declared and decreed, that “Christ was one divine person,
in whom two natures, the human and the divine, were most closely united,
but without being mixed or confounded together.”

7. Amid the variance and opposition of council to council, and pope to
pope, (A. D. 1553,) which prevailed for centuries in the Romish church,
it would be no easy task to ascertain the real articles of its
confession. The decrees of the council of Trent, however, together with
the creed of Pope Pius IV, are now commonly understood to be the
authoritative standards of its faith and worship. These, beside
recognising the authority of the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds,
embrace a multitude of dogmas which it is unnecessary particularly to
specify, relating to traditions, the sacraments of baptism,
confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony,
transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, worshipping of images,
purgatory, indulgences, &c, &c.

8. The Greek church has no public or established confession; but its
creed, so far as can be gathered from its authorized catechisms, admits
the doctrines of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, with the exception of
the article in each concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which
it affirms to be “from the Father only, and not from the Father and the
Son.” It disowns the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, purgatory
by fire, graven images, and the restriction of the sacrament to one
kind; but acknowledges the seven sacraments of the catholics, the
religious use of pictures, invocation of saints, transubstantiation, and
masses and prayers for the dead.

9. Though the Romish church early appropriated to itself the exclusive
title of catholic, or universal; and though, for many centuries, its
unscriptural tenets pervaded the far greater part of Europe; not only
were there always some individuals who adhered to the doctrines of
genuine Christianity, but, long before the Protestant reformation, there
appear to have been whole congregations who maintained, in considerable
purity, the substance of the faith contained in Scripture. Such were the
churches of the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, whose confession,
of so early a date as the beginning of the twelfth century, is still
preserved. It consists of fourteen articles, of which the following is a
copy, taken from the Cambridge MSS, and bearing date A. D. 1120:--“(1.)
We believe and firmly hold all that which is contained in the twelve
articles of the symbol, which is called the Apostles’ Creed, accounting
for heresy whatsoever is disagreeing, and not consonant to the said
twelve articles. (2.) We do believe that there is one God, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. (3.) We acknowledge for the holy canonical Scriptures
the books of the Holy Bible. [Here follows a list of the books of the
Old and New Testament, exactly the same as those we have in our English
authorized version. Then follows a list of “the books apocryphal,
which,” with admirable simplicity they say, “are not received of the
Hebrews. But we read them, as saith St. Jerom in his Prologue to the
Proverbs, ‘for the instruction of the people, not to confirm the
authority of the doctrine of the church.’”] (4.) The books above-said
teach this, that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and all-good, who
has made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his own image
and likeness, but that by the envy of the devil, and the disobedience of
the said Adam, sin has entered into the world, and that we are sinners
in Adam and by Adam. (5.) That Christ was promised to our fathers who
received the law, that so knowing by the law their sin, unrighteousness,
and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ, to satisfy
for their sins, and accomplish the law by himself. (6.) That Christ was
born in the time appointed by God the Father; that is to say, in the
time when all iniquity abounded, and not for the cause of good works,
for all were sinners; but that he might show us grace and mercy, as
being faithful. (7.) That Christ is our life, truth, peace, and
righteousness; also our pastor, advocate, sacrifice, and priest; who
died for the salvation of all those that believe, and is risen for our
justification. (8.) In like manner, we firmly hold that there is no
other Mediator and Advocate with God the Father, save only Jesus Christ.
And as for the virgin Mary, that she was holy, humble, and full of
grace. And in like manner do we believe concerning all the other saints;
namely, that, being in heaven, they wait for the resurrection of their
bodies at the day of judgment. (9.) _Item_, We believe that, after this
life, there are only two places, the one for the saved, and the other
for the damned; the which two places we call paradise and hell,
absolutely denying that purgatory invented by antichrist, and forged
contrary to the truth. (10.) _Item_, We have always accounted as an
unspeakable abomination before God all those inventions of men; namely,
the feasts and the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy: as
likewise to abstain from flesh upon certain days, and the like; but
especially their masses. (11.) We esteem for an abomination, and as
antichristian, all those human inventions which are a trouble or
prejudice to the liberty of the spirit. (12.) We do believe that the
sacraments are signs of the holy thing, or visible forms of the
invisible grace; accounting it good that the faithful sometimes use the
said signs or visible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and
hold, that the above-said faithful may be saved without receiving the
signs aforesaid, in case they have no place nor any means to use them.
(13.) We acknowledge no other sacrament than baptism and the Lord’s
Supper. (14.) We ought to honour the secular powers by submission, ready
obedience, and paying of tributes.” These churches had, in modern times,
another confession imposed upon them, after they began to receive
pastors from Geneva, which is strongly tinged with Calvinism. It bears
date A. D. 1655.

10. The first Protestant confession was that presented in 1530, to the
diet of Augsburg, by the suggestion and under the direction of John,
elector of Saxony. This wise and prudent prince, with the view of having
the principal grounds on which the Protestants had separated from the
Romish communion, distinctly submitted to that assembly, entrusted the
duty of preparing a summary of them to the divines of Wittemberg. Nor
was that task a difficult one; for the reformed doctrines had already
been digested into seventeen articles, which had been proposed at the
conferences both at Sultzbach and Smalcald, as the confession of faith
to be adopted by the Protestant confederates. These, accordingly, were
delivered to the elector by Luther, and served as the basis of the
celebrated Augsburg confession, written “by the elegant and accurate pen
of Melancthon:” a work which has been admired by many even of its
enemies, for its perspicuity, piety, and erudition. It contains
twenty-eight chapters, the leading topics of which are, the true and
essential divinity of Christ; his substitution and vicarious sacrifice;
original sin; human inability; the necessity, freedom, and efficacy of
divine grace; consubstantiation; and particularly justification by
faith, to establish the truth and importance of which was one of its
chief objects. The last seven articles condemn and confute the Popish
tenets of communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, private masses,
auricular confession, legendary traditions, monastic vows, and the
exorbitant power of the church. This confession is silent on the
doctrine of predestination. This is the universal standard of orthodox
doctrine among those who profess to be Lutherans, in which no
authoritative alteration has ever been made.

11. The confession of Basle, originally presented, like the preceding,
to the diet of Augsburg, but not published till 1534, consists of only
twelve articles, which, in every essential point, agree with those of
the Augsburg confession, except that it rejects the doctrine of
consubstantiation; affirming that Christ is only spiritually present in
the Lord’s Supper, _sacramentaliter nimirum, et per memorationem fidei_;
[that is to say sacramentally, and by faith;] and that it asserts the
doctrine of predestination and infant baptism. But the more detailed
creed of the whole Swiss Protestant churches is contained in the former
and latter Helvetic confessions. The first was drawn up in 1536, by
Bullinger, Myconius, and Grynæus, in behalf of the churches of Helvetia,
and presented to an assembly of divines at Wittemberg, by whom it was
cordially approved. But being deemed too concise, a second was prepared
in 1556, by the pastors of Zurich; which was subscribed not only by all
the Swiss Protestants, but by the churches of Geneva and Savoy, and by
many of those in Hungary and Poland. They fully harmonize with each
other, with only this difference, that the doctrine of predestination,
and an approbation of the observance of such religious festivals, as the
nativity, &c, are to be found in the latter confession only.

12. The Bohemic confession was compiled from various ancient confessions
of the Waldenses who had settled in Bohemia, and approved of by Luther
and Melancthon in 1532; but it was not published till 1535; when it was
presented by the barons and other nobles to King Ferdinand. It extends
to twenty articles, similar to those of the Waldensian confession, with
the addition of others on the divinity of Christ, justification by faith
in him, “without any human help or merit,” predestination, and the
absolute necessity of sanctification and good works.

13. The confession of the Saxon churches was composed in 1551 by
Melancthon, at the desire of the pastors of Saxony and Misnia met in
assembly at Wittemberg, in order to be presented to the council of
Trent. It is contained in twenty-two articles; and while, like that of
Augsburg, it is silent on the subject of predestination, it lays equal
stress on the doctrine of justification by faith; and has a separate
article entitled “Rewards,” in which the doctrine of human merit,
particularly as connected with future blessedness, is condemned and
refuted.

14. Some account of the framing of the English Confession of Faith has
been already given under the article _Church of England and Ireland_.
The “Articles of Religion” are there said to have been amended and
completed in the year 1571; and the Rev. Henry J. Todd, in his very able
work on this subject, has shown their Melancthonian origin and character
by extracts from the “_Articles of Religion_,” “set out by the
Convocation, and published by the king’s authority,” in 1536;--from
those of 1540;--from Cranmer’s “_Necessary Erudition of any Christian
Man_,” published in 1543;--from the _Homilies on Salvation, Faith, and
Good Works_, in 1547, which three were, according to Bishop Woolton’s
unimpeached testimony (in 1576) composed by Archbishop Cranmer;--from
the “_Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum_,” “composed under the
superintendence of the same watchful primate, in 1551;”--from the
“_Articles of Religion_” formed in 1552, almost wholly by
Cranmer;”--from “_Catechismus Brevis, Christianæ Disciplinæ Summam
continens_,” in 1553, which was published in English, as well as Latin,
and commonly called “Edward the Sixth’s Catechism;” and from Bishop
Jewel’s celebrated “_Apologia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ_,” “published in 1562
by the queen’s authority, thus recognised as a national Confession of
Faith, and as such has been printed in the _Corpus Confessionum Fidei_.”
“Such,” says Mr. Todd, “are the several public documents or
declarations, produced or made before the establishment of the
_Thirty-nine Articles of Religion_, from which I have given extracts, to
which the framers of these Articles directed their attention, with the
spirit of which they concur, and the words of which they almost
literally adopt. There will also be found, as chronologically preceding
these, considerable extracts from the _Confession of Augsburg_, the
whole article from the Saxon Confession, _De Remissione Peccatorum, et
Justificatione_, [respecting the forgiveness of sins, and
justification,] and such passages in our _Liturgy_ as concern the points
which the Articles and Homilies exhibit.” No one who has perused these
documents will require any additional argument to convince him, that, in
its very foundations, the English Confession of Faith was most
explicitly in favour of general redemption. We cannot therefore be
surprised at all the old orthodox divines of the church of England, from
1610 to 1660, refusing to be called ARMINIANS; for they repeatedly
declared that their own church openly professed similar doctrines to
those promulgated by the Dutch professor, long before his name was known
in the world. In this assertion they were perfectly correct; and by
every important fact in our ecclesiastical history, as connected with
doctrinal matters, their views are confirmed. If the Articles were
actually of a Calvinistic complexion, as they are now often represented
to be, what could have induced Whitaker and other learned Calvinists to
waste so much valuable time and labour in fabricating the Lambeth
Articles in 1595? Those worthies avowed, that the original Thirty-nine
Articles were not doctrinal enough for their purpose.--When four choice
divines, two of them professors of divinity at Cambridge, were sent to
the synod of Dort as deputies from the English church, and one from the
church of Scotland, though their political instructions went the full
length of assisting in the condemnation and oppression of the Arminians,
personally considered as a troublesome party in the republic, yet they
had different instructions respecting their doctrines. On the second
article, discussed in that synod, “the extent of Christ’s redemption,”
Balcanqual, the deputy from the church of Scotland, informs the English
ambassador at the Hague, that a difference had arisen among the British
deputies: “The question among us is, whether the words of Scripture,
which are likewise the words of our confession, be to be understood of
all particular men, or only of the elect who consist of all sorts of
men? Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward are of Martinius of Breme his mind, _that
it is to be understood of all particular men_: the other three [Bishop
Carleton, Dr. Goad, and Dr. Balcanqual] take the other exposition, which
is that of the writers of the reformed churches.” The ambassador wrote
home for instructions, and received orders for the British deputies “to
have those conclusions concerning Christ’s death, and the application of
it to us, couched in manner and terms as near as possibly may be to
those which were used in the primitive church, by the fathers of that
time, against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and not in any new
phrase of the modern age; and that the same may be as agreeable to the
confessions of the church of England and other reformed churches, and
with as little distaste and umbrage to the Lutheran churches, as may
be.” Archbishop Abbott expressed his approbation of their “cautelous
moderation” in withholding their “hand from pressing in public any
rigorous exclusive propositions in the doctrine of the extent of our
Saviour Christ’s oblation.” The history of this affair, which cannot be
here detailed, shows, that, however willing the three deputies were to
condemn the remonstrants, the resistance of the two more moderate
divines was approved by the authorities at home, and their opinions on
this subject were recorded in such theses as no true Calvinist could
consistently subscribe. During our civil troubles in 1643, the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster revised the first fifteen of the Thirty-nine
Articles “with a design,” as Neal in his “_History of the Puritans_”
candidly declares, “to render their sense more express and determinate
in favour of Calvinism.” This they found to be a hopeless task, as the
ancient creed was too incorrigible to be bent to their views; and they
found it much easier to frame one after their own hearts, some account
of which the reader will find in a subsequent paragraph.--All these
facts go to prove, that the best informed Calvinists have always viewed
the English articles as not sufficiently high in doctrine, unless, as in
the case of the seventeenth, they be allowed to interpret them by
interpolations or qualifying epithets.

15. The confession of the reformed Gallican churches was prepared by
order of a synod at Paris in 1559; and presented to Charles IX. in 1561,
by the celebrated Beza, in a conference with that monarch at Poissy. It
was published for the first time in 1566, with a preface by the French
clergy to the pastors of all Protestant churches; and afterward, in
1571, it was solemnly ratified and subscribed in the national synod of
Rochelle. It is extended to forty articles; but they are in general
concise, and embrace the usual topics of the other Protestant
confessions, including the doctrines of election, and justification by
faith only.

16. The Protestants in Scotland having presented a petition to
parliament in 1560, requesting the public condemnation of Popery, and
the legal acknowledgment of the reformed doctrine and worship, they were
required to draw up a summary of the doctrines which they could prove to
be consonant with Scripture, and which they were anxious to have
established. The ministers on whom this duty was devolved, being well
acquainted with the subject, prepared the required summary in the course
of four days, and laid it before parliament, when, after having been
read first before the Lords of the Articles, and afterward twice (the
second time article by article) before the whole parliament, it received
their sanction as the established system of belief and worship. It
consists of twenty-five articles, and coincides with all the other
Protestant confessions which affirm the doctrine of election, and reject
that of consubstantiation; for although it is not so explicit as some of
them respecting the unconditional nature of election, yet a distinct
recognition of this doctrine pervades the whole of it; and though it has
no separate article on justification, it no less plainly recognises this
fundamental principle of the Protestant faith.

17. The tenets of Arminius having obtained considerable prevalence in
Holland toward the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Calvinists,
or Gomarists, as they were then called, appealed to a national synod,
which was convened at Dort in 1618, by order of the states-general; and
attended by ecclesiastical deputies from England, Switzerland, Bremen,
Hesse, and the Palatinate, beside the clerical and lay representatives
of the reformed churches in the United Provinces. The canons of this
synod, contained in five chapters, relate to what are commonly called
the _five points_; namely, particular and unconditional election;
particular redemption, or the limitation of the saving effects of
Christ’s death to the elect only; the total corruption of human nature,
and the total moral inability of man in his fallen state; the
irresistibility of divine grace; and the final perseverance of the
saints; all of which are declared to be the true and the only doctrines
of Scripture.

18. The Remonstrants, as the Dutch Arminians are generally called, did
not present a confession of faith to the synod of Dort, but only their
sentiments on the five points enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
with corresponding _rejections of errors_ under each of those points.
However, in the first year of their exile, they applied themselves
diligently to this task, and soon produced an ample confession,
principally composed by the celebrated Episcopius. In the preface they
give copious reasons for such a record of their opinions; which
Courcelles has thus expressed in a more summary manner:--“They did not
publish it for the purpose of making it a standard of schism, by which
they might separate themselves from men who held other opinions; nor for
the purpose of having it esteemed by those under their pastoral care as
a secondary rule of faith;--which is in these days with many persons a
most pernicious abuse of this kind of confessions. But it was published
solely with the intention to stop the mouths of those who calumniously
assert, that the Remonstrants cherish within their bosoms portentous
dogmas which they dare not divulge. For there is no cause for doubting,
whether under such circumstances and for this purpose, it is not lawful
for men to publish a confession of their faith, especially as St. Peter
admonishes us ‘always to be ready to give an answer to every man that
asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear.’”
This confession is of a more practical character than any of the
preceding: it inculcates, at great length, all the most important duties
of Christianity, and, in the words of the preface, “directs all things
to the practice of Christian piety. For we believe that true divinity is
merely practical, and not either simply or for its greatest or chief
part speculative; and therefore whatever things are delivered therein
ought to be referred thither only,--that a man may be the more strongly
and fitly inflamed and encouraged to a diligent performance of his duty,
and keeping of the commandments of Jesus Christ.” In the English
translator’s address to the reader in 1676, it is said, “Touching the
worth of this book, as a summary of Christian religion, if Doctor Jeremy
Taylor’s judgment be of credit with thee, I am credibly informed he
should prefer it to be one of those two or three which, next the Holy
Bible, he would have preserved from the supposed total destruction of
books. A high encomium from the mouth of so learned and pious a divine!”
But though its contents were chiefly practical, one expression in it,
respecting the propriety of tolerating in a Christian community a man
who denied the eternal generation of Jesus Christ, produced a
controversy in Holland, as well as in this country, in which the famous
Bishop Bull eminently distinguished himself. See DORT and REMONSTRANTS.

19. The only other confession of which we shall take notice is that of
the Westminster assembly, which met in 1643, and at which five ministers
and three elders as commissioners from the general assembly of the
church of Scotland attended, agreeably to engagements between the
convention of estates there, and both houses of parliament in England.
This confession is contained in thirty-three chapters, and in every
point of doctrine, fully accords with the sentiments of the synod of
Dort; and on some points going rather beyond it, as with respect to a
supposed election of angels. It was approved and adopted by the general
assembly in 1647; and two years after, ratified by act of parliament, as
“the public and avowed confession of the church of Scotland.” By act of
parliament in 1690, it was again declared to be the national standard of
faith in Scotland; and subscription to it as “the confession of his
faith,” specially required of every person who shall be admitted “a
minister or preacher within this church.” Subscription to it was also
enjoined by the act of union in 1707, on all “professors, principals,
regents, masters, and others bearing office,” in any of the Scottish
universities.

CONFLAGRATION, a general burning of a city, or other considerable place.
But the word is more ordinarily restrained to that grand period, or
catastrophe of our world, wherein the face of nature is expected to be
changed by a deluge of fire, as it was anciently by that of water. The
ancient Chaldeans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Celts,
and Etrurians, appear to have had a notion of the conflagration; though
whence they should derive it, unless from the sacred books, it is
difficult to conceive; except, perhaps, from the Phenicians, who
themselves had it from the Jews. The Celts, whose opinions resembled
those of the eastern nations, held, that after the burning of the world,
a new period of existence would commence. The ancient Etrurians, or
Tuscans, also concurred with other western and northern nations of
Celtic origin, as well as with the Stoics, in asserting the entire
renovation of nature after a long period, or great year, when a similar
succession of events would again take place. The cosmogony of an ancient
Etrurian, preserved by Suidas, limits the duration of the universe to a
period of twelve thousand years; six thousand of which passed in the
production of the visible world, before the formation of man. The Stoics
also maintained that the world is liable to destruction from the
prevalence of moisture or of drought; the former producing a universal
inundation, and the latter, a universal conflagration. “These,” they
say, “succeed each other in nature, as regularly as winter and summer.”
The doctrine of conflagration is a natural consequence of the general
system of Stoicism; for, since, according to this system, the whole
process of nature is carried on in a necessary series of causes and
effects, when that operative fire, which at first, bursting from chaos,
gave form to all things, and which has since pervaded and animated all
nature, shall have consumed its nutriment; that is, when the vapours,
which are the food of the celestial fires, shall be exhausted, a
deficiency of moisture must produce a universal conflagration. This
grand revolution in nature is, after the doctrine of the Stoics, thus
elegantly described by Ovid:--

           “_Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur, affore tempus
           Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia cœli
           Ardeat; et mundi moles operosa laboret._”
                                  METAMOR. lib. i, 256.

or, as Dryden has translated the passage,--

             “Rememb’ring in the fates a time when fire
             Should to the battlements of heaven aspire;
             When all his blazing worlds above should burn,
             And all the inferior globe to cinders turn.”

Seneca, speaking of the same event, says expressly, “_Tempus advenerit
quo sidera sideribus incurrent, et omni flagrante materia uno igne,
quicquid nunc ex deposito lucet, ardebit_;” that is, “the time will come
when the world will be consumed, that it may be again renewed; when the
powers of nature will be turned against herself, when stars will rush
upon stars, and the whole material world, which now appears resplendent
with beauty and harmony, will be destroyed in one general
conflagration.” In this grand catastrophe of nature, all animated
beings, (excepting the Universal Intelligence,) men, heroes, demons, and
gods, shall perish together. Seneca, the tragedian, who was of the same
school with the philosopher, writes to the same purpose:--

                    “_Cœli regia concidens
                    Certos atque obitus trahet:
                    Atque omnes pariter deos
                    Perdet mors aliqua, et chaos._”

                  “The mighty palace of the sky
                  In ruin fall’n is doomed to lie;
                  And all the gods, its wreck beneath,
                  Shall sink in chaos and in death.”

The Pythagoreans also maintained the dogma of conflagration. To this
purpose Hippasus, of Metapontum, taught that the universe is finite, is
always changing, and undergoes a periodical conflagration. Philolaus,
who flourished in the time of Plato, maintained that the world is liable
to destruction both by fire and water. Mention of the conflagration is
also several times made in the books of the Sibyls, Sophocles, Lucan,
&c. Dr. Burnet, after F. Tachard and others, relates that the Siamese
believe that the earth will at last be parched up with heat, the
mountains melted down, and the earth’s whole surface reduced to a level,
and then consumed with fire. And the Bramins of Siam do not only hold
that the world shall be destroyed by fire, but also that a new earth
shall be made out of the cinders of the old. The sacred Scriptures
announce this general destruction of the world by fire in a variety of
passages.

2. Various are the sentiments of authors on the subject of the
conflagration; the cause whence it is to arise, and the effects it is to
produce. Divines ordinarily account for it metaphysically; and will have
it take its rise from a miracle, as a fire from heaven. Philosophers
contend for its being produced from natural causes; and will have it
effected according to the laws of mechanics: some think an eruption of a
central fire sufficient for the purpose; and add, that this may be
occasioned several ways; namely, either by having its intensity
increased, (which, again, may be effected either by being driven into
less space by the encroachments of the superficial cold, or by an
increase of the inflammability of the fuel whereon it is fed,) or by
having the resistance of imprisoning earth weakened; which may happen
either from the diminution of its matter, by the consumption of its
central parts, or by weakening the cohesion of the constituent parts of
the mass, by the excess or the defect of moisture. Others look for the
cause of the conflagration in the atmosphere; and suppose that some of
the meteors there engendered in unusual quantities, and exploded with
unusual vehemence, from the concurrency of various circumstances, may be
made to effect it, without seeking any farther. The astrologers account
for it from a conjunction of all the planets in the sign Cancer; “as the
deluge,” say they, “was occasioned by their conjunction in Capricorn.”
This was an opinion adopted by the ancient Chaldeans. Lastly: others
have recourse to a still more effectual and flaming machine; and
conclude the world is to undergo its conflagration from the near
approach of a comet, in its return from the sun. It is most natural to
conclude, that, as the Scriptures represent the catastrophe as the work
of a moment, no gradually operating natural cause will be employed to
effect it, but that He who spake and the world was created, will again
destroy it by the same word of his power; setting loose at once the
all-devouring element of fire to absorb all others. Beyond this, all is
conjecture.

CONFUSION OF TONGUES is a memorable event, which happened in the one
hundred and first year, according to the Hebrew chronology, after the
flood, B. C. 2247, at the overthrow of Babel; and which was
providentially brought about, in order to facilitate the dispersion of
mankind, and the population of the earth. Until this period, there had
been one common language, which formed a bond of union, that prevented
the separation of mankind into distinct nations.

2. There has been a considerable difference of opinion as to the nature
of this confusion, and the manner in which it was effected. Some learned
men, prepossessed with the notion that all the different idioms now in
the world did at first arise from one original language, to which they
may be reduced, and that the variety among them is no more than must
naturally have happened in a long course of time by the mere separation
of the builders of Babel, have maintained, that there were no new
languages formed at the confusion; but that this event was accomplished
by creating a misunderstanding and variance among the builders, without
any immediate influence on their language. But this opinion, advanced by
Le Clerc, &c, seems to be directly contrary to the obvious meaning of
the word שפה, _lip_, used by the sacred historian; which, in other parts
of Scripture signifies _speech_, Psalm lxxxi, 5; Isaiah xxviii, 11;
xxxiii, 19; Ezekiel iii, 5. It has been justly remarked, that unanimity
of sentiment, and identity of language, are particularly distinguished
from each other, in the history: “The people is one, and they have all
one language,” Gen. xi, 6. It has been also suggested, that if
disagreement in opinion and counsel were the whole that was intended, it
would have had a contrary effect; they would not have desisted from
their project, but strenuously have maintained their respective
opinions, till the greater number of them had compelled the minority
either to fly or to submit. Others have imagined, that this was brought
about by a temporary confusion of their speech, or rather of their
apprehensions, causing them, while they continued together and spoke the
same language, to understand the words differently: Scaliger is of this
opinion. Others again account for this event, by the privation of all
language, and by supposing that mankind were under a necessity of
associating together, and of imposing new names on things by common
consent. Another opinion ascribes the confusion to such an indistinct
remembrance of the original language which they spoke before, as made
them speak it very differently; so that by the various inflections,
terminations, and pronunciations of divers dialects, they could no more
understand one another, than they who understand Latin can understand
those who speak French, Italian, or Spanish, though all these languages
arise out of it. This opinion is adopted by Casaubon, and by Bishop
Patrick in his Commentary, and is certainly much more probable than
either of the former: and Mr. Shuckford maintains, that the confusion
arose from small beginnings, by the invention of new words in either of
the three families of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, which might contribute to
separate them from one another; and that in each family new differences
of speech might gradually arise, so that each of these families went on
to divide and subdivide among themselves. Others, again, as Mr. Joseph
Mede and Dr. Wotton, &c, not satisfied with either of the foregoing
methods of accounting for the diversity of languages among mankind, have
recourse to an extraordinary interposition of divine power, by which new
languages were framed and communicated to different families by a
supernatural infusion or inspiration; which languages have been the
roots and originals from which the several dialects that are, or have
been, or will be, spoken, as long as this earth shall last, have arisen,
and to which they may with ease be reduced.

3. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose, that the primitive language
was completely obliterated, and entire new modes of speech at once
introduced. It was quite sufficient, if such changes only were effected,
as to render the speech of different companies or different tribes
unintelligible to one another, that their mutual coöperation in the mad
attempt in which they had all engaged might be no longer practicable.
The radical stem of the first language might therefore remain in all,
though new dialects were formed, bearing among themselves a similar
relation with what we find in the languages of modern Europe, derived
from the same parent stem, whether Gothic, Latin, or Sclavonian. In the
midst of these changes, it is reasonable to suppose that the primitive
language itself, unaltered, would still be preserved in some one at
least of the tribes or families of the human race. Now in none of these
was the transmission so likely to have taken place, as among that branch
of the descendants of Shem, from which the patriarch Abraham proceeded.
Upon these grounds, therefore, we may probably conclude, that the
language spoken by Abraham, and by him transmitted to his posterity, was
in fact the primitive language, modified indeed and extended in the
course of time, but still retaining its essential parts far more
completely than any other of the languages of men. If these conclusions
are well founded, they warrant the inference, that, in the ancient
Hebrew, there are still to be found the traces of the original speech.
Whether this ancient Hebrew more nearly resembled the Chaldean, the
Syrian, or what is now termed the Hebrew, it is unnecessary here to
inquire; these languages, it has never been denied, were originally and
radically the same, though, from subsequent modifications, they appear
to have assumed somewhat different aspects.

CONGREGATIONALISTS, a denomination of Protestants who reject all church
government, except that of a single congregation under the direction of
one pastor, with their elders, assistants, or managers. In one
particular, the Congregationalists differ from the Independents: the
former invite councils, which, however, only tender their advice; but
the latter are accustomed to decide all difficulties within themselves.
See INDEPENDENTS.

CONSCIENCE is that principle, power, or faculty within us, which decides
on the merit or demerit of our own actions, feelings, or affections,
with reference to the rule of God’s law. It has been called the _moral
sense_ by Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. Hutcheson. This appellation has been
objected to by some, but has been adopted and defended by Dr. Reid, who
says, “The testimony of our moral faculty, like that of the external
senses, is the testimony of nature, and we have the same reason to rely
upon it.” He therefore considers conscience as an original faculty of
our nature, which decides clearly, authoritatively, and instantaneously,
on every object that falls within its province. “As we rely,” says he,
“upon the clear and distinct testimony of our eyes, concerning the
colours and figures of the bodies about us, we have the same reason to
rely, with security, upon the clear and unbiassed testimony of our
conscience, with regard to what we ought and ought not to do.” But Dr.
Reid is surely unfortunate in illustrating the power of conscience by
the analogy of the external senses. With regard to the intimations
received through the organs of sense, there can be no difference of
opinion, and there can be no room for argument. They give us at once
correct information, which reasoning can neither invalidate nor confirm.
But it is surely impossible to say as much for the power of conscience,
which sometimes gives the most opposite intimations with regard to the
simplest moral facts, and which requires to be corrected by an accurate
attention to the established order of nature, or to the known will of
God, before we can rely with confidence on its decisions. It does not
appear, that conscience can with propriety be considered as a principle
distinct from that which enables us to pronounce on the general merit or
demerit of moral actions. This principle, or faculty, is attended with
peculiar feelings, when we ourselves are the agents; we are then too
deeply interested to view the matter as a mere subject of reasoning; and
pleasure or pain are excited, with a degree of intensity proportioned to
the importance which we always assign to our own interests and feelings.
In the case of others, our approbation or disapprobation is generally
qualified, sometimes suspended, by our ignorance of the motives by which
they have been influenced; but, in our own case, the motives and the
actions are both before us, and when they do not correspond, we feel the
same disgust with ourselves that we should feel toward another, whose
motives we knew to be vicious, while his actions are specious and
plausible. But in our own case, the uneasy feeling is heightened in a
tenfold degree, because self-contempt and disgust are brought into
competition with the warmest self-love, and the strongest desire of
self-approbation. We have then something of the feelings of a parent,
who knows the worthlessness of the child he loves, and contemplates with
horror the shame and infamy which might arise from exposure to the
world.

2. Conscience, then, cannot be considered as any thing else than the
general principle of moral approbation or disapprobation applied to our
own feelings or conduct, acting with increased energy from the knowledge
which we have of our motives and actions, and from the deep interest
which we take in whatever concerns ourselves; nor can we think that they
have deserved well of morals or philosophy, who have attempted to deduce
our notions of right and wrong from any one principle. Various powers
both of the understanding and of the will are concerned in every moral
conclusion; and conscience derives its chief and most salutary influence
from the consideration of our being continually in the presence of God,
and accountable to him for all our thoughts, words, and actions. A
conscience well informed, and possessed of sensibility, is the best
security for virtue, and the most awful avenger of wicked deeds; an
ill-informed conscience is the most powerful instrument of mischief; a
squeamish and ticklish conscience generally renders those who are under
its influence ridiculous.

                      _Hic murus aheneus esto,
              Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa._

[Let a consciousness of innocence, and a fearlessness of any accusation,
be thy brazen bulwark.]

3. The rule of conscience is the will of God, so far as it is made known
to us, either by the light of nature, or by that of revelation. With
respect to the knowledge of this rule, conscience is said to be rightly
informed, or mistaken; firm, or wavering, or scrupulous, &c. With
respect to the conformity of our actions to this rule when known,
conscience is said to be good or evil. In a moral view, it is of the
greatest importance that the understanding be well informed, in order to
render the judgment or verdict of conscience a safe directory of
conduct, and a proper source of satisfaction. Otherwise, the judgment of
conscience may be pleaded, and it has actually been pleaded, as an
apology for very unwarrantable conduct. Many atrocious acts of
persecution have been perpetrated, and afterward justified, under the
sanction of an erroneous conscience. It is also of no small importance,
that the sensibility of conscience be duly maintained and cherished; for
want of which men have often been betrayed into criminal conduct without
self-reproach, and have deluded themselves with false notions of their
character and state. See MORAL OBLIGATION.

CONSECRATION, a devoting or setting apart any thing to the worship or
service of God. The Mosaical law ordained that all the first-born, both
of man and beast, should be sanctified or consecrated to God. The whole
race of Abraham was in a peculiar manner consecrated to his worship; and
the tribe of Levi and family of Aaron were more immediately consecrated
to the service of God, Exod. xiii, 2, 12, 15; Num. iii, 12; 1 Peter ii,
9. Beside the consecrations ordained by the sovereign authority of God,
there were others which depended on the will of men, and were either to
continue for ever or for a time only. David and Solomon devoted the
Nethinims to the service of the temple for ever, Ezra viii, 20; ii, 58.
Hannah, the mother of Samuel, offered her son to the Lord, to serve all
his life-time in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 11; Luke i, 15. The Hebrews
sometimes devoted their fields and cattle to the Lord, and the spoils
taken in war, Leviticus xxvii, 28, 29; 1 Chron. xviii, 11. The New
Testament furnishes us with instances of consecration. Christians in
general are consecrated to the Lord, and are a holy race, a chosen
people, 1 Peter ii, 9. Ministers of the Gospel are in a peculiar manner
set apart for his service; and so are places of worship; the forms of
dedication varying according to the views of different bodies of
Christians; and by some a series of ceremonies has been introduced,
savouring of superstition, or at best of Judaism.

CONSUBSTANTIALISTS. This term was applied to the orthodox, or
Athanasians, who believed the Son to be of the same substance with the
Father; whereas the Arians would only admit the Son to be of like
substance with the Father.

CONSUBSTANTIATION, a tenet of the Lutheran church respecting the
presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Luther denied that the elements
were changed after consecration, and therefore taught that the bread and
wine indeed remain; but that together with them, there is present the
substance of the body of Christ, which is literally received by
communicants. As in red-hot iron it may be said two distinct substances,
iron and fire, are united, so is the body of Christ joined with the
bread. Some of his followers, who acknowledged that similes prove
nothing, contented themselves with saying that the body and blood of
Christ are really present in the sacrament in an inexplicable manner.
See LORD’S SUPPER.

CONVERSATIONS. These were held by the orientals in the gate of the city.
Accordingly, there was an open space near the gate, which was fitted up
with seats for the accommodation of the people, Gen. xix, 1; Psalm lxix,
12. Those who were at leisure occupied a position on these seats, and
either amused themselves with witnessing those who came in and went out,
and with any trifling occurrences that might offer themselves to their
notice, or attended to the judicial trials, which were commonly
investigated at public places of this kind, namely, the gate of the
city, Gen. xix, 1; xxxiv, 20; Psalm xxvi, 4, 5; lxix, 12; cxxvii, 5;
Ruth iv, 11; Isaiah xiv, 31; or held intercourse by conversation.
Promenading, so fashionable and so agreeable in colder latitudes, was
wearisome and unpleasant in the warm climates of the east, and this is
probably one reason why the inhabitants of those climates preferred
holding intercourse with one another, while sitting near the gate of the
city, or beneath the shade of the fig tree and the vine, 1 Samuel xxii,
6; Micah iv, 4. The formula of assent in conversation was Σὺ εἶπας,
דברתכן, _Thou hast said_, or _Thou hast rightly said_. We are informed
by the traveller Aryda, that this is the prevailing mode of a person’s
expressing his assent or affirmation to this day, in the vicinity of
Mount Lebanon, especially where he does not wish to assert any thing in
express terms. This explains the answer of the Saviour to the high
priest Caiaphas in Matt. xxvi, 64, when he was asked whether he was the
Christ, the Son of God, and replied, Σὺ εἶπας, _Thou hast said_.

The English word conversation has now a more restricted sense than
formerly; and it is to be noted that in several passages of our
translation of the Bible it is used to comprehend our whole conduct.

CONVERSION, a change from one state or character to another. Conversion,
considered theologically, consists in a renovation of the heart and
life, or a being turned from sin and the power of Satan unto God, Acts
xxvi, 18; and is produced by the influence of divine grace upon the
soul. This is conversion considered as a state of mind; and is opposed
both to a careless and unawakened state, and to that state of conscious
guilt and slavish dread, accompanied with struggles after a moral
deliverance not yet attained, which precedes our justification and
regeneration; both of which are usually understood to be comprised in
conversion. But this is not the only Scriptural import of the term; for
the first _turning_ of the whole heart to God in penitence and prayer is
generally termed conversion. In its stricter sense, as given above, it
is, however, now generally used by divines.

CONVICTION, in general, is the assurance of the truth of any
proposition. In a religious sense, it is the first degree of repentance,
and implies an affecting sense of our guilt before God; and that we
deserve and are exposed to his wrath.

COPPER. נחשת. Anciently, copper was employed for all the purposes for
which we now use iron. Arms, and tools for husbandry and the mechanic
arts, were all of this metal for many ages. Job speaks of bows of
copper, Job xx, 24; and when the Philistines had Samson in their power,
they bound him with fetters of copper. Our translators indeed say
“brass;” but under that article their mistake is pointed out. In Ezra
viii, 27, are mentioned “two vessels of copper, precious as gold.” The
Septuagint renders it σκεύη χαλκοῦ ϛίλϐοντος; the Vulgate and Castellio,
following the Arabic, “_vasa æris fulgentis_;” and the Syriac, “vases of
Corinthian brass.” It is more probable, however, that this brass was not
from Corinth, but a metal from Persia or India, which Aristotle
describes in these terms: “It is said that there is in India a brass so
shining, so pure, so free from tarnish, that its colour differs nothing
from that of gold. It is even said that among the vessels of Darius
there were some respecting which the sense of smelling might determine
whether they were gold or brass.” Bochart is of opinion that this is the
_chasmal_ of Ezekiel i, 27, the χαλκολίϐανον of Rev. i, 15, and the
_electrum_ of the ancients.

Mr. Harmer quotes from the manuscript notes of Sir John Chardin a
reference to a mixed metal in the east, and highly esteemed there; and
suggests that this composition might have been as old as the time of
Ezra, and be brought from those more remote countries into Persia, where
these two basins were given to be conveyed to Jerusalem. Ezekiel, xxvii,
13, speaks of the merchants of Javan, Jubal, and Meshech, as bringing
vessels of _nehesh_ (copper) to the markets of Tyre. According to
Bochart and Michaëlis, these were people situated toward Mount Caucasus,
where copper mines are worked at this day. See BRASS.

COPTS, a name given to the Christians of Egypt who do not belong to the
Greek church, but are Monophysites, and in most respects Jacobites.
Scaliger and Father Simon derive the name from Coptos, once a celebrated
town of Egypt, and the metropolis of the Thebaid; but Volney and others
are of opinion, that the name _Copts_ is only an abbreviation of the
Greek word _Aigouptios_, “an Egyptian.” The Copts have a patriarch,
whose jurisdiction extends over both Egypts, Nubia, and Abyssinia; who
resides at Cairo, but who takes his title from Alexandria. He has under
him eleven or twelve bishops, beside the abuna, or bishop of the
Abyssinians, whom he appoints and consecrates. The rest of the clergy,
whether secular or regular, are composed of the orders of St. Anthony,
St. Paul, and St. Macarius, who have each their monasteries. Their
arch-priests, who are next in degree to bishops, and their deacons, are
said to be numerous; and they often confer the order of deacon even on
children. Next to the patriarch is the bishop, or titular patriarch, of
Jerusalem, who also resides at Cairo, because there are only few Copts
at Jerusalem. He is, in reality, little more than bishop of Cairo;
except that he goes to Jerusalem every Easter, and visits some other
places in Palestine, which own his jurisdiction. To him belongs the
government of the Coptic church, during the vacancy of the patriarchal
see. The ecclesiastics are said to be, in general, of the lowest ranks
of the people; and hence that great degree of ignorance which prevails
among them. They have seven sacraments; baptism, the eucharist,
confirmation, ordination, faith, fasting, and prayer. They admit only
three œcumenical councils; those of Nice, Constantinople, and
Ephesus. There are three Coptic liturgies; one attributed to St. Basil,
another to St. Gregory, and the third to St. Cyril. At present, however,
little more than the mere shadow of Christianity can be seen in Egypt;
and, in point of numbers, not more than fifty thousand Christians in all
can be found in this country. There are not more than three Christian
churches at Cairo.

CORAL, ראמות, Job xxviii, 18; Ezek. xxvii, 16; a hard, cretaceous,
marine production, resembling in figure the stem of a plant, divided
into branches. It is of different colours,--black, white, and red. The
latter is the sort emphatically called coral, as being the most
valuable, and usually made into ornaments. This, though no gem, is
ranked by the author of the book of Job, xxviii, 18, with the onyx and
sapphire. Dr. Good observes, “It is by no means certain what the words
here rendered ‘corals and pearls,’ and those immediately afterward
rendered ‘rubies and topaz,’ really signified. Reiske has given up the
inquiry as either hopeless or useless; and Schultens has generally
introduced the Hebrew words themselves, and left the reader of the
translation to determine as he may. Our common version is, in the main,
concurrent with most of the oriental renderings: and I see no reason to
deviate from it.”

CORBAN, קרבן, Mark vii, 11; from the Hebrew קרב, _to offer_, _to
present_. It denotes a gift, a present made to God, or to his temple.
The Jews sometimes swore by corban, or by gifts offered to God, Matt.
xxiii, 18. Theophrastus says that the Tyrians forbad the use of such
oaths as were peculiar to foreigners, and particularly of corban, which,
Josephus informs us, was used only by the Jews. Jesus Christ reproaches
the Jews with cruelty toward their parents, in making a corban of what
should have been appropriated to their use. For when a child was asked
to relieve the wants of his father or mother, he would often say, “It is
a gift,” corban, “by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;” that
is, I have devoted that to God which you ask of me; and it is no longer
mine to give, Mark vii, 11. Thus they violated a precept of the moral
law, through a superstitious devotion to Pharisaic observances, and the
wretched casuistry by which they were made binding upon the conscience.

CORIANDER, גד, Exod. xvi, 31; Num. xi, 7; a strongly aromatic plant. It
bears a small round seed, of a very agreeable smell and taste. The manna
might be compared to the coriander seed in respect to its form or shape,
as it was to bdellium in its colour. See MANNA.

CORINTH, a celebrated city, the capital of Achaia, situated on the
isthmus which separates the Peloponnesus from Attica. This city was one
of the best peopled and most wealthy of Greece. Its situation between
two seas drew thither the trade of both the east and west. Its riches
produced pride, ostentation, effeminacy, and all vices, the consequences
of abundance. For its insolence to the Roman legates, it was destroyed
by L. Mummius. In the burning of it, so many statues of different metals
were melted together, that they produced the famous Corinthian brass. It
was afterward restored to its former splendour by Julius Cæsar.

Christianity was first planted at Corinth by St. Paul, who resided here
eighteen months, between the years 51 and 53; during which time he
enjoyed the friendship of Aquila and his wife Priscilla, two Jewish
Christians, who had been expelled from Italy, with other Jews, by an
edict of Claudius. The church consisted both of Jews and of Gentiles;
but St. Paul began, as usual, by preaching in the synagogue, until the
Jews violently opposed him, and blasphemed the name of Christ; when the
Apostle, shaking his garment, and declaring their blood to be upon their
own heads, left them, and made use afterward of a house adjoining the
synagogue, belonging to a man named Justus. The rage of the Jews,
however, did not stop here; but, raising a tumult, they arrested Paul,
and hurrying him before the tribunal of the pro-consul Gallio, the
brother of the famous Seneca, accused him of persuading men to worship
God contrary to the law. But Gallio, who was equally indifferent both to
Judaism and Christianity, and finding that Paul had committed no breach
of morality, or of the public peace, refused to hear their complaint,
and drove them all from the judgment seat. The Jews being thus
disappointed in their malicious designs, St. Paul was at liberty to
remain some time longer at Corinth; and after his departure, Apollos, a
zealous and eloquent Jewish convert of Alexandria, was made a powerful
instrument in confirming the church, and in silencing the opposition of
the Jews, Acts xviii. How much it stood in need of such support, is
evident from the Epistles of St. Paul; who cautions the Corinthians
against divisions and party spirit; fornication, incest, partaking of
meats offered to idols, thereby giving an occasion of scandal, and
encouragement to idolatry; abusing the gifts of the Spirit,
litigiousness, &c. The Corinthians, indeed, were in great danger: they
lived at ease, free from every kind of persecution, and were exposed to
much temptation. The manners of the citizens were particularly corrupt:
they were, indeed, infamous to a proverb. In the centre of the city was
a celebrated temple of Venus, a part of whose worship consisted in
prostitution; for there a thousand priestesses of the goddess ministered
to dissoluteness under the patronage of religion: an example which gave
the Corinthians very lax ideas on the illicit intercourse of the sexes.
Corinth also possessed numerous schools of philosophy and rhetoric; in
which, as at Alexandria, the purity of the faith by an easy and natural
process, became early corrupted.

There occurs a chronological difficulty in the visits of St. Paul to
Corinth. In 2 Cor. xii, 14, and xiii, 1, 2, the Apostle expresses his
design of visiting that city a third time; whereas only one visit before
the date of the Second Epistle is noticed in the Acts, xviii, 1, about
A. D. 51; and the next time that he visited Greece, Acts xx, 2, about A.
D. 57, no mention is made of his going to Corinth. Mr. Horne observes on
this subject, “It has been conjectured by Grotius, and Drs. Hammond and
Paley, that his First Epistle virtually supplied the place of his
presence; and that it is so represented by the Apostle in a
corresponding passage, 1 Cor. v, 3. Admitting this solution to be
probable, it is, however, far-fetched, and is not satisfactory as a
matter of fact. Michaëlis has produced another, more simple and natural;
namely, that Paul, on his return from Crete, visited Corinth a second
time before he went to winter at Nicopolis. This second visit is
unnoticed in the Acts, because the voyage itself is unnoticed. The third
visit, promised in 2 Cor. xii, 14, and xiii, 1, 2, was actually paid on
the Apostle’s second return to Rome, when he took Corinth in his way, 2
Tim. iv, 20. ‘Thus critically,’ says Dr. Hales, ‘does the book of the
Acts harmonize, even in its omissions, with the epistles; and these with
each other, in the minute incidental circumstances of the third visit.’”

About A. D. 268, the Heruli burned Corinth to ashes. In 525, it was
again almost ruined by an earthquake. About 1180, Roger, king of Sicily,
took and plundered it. Since 1458, it was till lately under the power of
the Turks; and is so decayed, that its inhabitants amount to no more
than about fifteen hundred, or two thousand; half Mohammedans, and half
Christians. A late French writer, who visited this country, observes,
“When the Cæsars rebuilt the walls of Corinth, and the temples of the
gods rose from their ruins more magnificent than ever, an obscure
architect was rearing in silence an edifice which still remains standing
amidst the ruins of Greece. This man, unknown to the great, despised by
the multitude, rejected as the offscouring of the world, at first
associated himself with only two companions, Crispus and Gaius, and with
the family of Stephanas. These were the humble architects of an
indestructible temple, and the first believers at Corinth. The traveller
surveys the site of this celebrated city; he discovers not a vestige of
the altars of Paganism, but perceives some Christian chapels rising from
among the cottages of the Greeks. The Apostle might still, from his
celestial abode, give the salutation of peace to his children, and
address them in the words, ‘Paul to the church of God, which is at
Corinth.’”

CORINTHIANS, _Epistles to_. St. Paul left Corinth A. D. 53 or 54, and
went to Jerusalem. From Ephesus he wrote his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, in the beginning of A. D. 56. In this epistle he reproves
some who disturbed the peace of the church, complains of some disorders
in their assemblies, of law suits among them, and of a Christian who had
committed incest with his mother-in-law, the wife of his father, and had
not been separated from the church. This letter produced in the
Corinthians great grief, vigilance against the vices reproved, and a
very beneficial dread of God’s anger. They repaired the scandal, and
expressed abundant zeal against the crime committed, 2 Cor. vii, 9–11.

To form an idea of the condition of the Corinthian church, we must
examine the epistles of the Apostle. The different factions into which
they were divided, exalted above all others the chiefs, τοὺς ὑπὲρ λίαν
ἀποϛόλους, [the very chiefest Apostles,] 2 Cor. xi, 5; xii, 11, whose
notions they adopted, and whose doctrines they professed to follow, and
attempted to depreciate those of the opposite party. While, then, some
called themselves disciples of Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, others assumed
the splendid appellation of Christ’s party. Probably they affected to be
the followers of James, the brother of our Lord, and thought thus to
enter into a nearer discipleship with Jesus than the other parties. The
controversy, as we shall see from the whole, related to the obligation
of Judaism. The advocates of it had appealed, even in Galatia, to Cephas
and James, for the sake of opposing to Paul, who had banished Jewish
ceremonies from Christianity, authorities which were not less admitted
than his own. The question itself divided all these various parties into
two principal factions: the partisans of Cephas and James were for the
law; the friends of Paul adopted his opinion, as well as Apollos, who,
with his adherents, was always in heart in favour of Paul, and never
wished to take a part in a separation from him, 1 Cor. xvi, 12. The
leaders of the party against Paul, these ψευδαπόϛολοι, [false apostles,]
as Paul calls them, and μετασχηματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποϛὸλους Χριϛοῦ,
[transformers of themselves into the apostles of Christ,] who declared
themselves the promulgators and defenders of the doctrines of Cephas,
and James, were, as may be easily conceived, converted Jews, 2 Cor. xi,
22, who had come from different places,--to all appearance from
Palestine, ἐρχομένοι, [the comers,] 2 Cor. xi, 4,--and could therefore
boast of having had intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem, and of
an acquaintance with their principles. They were not even of the
orthodox Jews, but those who adhered to the doctrines of the Sadducees;
and though they were even now converted to Christianity, while they
spoke zealously in favour of the law, they were undermining the hopes of
the pious, and exciting doubts against the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 35;
so that Paul, from regard to the teachers, whose disciples they
professed to be, was obliged to refute them from the testimony of James
and Cephas, 1 Cor. xv, 5, 7. These, proud of their own opinions, 1 Cor.
i, 17, not without private views, depreciated Paul’s authority, and
extolled their own knowledge, 1 Cor. ii, 12; 2 Cor. xi, 16, 17.
Violently as the contest was carried on, they still did not withdraw
from the same place of assembly for instruction and mutual edification;
this, however, was even the cause of too many scandalous scenes and
disorders. At the ἀγάπαι, _love feasts_, love and benevolence were no
where to be seen. Instead of eating together, and refreshing their poor
brethren out of that which they had brought with them, each one, as he
came, ate his own, without waiting for any one else, and feasted often
to excess, while the needy was fasting, 1 Cor. xi, 17. When also some
were preparing for prayers or singing, others raised their voices to
instruct, and commenced exercises in _spiritual gifts_, tongues,
prophesyings, and interpretations, 1 Cor. xii, xiii, xiv; moreover, the
women, to bring confusion to its highest pitch, took their part in
interlocutions and proposals of questions, 1 Cor. xiv, 34.

Such was the state of things as to the interior discipline of the
assemblies and edification; but the exterior deportment, which the
members of this society had maintained in civil life, soon disappeared
also. Formerly, when differences arose among the believers, they were
adjusted by the intervention of arbitrators from their own communion,
and terminated quietly. Now, as their mutual confidence in each other
more and more decreased, they brought, to the disgrace of Christianity,
their complaints before the Pagan tribunals, 1 Cor. vi, 1. But as to
what concerned the main object, namely, the obligation of Judaism, it
was so little confined simply to words and reasons, that each party
rather strove to display its opposite principles in its conduct. One
party gave to the other, as much as possible, motives for ill will and
reproach. The Jews required circumcision as an indispensable act of
religion; while Paul’s disciples attempted to lay the foundation of a
new doctrine respecting it, and to extinguish all traces of
circumcision, 1 Cor. vii, 18. As the Jewish party observed and
maintained a distinction of meats, that of Paul ate without distinction
any thing sold in the markets, and even meats from the Heathen
sacrifices, 1 Cor. x, 25, 28; viii, 1. Nor was this enough; they often
made no scruple to be present at the sacrificial feasts. Among other
things, they also took part in many scandalous practices which were
common there, and fell, by means of their imprudence, into still greater
crimes, 1 Cor. x, 20, 21; viii, 10. According to the Jewish custom, the
women were obliged to appear veiled in the synagogues and public
assemblies. The anti-judaists abolished this custom of the synagogue, 1
Cor. xi, 5, 6, 10; and herein imitated the Heathen practices. From
despite to Judaism, which considered matrimonial offspring as a
particular blessing of God, some embraced celibacy, which they justified
by St. Paul’s example, 1 Cor. vii, 7, 8; and this they also recommended
to others, 1 Cor. vii, 1–25. Some went even so far, that, although
married, they resolved to practise a continual continency, 1
Corinthians, vii, 3–5. These were the evils, both in his own party and
in that of his opponents, which St. Paul had to remedy.

Paul, having understood the good effects of his first letter among the
Corinthians, wrote a second to them, A. D. 57, from Macedonia, and
probably from Philippi. He expresses his satisfaction at their conduct,
justifies himself, and comforts them. He glories in his suffering, and
exhorts them to liberality. Near the end of the year 57, he came again
to Corinth, where he staid about three months, and whence he went to
Jerusalem. Just before his second departure from Corinth, he wrote his
Epistle to the Romans, probably in the beginning of A. D. 58.

CORMORANT, שלך, Levit. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 17; a large sea bird. It is
about three feet four inches in length, and four feet two inches in
breadth from the tips of the extended wings. The bill is about five
inches long, and of a dusky colour; the base of the lower mandible is
covered with a naked yellowish skin, which extends under the throat and
forms a kind of pouch. It has a most voracious appetite, and lives
chiefly upon fish, which it devours with unceasing gluttony. It darts
down very rapidly upon its prey; and the Hebrew, and the Greek name,
καταράκτης, [a cataract,] are expressive of its impetuosity. The word
קאת, which in our version of Isaiah xxxiv, 11, is rendered _cormorant_,
is the pelican.

CORNER. Amos iii, 12. Sitting in the corner is a stately attitude. The
place of honour is the corner of the room, and there the master of the
house sits and receives his visitants.

COUNCIL sometimes denotes any kind of assembly; sometimes that of the
sanhedrim; and, at other times, a convention of pastors met to regulate
ecclesiastical affairs. It may be reasonably supposed that as
Christianity spreads, circumstances would arise which would make
consultation necessary among those who had embraced the Gospel, or at
least among those who were employed in its propagation. A memorable
instance of this kind occurred not long after the ascension of our
Saviour. In consequence of a dispute which had arisen at Antioch
concerning the necessity of circumcising Gentile converts, it was
determined that “Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should
go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this
question.”--“And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider
of this matter,” Acts xv, 6. After a consultation, they decided the
point in question; and they sent their decree, which they declared to be
made under the direction of the Holy Ghost, to all the churches, and
commanded that it should be the rule of their conduct. This is generally
considered as the first council; but it differed from all others in this
circumstance, that its members were under the _especial_ guidance of the
Spirit of God. The Gospel was soon after conveyed into many parts of
Europe, Asia, and Africa; but it does not appear that there was any
public meeting of Christians for the purpose of discussing any contested
point, till the middle of the second century. From that time councils
became frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to
particular districts or countries, they were called provincial or
national councils. The first general council was that of Nice, convened
by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325; the second general council was
held at Constantinople, in the year 381, by order of Theodosius the
Great; the third, at Ephesus, by order of Theodosius, Junior, A. D. 431;
and the fourth at Chalcedon, by order of the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451.
These, as they were the first four general councils, so they were by far
the most eminent. They were caused respectively by the Arian,
Apollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies, and their decrees
are in high esteem both among Papists and orthodox Protestants; but the
deliberations of most councils were disgraced by violence, disorder, and
intrigue, and their decisions were usually made under the influence of
some ruling party. Authors are not agreed about the number of general
councils; Papists usually reckon eighteen, but Protestant writers will
not allow that nearly so many had a right to that name. The last general
council was that held at Trent, for the purpose of checking the progress
of the reformation. It first met by the command of Pope Paul III, A. D.
1545; it was suspended during the latter part of the pontificate of his
successor, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Marcellus
II, and Paul IV, that is, from 1552 to 1562, in which year it met again
by the authority of Pope Pius IV, and it ended, while he was pope, in
the year 1563. Provincial councils were very numerous: Baxter enumerates
four hundred and eighty-one, and Dufresnoy many more.

2. Of the eighteen councils denominated “general” by the Papists, four
have already been enumerated; and they with the next four constitute the
eight eastern councils, which alone, according to the “Body of Civil
Law,” each of the popes of Rome, on his elevation to the pontificate,
solemnly professes to maintain. The fifth was convened at
Constantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Justinian; the sixth, also at
Constantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Constantine IV, himself
presided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empress Irene; and the
eighth, at Constantinople, in 870, by the emperor Basilius. It is matter
of historical record, and therefore cannot be denied, that the convening
of all these councils appertained solely to the respective emperors;
that they alone exercised authority on such occasions; that the bishop
of Rome was never thought to possess any, although his power may be said
to have been set up between the fifth and sixth general councils; nor
did the bishop himself, _pro tempore_, think himself entitled to an
authority of the kind. The other councils which the Romish church
dignifies with the title of “general,” are the ten western ones, which
are here subjoined:--(9.) The first council of Lateran, held under Pope
Calixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Lateran, under Innocent II, in
1139; (11.) the third of Lateran, under Alexander III, in 1179, the
decrees of which were intended to extirpate the Albigenses, as well as
the Waldenses, who were variously called Leonists, or poor men of Lyons;
(12.) the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent III, in 1215, which incited
Christian Europe to engage in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy
Land, and whose canons obtruded on the church the monstrous doctrines of
transubstantiation and auricular confession, the latter being ranked
among the duties prescribed by the law of Christ; (13.) the first of
Lyons, under Innocent IV, in 1245; (14.) the second of Lyons, under
Gregory X, in 1274; (15.) that of Vienne, under Clement V, in 1311;
(16.) that of Florence, under Eugenius IV, in 1439; (17.) the fifth of
Lateran, under the infamous Julius II; and (18.) the council of Trent,
of which an account is given in the preceding paragraph, and which
grounds its fame on its opposition to the progress of the reformation
under Luther. Though, according to Bellarmine, these eighteen alone are
recognised by the Romish church œcumenical or universal councils, yet
some of them did not deserve even the more restricted appellation of
“general.” For the council of Trent itself, in some of its sessions,
could scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of
those, not one eminent for profound theological or classical knowledge.
The lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, “knew little of religion,
while the few divines were of less than ordinary sufficiency.” Some of
the other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be
“general” with respect to all their sessions, (as those of Basle and
Constance,) are in part received by them, and in part rejected.
Bellarmine and other celebrated writers of his church, are dubious about
determining whether or not “the fifth of Lateran” was really a general
council, and leave it as a thing discretionary with the faithful either
to retain or reject it; if it be rejected, the only refuge which they
have, is to receive in its place the council of Constance, held under
John XXIII, in 1414, which is disclaimed by the Italian clergy but
admitted by those of France, and which is rendered infamous in the
annals of religion and humanity by its cruel and treacherous conduct
toward those two early Protestant martyrs, John Huss and Jerome of
Prague; “who went to the stake,” says, Æneas Sylvius, “as if it had been
to a banquet, without uttering a complaint that could betray the least
weakness of mind. When they began to burn, they sung a hymn, which even
the crackling of the flames could not interrupt. Never did any
philosopher suffer death with so much courage, as they endured the
fire.” But this acknowledgment of Constance as one of the eighteen is
resisted _vi et armis_, by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because
one of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of
the church in general council assembled to be superior to the sovereign
pontiff, not only when schism prevailed, but at all other times
whatsoever.

3. A general council being composed of men every one of whom is
fallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together; and
that they actually have erred is sufficiently evident from this fact,
that different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to
each other, particularly in the Arian and Eutychian controversies, which
were upon subjects immediately “pertaining unto God.” Indeed, neither
the first general councils themselves, nor those who defended their
decisions, ever pretended to infallibility; this was a claim of a much
more recent date, suited to the dark ages in which it was asserted and
maintained, but now considered equally groundless and absurd in the case
of general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to
exempt them from a possibility of error, he would have announced that
important privilege in his written word; but no such promise or
assurance is mentioned in the New Testament If infallibility belonged to
the whole church collectively, or to any individual part of it, it must
be so prominent and conspicuous that no mistake or doubt could exist
upon the subject; and above all, it must have prevented those
dissensions, contests, heresies, and schisms, which have abounded among
Christians from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and of
which that very church, which is the asserter and patron of this
doctrine, has had its full share.

The Scriptures being the only source from which we can learn the terms
of salvation, it follows that things ordained by general councils as
necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the
church of England has well said, unless it may be declared that they he
taken out of Holy Scripture. It is upon this ground we receive the
decisions of the first four general councils, in which we find the
truths revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We
reverence the councils for the sake of the doctrines which they declared
and maintained, but we do not believe the doctrines upon the authority
of the councils.

COVENANT. The Greek word διαθήκη occurs often in the Septuagint, as the
translation of a Hebrew word, which signifies _covenant_: it occurs also
in the Gospels and the Epistles; and it is rendered in our English
Bibles sometimes _covenant_, sometimes _testament_. The Greek word,
according to its etymology, and according to classical use, may denote a
testament, a disposition, as well as a covenant; and the Gospel may be
called a testament, because it is a signification of the will of our
Saviour ratified by his death, and because it conveys blessings to be
enjoyed after his death. These reasons for giving the dispensation of
the Gospel the name of a testament appeared to our translators so
striking, that they have rendered διαθήκη more frequently by the word
_testament_, than by the word _covenant_. Yet the train of argument,
where διαθήκη occurs, generally appears to proceed upon its meaning a
covenant; and therefore, although, when we delineate the nature of the
Gospel, the beautiful idea of its being a testament, is not to be lost
sight of, yet we are to remember that the word _testament_, which we
read in the Gospels and Epistles, is the translation of a word which the
sense requires to be rendered _covenant_. A covenant implies two
parties, and mutual stipulations. The new covenant must derive its name
from something in the nature of the stipulations between the parties
different from that which existed before; so that we cannot understand
the propriety of the name, _new_, without looking back to what is called
the _old_, or _first_. On examining the passages in Gal. iii, in 2 Cor.
iii, and in Heb. viii-x, where the old and the new covenant are
contrasted, it will be found that the old covenant means the
dispensation given by Moses to the children of Israel; and the new
covenant the dispensation of the Gospel published by Jesus Christ; and
that the object of the Apostle is to illustrate the superior excellence
of the latter dispensation. But, in order to preserve the consistency of
the Apostle’s writings, it is necessary to remember that there are two
different lights in which the former dispensation may be viewed.
Christians appear to draw the line between the old and the new covenant,
according to the light in which they view that dispensation. It may be
considered merely as a method of publishing the moral law to a
particular nation; and then with whatever solemnity it was delivered,
and with whatever cordiality it was accepted, it is not a covenant that
could give life. For, being nothing more than what divines call a
covenant of works, a directory of conduct requiring by its nature entire
personal obedience, promising life to those who yielded that obedience,
but making no provision for transgressors, it left under a curse “every
one that continued not in all things that were written in the book of
the law to do them.” This is the essential imperfection of what is
called the covenant of works, the name given in theology to that
transaction, in which it is conceived that the supreme Lord of the
universe promised to his creature, man, that he would reward that
obedience to his law, which, without any such promise, was due to him as
the Creator.

No sooner had Adam broken the covenant of works, than a promise of a
final deliverance from the evils incurred by the breach of it was given.
This promise was the foundation of that transaction which Almighty God,
in treating with Abraham, condescends to call “my covenant with thee,”
and which, upon this authority, has received in theology the name of the
Abrahamic covenant. Upon the one part, Abraham, whose faith was counted
to him for righteousness, received this charge from God, “Walk before me
and be thou perfect;” upon the other part, the God whom he believed, and
whose voice he obeyed, beside promising other blessings to him and his
seed, uttered these significant words, “In thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed.” In this transaction, then, there was
the essence of a covenant; for there were mutual stipulations between
two parties; and there was superadded, as a seal of the covenant, the
rite of circumcision, which, being prescribed by God, was a confirmation
of his promise to all who complied with it, and being submitted to by
Abraham, was, on his part, an acceptance of the covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant appears, from the nature of the stipulations, to
be more than a covenant of works; and, as it was not confined to
Abraham, but extended to his seed, it could not be disannulled by any
subsequent transactions, which fell short of a fulfilment of the
blessing promised. The law of Moses, which was given to the seed of
Abraham four hundred and thirty years after, did not come up to the
terms of that covenant even with regard to them, for, in its form it was
a covenant of works, and to other nations it did not directly convey any
blessing. But although the Mosaic dispensation did not fulfil the
Abrahamic covenant, it was so far from setting that covenant aside, that
it cherished the expectation of its being fulfilled: for it continued
the rite of circumcision, which was the seal of the covenant; and in
those ceremonies which it enjoined, there was a shadow, a type, an
obscure representation, of the promised blessing, Luke i, 72, 73.

Here, then, is another view of the Mosaic dispensation. “It was added,
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made,” Gal. iii, 19. By delivering a moral law, which men felt
themselves unable to obey; by denouncing judgments which it did not of
itself provide any effectual method of escaping; and by holding forth,
in various oblations, the promised and expected Saviour; “it was a
schoolmaster to bring men unto Christ.” The covenant made with Abraham
retained its force during the dispensation of the law, and was the end
of that dispensation.

The views which have been given furnish the ground upon which we defend
that established language which is familiar to our ears, that there are
only two covenants essentially different, and opposite to one another,
the covenant of works, made with the first man, intimated by the
constitution of human nature to every one of his posterity, and having
for its terms, “Do this and live;”--and the covenant of grace, which was
the substance of the Abrahamic covenant, and which entered into the
constitution of the Sinaitic covenant, but which is more clearly
revealed, and more extensively published in the Gospel. This last
covenant, which the Scriptures call _new_ in respect to the mode of its
dispensation under the Gospel, although it is not new in respect of its
essence, has received, in the language of theology, the name of the
covenant of grace, for the two following obvious reasons: because, after
man had broken the covenant of works, it was pure grace or favour in the
Almighty to enter into a new covenant with him; and, because by the
covenant there is conveyed that grace which enables man to comply with
the terms of it. It could not be a covenant unless there were
terms,--something required, as well as something promised or
given,--duties to be performed, as well as blessings to be received.
Accordingly, the tenor of the new covenant, founded upon the promise
originally made to Abraham, is expressed by Jeremiah in words which the
Apostle to the Hebrews has quoted as a description of it: “I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people,” Heb. viii, 10:--words
which intimate on one part not only entire reconciliation with God, but
the continued exercise of all the perfections of the Godhead in
promoting the happiness of his people, and the full communication of all
the blessings which flow from his unchangeable love; on the other part,
the surrender of the heart and affections of his people, the dedication
of all the powers of their nature to his service, and the willing
uniform obedience of their lives. But, although there are mutual
stipulations, the covenant retains its character of a covenant of grace,
and must be regarded as having its source purely in the grace of God.
For the very circumstances which rendered the new covenant necessary,
take away the possibility of there being any merit upon our part: the
faith by which the covenant is accepted is the gift of God; and all the
good works by which Christians continue to keep the covenant, originate
in that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of his
Spirit.

Covenants were anciently confirmed by eating and drinking together; and
chiefly by feasting on a sacrifice. In this manner, Abimelech, the
Philistine, confirmed the covenant with Isaac, and Jacob with his father
Laban, Gen. xxvi, 26–31; xxxi, 44–46, 54. Sometimes they divided the
parts of the victim, and passed between them, by which act the parties
signified their resolution of fulfilling all the terms of the
engagement, on pain of being divided or cut asunder as the sacrifice had
been, if they should violate the covenant, Gen. xv, 9, 10, 17, 18; Jer.
xxxiv, 18. Hence the Hebrew word _charat_, which properly signifies to
divide, is applied allusively in Scripture to the making of a covenant.
When the law of Moses was established, the people feasted in their
peace-offerings on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their
reconciliation with God, Deut. xii, 6, 7. See CIRCUMCISION.

COURT, an entrance into a palace or house. (See _House_.) The great
courts belonging to the temple of Jerusalem were three; the first called
the court of the Gentiles, because the Gentiles were allowed to enter so
far, and no farther; the second was the court of Israel, because all the
Israelites, provided they were purified, had a right of admission into
it; the third was that of the priests, where the altar of
burnt-offerings stood, where the priests and Levites exercised their
ministry. Common Israelites, who were desirous of offering sacrifices,
were at liberty to bring their victims as far as the inner part of the
court; but they could not pass a certain line of separation, which
divided it into two; and they withdrew as soon as they had delivered
their sacrifices and offerings to the priests, or had made their
confession with the ceremony of laying their hands upon the head of the
victim, if it were a sin-offering. Before the temple was built, there
was a court belonging to the tabernacle, but not near so large as that
of the temple, and encompassed only with pillars, and veils hung with
cords.

CRANE. In Isaiah xxxviii, 14, and Jer. viii, 7, two birds are mentioned,
the סיס and the עגור. The first in our version is translated _crane_,
and the second _swallow_; but Bochart exactly reverses them, and the
reasons he adduces are incontrovertible. Aristophanes curiously
observes, that “it is time to sow when the crane migrates clamouring
into Africa; she also bids the mariner suspend his rudder and take his
rest, and the mountaineer to provide himself with raiment;” and Hesiod,
“When thou hearest the voice of the crane, clamouring annually from the
clouds on high, recollect that this is the signal for ploughing, and
indicates the approach of showery winter.”

              Where do the cranes or winding swallows go,
              Fearful of gathering winds and falling snow?
              Conscious of all the coming ills, they fly
              To milder regions and a southern sky.
                                         PRIOR.

The Prophet Jeremiah mentions this bird, thus intelligent of the seasons
by an instinctive and invariable observation of their appointed times,
as a circumstance of reproach to the chosen people of God, who, although
taught by reason and religion, “knew not the judgment of the Lord.”

CREATION, in its primary import, signifies the bringing into being
something which did not exist before. The term is therefore most
generally applied to the original production of the materials whereof
the visible world is composed. It is also used in a secondary or
subordinate sense, to denote those subsequent operations of the Deity
upon the matter so produced, by which the whole system of nature, and
all the primitive _genera_ of things, received their forms, qualities,
and laws. The accounts of the creation of the world which have existed
among different nations, are called _Cosmogonies_. Moses’s is
unquestionably the most ancient; and had it no other circumstance to
recommend it, its superior antiquity alone would give it a just claim to
our attention. It is evidently Moses’s intention to give a history of
man, and of religion, and an account of creation. In the way in which he
has detailed it, it would have been foreign to his plan, had it not been
necessary to obviate that most ancient and most natural species of
idolatry, the worship of the heavenly bodies. His first care, therefore,
is to affirm decidedly, that God created the heavens and the earth; and
then he proceeds to mention the order in which the various objects of
creation were called into existence. First of all, the materials, of
which the future universe was to be composed, were created. These were
jumbled together in one indigested mass, which the ancients called
chaos, and which they conceived to be eternal; but which Moses affirms
to have been created by the power of God. The materials of the chaos
were either held in solution by the waters, or floated in them, or were
sunk under them; and they were reduced into form by the Spirit of God
moving upon the face of the waters. Light was the first distinct object
of creation: fishes were the first living things; man was last in the
order of creation.

2. The account given by Moses is distinguished by its simplicity. That
it involves difficulties which our faculties cannot comprehend, is only
what might be expected from a detail of the operations of the omnipotent
mind, which can never be fully understood but by the Being who planned
them. Most of the writers who come nearest to Moses in point of
antiquity have favoured the world with cosmogonies; and there is a
wonderful coincidence in some leading particulars between their accounts
and his. They all have his chaos; and they all state water to have been
the prevailing principle before the arrangement of the universe began.
The systems became gradually more complicated, as the writers receded
farther from the age of primitive tradition; and they increased in
absurdity in proportion to the degree of philosophy which was applied to
the subject. The problem of creation has been said to be, “Matter and
motion being given, to form a world;” and the presumption of man has
often led him to attempt the solution of this intricate question. But
the true problem was, “Neither matter nor motion being given, to form a
world.” At first, the cosmogonists contented themselves with reasoning
on the traditional or historical accounts they had received; but it is
irksome to be shackled by authority; and after they had acquired a
smattering of knowledge, they began to think that they could point out a
much better way of forming the world than that which had been
transmitted to them by the consenting voice of antiquity. Epicurus was
most distinguished in this hopeful work of invention; and produced a
cosmogony on the principle of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, whose
extravagant absurdity has hitherto preserved it from oblivion. From his
day to ours, the world has been annoyed with systems; but these are now
modified by the theories of chemists and geologists, whose speculations,
in so far as they proceed on the principle of induction, have sometimes
been attended with useful results; but, when applied to solve the
problem of creation, will serve, like the systems of their forerunners,
to demonstrate the ignorance and the presumption of man.

3. The early cosmogonies are chiefly interesting from their resemblance
to that of Moses; which proves that they have either been derived from
him, or from some ancient prevailing tradition respecting the true
history of creation. The most ancient author next to Moses, of whose
writings any fragments remain, is Sanchoniatho, the Phenician. His
writings were translated by Philo Byblius; and portions of this version
are preserved by Eusebius. These writings come to us rather in an
apocryphal form; they contain, however, no internal evidence which can
affect their authenticity; they pretty nearly resemble the traditions of
the Greeks, and are, perhaps, the parent stock from which these
traditions are derived. The notions detailed by Sanchoniatho are almost
translated by Hesiod, who mentions the primeval chaos, and states ἔρος,
or _love_, to be its first offspring. Anaxagoras was the first among the
Greeks who entertained tolerably accurate notions on the subject of
creation: he assumed the agency of an intelligent mind in the
arrangement of the chaotic materials. These sentiments gradually
prevailed among the Greeks; from whom they passed to the Romans, and
were generally adopted, notwithstanding the efforts which were made to
establish the doctrines of Epicurus by the nervous poetry of Lucretius.
Ovid has collected the orthodox doctrines which prevailed on the
subject, both among Greeks and Romans; and has expressed them with
uncommon elegance and perspicuity in the first chapter of his
“Metamorphoses.” There is so striking a coincidence between his account
and that of Moses that one would almost think that he was translating
from the first chapter of Genesis; and there can be no doubt that the
Mosaic writings were well known at that time, both among the Greeks and
Romans. Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicanor, affirms,
that all the doctrines of the Greeks respecting the creation, and the
constitution of nature, were current among the Bramins in India, and the
Jews in Syria. He must, of course, have been acquainted with the
writings of the latter, before he could make the comparison. Juvenal
talks of the writings of Moses as well known:--

         _Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses._
         [Whatever Moses has transmitted in his mystic volume.]

We are therefore inclined to think that Ovid actually copied from the
Bible; for he adopts the very order detailed by Moses. Moses mentions
the works of creation in the following order: the separation of the sea
from the dry land; the creation of the heavenly bodies; of marine
animals; of fowls and land animals; of man. Observe now the order of the
Roman poet:--

         _Ante mare et terras, et, quod tegit omnia, cœlum,
         Unus erat toto naturæ vultus in orbe,
         Quem dixere chaos, rudis, indigestaque moles.
         Hanc Deus, et melior litem natura diremit.
         Nam cœlo terras, et terras abscidit undis;
         Et liquidum spisso secrevit ab aëre cœlum.
         Neu regio foret ulla suis animalibus orba;
         Astra tenent cœleste solum, formæque deorum;
         Cesserunt nitidis habitandæ piscibus undæ:
         Terra feras cepit, volucres agitabilis aër.
         Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius altæ
         Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in cætera posset:
         Natus homo est._

         “Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball,
          And heav’n’s high canopy, that covers all,
          One was the face of nature; if a face:
          Rather, a rude and indigested mass:
          A lifeless lump, unfashion’d, and unframed,
          Of jarring seeds; and justly _chaos_ named.
          But God, or nature, while they thus contend,
          To these intestine discords put an end;
          Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv’n,
          And grosser air sunk from ethereal heav’n.
          Thus when the God, whatever god was he,
          Had form’d the whole, and made the parts agree,
          That no unequal portions might be found,
          He moulded earth into a spacious round.
          Then, every void of nature to supply,
          With forms of gods he fills the vacant sky:
          New herds of beasts he sends, the plains to share: }
          New colonies of birds, to people air;              }
          And to their oozy beds the finny fish repair.      }
          A creature of a more exalted kind
          Was wanting yet, and then was man design’d:
          Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
          For empire form’d, and fit to rule the rest:
          Whether with particles of heav’nly fire
          The God of nature did his soul inspire,” &c.
                                           DRYDEN.

Here we see all the principal objects of creation mentioned exactly in
the same order which Moses had assigned to them in his writings; and
when we consider what follows;--the war of the giants; the general
corruption of the world; the universal deluge; the preservation of
Deucalion and Pyrrha; their sacrifices to the gods on leaving the vessel
in which they had been preserved;--there can scarcely remain a doubt
that Ovid borrowed, either directly or at second hand, from Moses. What
he says, too, is perfectly consistent with the received notions on the
subject, though it is probable that they had never before been so
regularly methodised. This train of reasoning would lead us to conclude
that Ovid, and indeed the whole Heathen world, derived their notions
respecting the creation, and the early history of mankind, from the
sacred Scriptures: and it shows how deficient their own resources were,
when the pride of philosophy was forced to borrow from those whom it
affected to despise. With regard to the western mythologists, then,
there can be little doubt that their cosmogonies, at least such of them
as profess to be historical, and not theoretical, are derived from
Moses; and the same may be affirmed with regard to the traditions of the
east: as they were the same with those of Greece in the time of
Megasthenes, whose testimony to this effect is quoted both by Clemens
Alexandrinus and Strabo, we may naturally conclude that they had the
same origin.

4. The Hindoo mythology has grown, in the natural uninterrupted progress
of corruption, to such monstrous and complicated absurdity, that in many
cases it stands unique in extravagance. In the more ancient Hindoo
writings, however, many sublime sentiments occur; and in the “Institutes
of Menu,” many passages are found relating to the creation, which bear a
strong resemblance to the account given by Moses. They are thus given in
an advertisement, prefixed to the fifth volume of the “Asiatic
Researches,” and are intended as a supplement to a former treatise on
the Hindoo religion:--

“This universe existed only in the first divine idea, yet unexpanded, as
if involved in darkness, imperceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable by
reason, and undiscovered by revelation, as if it were wholly immersed in
sleep. When the sole self-existing Power, himself undiscerned, but
making this world discernible, with five elements and other principles
of nature, appeared with undiminished glory, expanding his idea, or
dispelling the gloom. He, whom the mind alone can perceive, whose
essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists
from eternity, even he, the soul of all beings, whom no being can
comprehend, shone forth in person. He, having willed to produce various
beings from his own divine substance, first with a thought created the
waters. The waters are called _nara_, because they are the production of
_Nara_, or the Spirit of God; and since they were his first _ayana_, or
place of motion, he thence is called _Narayana_, or moving on the
waters. From that which is, the first cause, not the object of sense,
existing every where in substance, not existing to our perception,
without beginning or end, was produced the divine male. He framed the
heaven above, and the earth beneath; in the midst he placed the subtile
ether, the eight regions, and the permanent receptacle of waters. He
framed all creatures. He, too, first assigned to all creatures distinct
names, distinct acts, and distinct occupations. He gave being to time,
and the divisions of time; to the stars also, and the planets; to
rivers, oceans, and mountains; to level plains, and uneven valleys. For
the sake of distinguishing actions, he made a total difference between
right and wrong. Having divided his own substance, the mighty Power
became half male, half female. He whose powers are incomprehensible,
having created this universe, was again absorbed in the spirit, changing
the time of energy for the time of repose.”

In these passages we have evidently a philosophical comment on the
account of creation given by Moses, or as transmitted from the same
source of primitive tradition. We also see in these passages the
rudiments of the Platonic philosophy, the eternal ideas in the divine
mind, &c; and were any question to arise respecting the original author
of these notions, we should have little hesitation in giving it against
the Greeks. They were the greatest plagiaries both in literature and
philosophy, and they have scarcely an article of literary property which
they can call their own, except their poetry. Their sages penetrated
into Egypt and India, and on their return stigmatized the natives of
these countries as barbarians, lest they should be suspected of stealing
their inventions.

5. The Chaldean cosmogony, according to Berosus, when divested of
allegory, seems to resolve itself into this, that darkness and water
existed from eternity; that Belus divided the humid mass, and gave birth
to creation; that the human mind is an emanation from the divine nature.
The cosmogony of the ancient Persians is very clumsy. They introduce two
eternal principles, the one good, called _Oromasdes_, the other evil,
called _Arimanius_; and they make these two principles contend with each
other in the creation and government of the world. Each has his
province, which he strives to enlarge; and _Mithras_ is the mediator to
moderate their contentions. This is the most inartificial plan that has
been devised to account for the existence of evil, and has the least
pretensions to a philosophical basis. The Egyptian cosmogony, according
to the account given of it by Plutarch, seems to bear a strong
resemblance to the Phenician, as detailed by Sanchoniatho. According to
the Egyptian account, there was an eternal chaos, and an eternal spirit
united with it, whose agency at last arranged the discordant materials,
and produced the visible system of the universe. The cosmogony of the
northern nations, as may be collected from the Edda, supposes an eternal
principle prior to the formation of the world. The Orphic Fragments
state every thing to have existed in God, and to proceed from him. The
notion implied in this maxim is suspected to be _pantheistic_, that is,
to imply the universe to be God; which, however, might be a more modern
perversion. Plato supposed the world to be produced by the Deity,
uniting eternal, immutable ideas, or forms, to variable matter.
Aristotle had no cosmogony, because he supposed the world to be without
beginning and without end. According to the Stoical doctrine, the divine
nature, acting on matter, first produced moisture, and then the other
elements, which are reciprocally convertible.

CRETE, an island in the Mediterranean, now called Candia, Titus i, 5.
Nature had endowed this island with all that renders man happy; the
inhabitants, likewise, had formerly a constitution which was renowned
and frequently compared with that of the Spartans; but at this time, and
even long before, all, even laws and morals, had sunk very low. The
character of this nation was mutable, prone to quarrelling, to civil
disturbances and frays, to robberies and violences. Avaricious and base
to a degree of sordid greediness, they considered nothing as ignoble
which gratified this inclination. Thence arose their treachery, their
false and deceitful disposition, which had passed into a common proverb.
Even in the times of purer morals they were decidedly addicted to wine;
and their propensity to incontinence was frequently censured and noticed
by the ancients. Religion itself was one cause of the many excesses of
this nation. Many deities were born among them; they also showed their
tombs and catacombs, and celebrated the feasts and mysteries of all.
They therefore had continually holydays, diversions, and idle times, and
one of their native poets (Diodorus calls him Θεολόγος) gave them the
testimony which Paul found to be so true, Titus i, 12. Jews also had
established themselves among them, who according to all appearance could
have improved here but very little in morality. The Apostle seems to
have considered them a more dangerous people than the inhabitants
themselves.

CRIMSON, כרמיל, 2 Chron. ii, 7, iii, 14, the name of a colour. Bochart
supposes it to be the _cochlea purpuraria_, or purple from a kind of
shell-fish taken near Mount Carmel. But as the name of the mount is said
to mean a vineyard, one may rather suppose the colour to signify that of
grapes; like the redness of the vesture of him who trod the wine-press,
Isa. lxiii, 1, 2. What our version renders _crimson_, Isa. i, 18; Jer.
iv, 30, should be _scarlet_.

CROSS, an ancient instrument of capital punishment. The cross was the
punishment inflicted by the Romans, on servants who had perpetrated
crimes, on robbers, assassins, and rebels; among which last Jesus was
reckoned, on the ground of his making himself King or Messiah, Luke
xxiii, 1–5, 13–15. The words in which the sentence was given were, “Thou
shalt go to the cross.” The person who was subjected to this punishment
was then deprived of all his clothes excepting something around the
loins. In this state of nudity he was beaten, sometimes with rods, but
more generally with whips. Such was the severity of this flagellation,
that numbers died under it. Jesus was crowned with thorns, and made the
subject of mockery; but insults of this kind were not among the ordinary
attendants of crucifixion. They were owing, in this case, merely to the
petulant spirit of the Roman soldiers, Matt. xxvii, 29; Mark xv, 17;
John xix, 2, 5. The criminal, having been beaten, was subjected to the
farther suffering of being obliged to carry the cross himself to the
place of punishment, which was commonly a hill, near the public way, and
out of the city. The place of crucifixion at Jerusalem was a hill to the
north-west of the city. The cross, ϛαυρὸς, _a post_, otherwise called
the unpropitious or infamous tree, consisted of a piece of wood erected
perpendicularly, and intersected by another at right angles near the
top, so as to resemble the letter T. The crime for which the person
suffered was inscribed on the transverse piece near the top of the
perpendicular one.

There is no mention made in ancient writers of any thing on which the
feet of the person crucified rested. Near the middle, however, of the
perpendicular beam, there projected a piece of wood, on which he sat,
and which answered as a support to the body, since the weight of the
body might otherwise have torn away the hands from the nails driven
through them. The cross, which was erected at the place of punishment,
being there firmly fixed in the ground, rarely exceeded ten feet in
height. The victim, perfectly naked, was elevated to the small
projection in the middle: the hands were then bound by a rope round the
transverse beam, and nailed through the palm.

The assertion that the persons who suffered crucifixion were not in some
instances fastened to the cross by nails through the hands and feet, but
were merely bound to it by ropes, cannot be proved by the testimony of
any ancient writer whatever. That the feet, as well as the hands, were
fastened to the cross by means of nails, is expressly asserted in the
play of Plautus, entitled “Mostellaria,” compared with Tertullian
against the Jews, and against Marcion. In regard to the nailing of the
feet, it may be farthermore observed, that Gregory Nazianzen has
asserted, that one nail only was driven through both of them; but
Cyprian, (_de passione_,) who had been a personal witness to
crucifixions, and is, consequently, in this case, the better authority,
states, on the contrary, that two nails or spikes were driven, one
through each foot. The crucified person remained suspended in this way
till he died, and the corpse had become putrid. While he exhibited any
signs of life, he was watched by a guard; but they left him when it
appeared that he was dead. The corpse was not buried, except by express
permission, which was sometimes granted by the emperor on his birth day,
but only to a very few. An exception, however, to this general practice
was made by the Romans in favour of the Jews, on account of Deut. xxi,
22, 23; and in Judea, accordingly, crucified persons were buried on the
same day. When, therefore, there was not a prospect that they would die
on the day of the crucifixion, the executioners hastened the extinction
of life, by kindling a fire under the cross, so as to suffocate them
with the smoke, or by letting loose wild beasts upon them, or by
breaking their bones upon the cross with a mallet, as upon an anvil. The
Jews, in the times of which we are speaking, namely, while they were
under the jurisdiction of the Romans, were in the habit of giving the
criminal, before the commencement of his sufferings, a medicated drink
of wine and myrrh, Prov. xxxi, 6. The object of this was to produce
intoxication, and thereby render the pains of the crucifixion less
sensible to the sufferer. This beverage was refused by the Saviour for
the obvious reason, that he chose to die with the faculties of his mind
undisturbed and unclouded, Matt. xxvii, 34; Mark xv, 23. It should be
remarked, that this sort of drink, which was probably offered out of
kindness, was different from the vinegar which was subsequently offered
to the Saviour by the Roman soldiers. The latter was a mixture of
vinegar and water, denominated _posca_, and was a common drink for the
soldiers in the Roman army, Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29.

2. Crucifixion was not only the most ignominious, it was likewise the
most cruel, mode of punishment: so very much so, that Cicero is
justified in saying, in respect to crucifixion, “_Ab oculis, auribusque
et omni cogitatione hominum, removendum esse_.” [That it ought neither
to be seen, heard of, nor even thought of by men.] The sufferings
endured by a person on whom this punishment is inflicted are narrated by
George Gottlieb Richter, a German physician, in a “Dissertation on the
Saviour’s Crucifixion.” The position of the body is unnatural, the arms
being extended back, and almost immovable. In case of the least motion,
an extremely painful sensation is experienced in the hands and feet,
which are pierced with nails, and in the back, which is lacerated with
stripes. The nails, being driven through the parts of the hands and feet
which abound in nerves and tendons, create the most exquisite anguish.
The exposure of so many wounds to the open air brings on an
inflammation, which every moment increases the poignancy of the
suffering. In those parts of the body which are distended or pressed,
more blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back in the
veins. The consequence is, that a greater quantity of blood finds its
way from the _aorta_ into the head and stomach, than would be carried
there by a natural and undisturbed circulation. The blood vessels of the
head become pressed and swollen, which of course causes pain, and a
redness of the face. The circumstance of the blood being impelled in
more than ordinary quantities into the stomach is an unfavourable one
also, because it is that part of the system which not only admits of the
blood being stationary, but is peculiarly exposed to mortification. The
aorta, not being at liberty to empty, in the free and undisturbed way as
formerly, the blood which it receives from the left ventricle of the
heart, is unable to receive its usual quantity. The blood of the lungs,
therefore, is unable to find a free circulation. This general
obstruction extends its effects likewise to the right ventricle, and the
consequence is, an internal excitement, and exertion, and anxiety, which
are more intolerable than the anguish of death itself. All the large
vessels about the heart, and all the veins and arteries in that part of
the system, on account of the accumulation and pressure of blood, are
the source of inexpressible misery. The degree of anguish is gradual in
its increase; and the person crucified is able to live under it commonly
till the third, and sometimes till the seventh, day. Pilate, therefore,
being surprised at the speedy termination of the Saviour’s life,
inquired in respect to the truth of it of the centurion himself, who
commanded the soldiers, Mark xv, 44. In order to bring their life to a
more speedy termination, so that they might be buried on the same day,
the bones of the two thieves were broken with mallets, John xix, 31–37;
and in order to ascertain this point in respect to Jesus, namely,
whether he was really dead, or whether he had merely fallen into a
swoon, a soldier thrust his lance into his side; but no signs of life
appeared, John xix, 31–37.

3. Our Saviour says, that whosoever will be his disciple must take up
his cross and follow him, Matt. xvi, 24: by which is meant, that his
disciples must be willing to suffer for him, in any way in which God, in
the course of his providence, may call them to suffer; even to endure
martyrdom, if called to it. The cross is also often put for the whole of
Christ’s sufferings, Eph. ii, 16; Heb. xii, 2; and the doctrine of his
perfect atonement, Gal. vi, 14.

CROWN is a term properly taken for a cap of state worn on the heads of
sovereign princes, as a mark of regal dignity. In Scripture there is
frequent mention made of crowns; and the use of them seems to have been
very common among the Hebrews. The high priest wore a crown, which was
girt about his mitre, or the lower part of his bonnet, and was tied
about his head. On the forepart was a plate of gold, with these words
engraven on it: “Holiness to the Lord,” Exod. xxviii, 36; xxix, 6.
New-married persons of both sexes wore crowns upon their wedding day,
Cant., iii, 11; and, alluding to this custom, it is said that when God
entered into covenant with the Jewish nation, he put a beautiful crown
upon their head, Ezekiel xvi, 12. The first crowns were no more than a
bandelet drawn round the head, and tied behind, as we see it still
represented on medals, &c. Afterward, they consisted of two bandelets;
by degrees they took branches of trees of divers kinds, &c; at length
they added flowers; and Claudius Saturninus says there was not any plant
of which crowns had not been made.

There was always a difference, either in matter or form, between the
crowns of kings and great men, and those of private persons. The crown
of a king was generally a white fillet bound about his forehead, the
extremities whereof being tied behind the head, fell back on the neck.
Sometimes they were made of gold tissue, adorned with jewels. That of
the Jewish high priest, which is the most ancient of which we have any
description, was a fillet of gold placed upon his forehead, and tied
with a ribbon of a hyacinth colour, or azure blue. The crown, mitre, and
diadem, royal fillet and tiara, are frequently confounded. Crowns were
bestowed on kings and princes, as the principal marks of their dignity.
David took the crown of the king of the Ammonites from off his head: the
crown weighed a talent of gold, and was moreover enriched with jewels, 2
Sam. xii, 30; 1 Chron. xx, 2. The Amalekite who valued himself on
killing Saul, brought this prince’s crown unto David, 2 Sam. i, 10. The
crown was placed upon the head of young King Josiah, when he was
presented to the people, in order to be acknowledged by them, 2 Chron.
xxiii, 11. Baruch says that the idols of the Babylonians wore golden
crowns, Baruch vi, 9. Queens, too, wore diadems among the Persians. King
Ahasuerus honoured Vashti with this mark of power; and, after her
divorce, the same favour was granted to Esther, chap. ii, 17. The
elders, in Rev. iv, 10, are said to “cast their crowns before the
throne.” The allusion is here to the tributary kings dependent upon the
Roman emperors. Herod took off his diadem in the presence of Augustus,
till ordered to replace it. Tiridates did homage to Nero by laying the
ensigns of royalty at the foot of his statue.

Pilate’s guard platted a crown of thorns, and placed it on the head of
Jesus Christ, Matt. xxvii, 29, with an intention to insult him, under
the character of the king of the Jews. See _Thorn_. In a figurative
sense, a crown signifies honour, splendour, or dignity, Lam. v, 16;
Phil. iv, 1; and is also used for reward, because conquerors, in the
Grecian games, were crowned, 1 Corinthians ix, 25.

CRYSTAL, קרח. This word is translated “crystal” in Ezek. i, 22; and
“frost,” Gen. xxxi, 40; Job xxxvii, 10; Jeremiah xxxvi, 30; and “ice,”
Job vi, 16; xxxviii, 29; Psalm cxlvii, 17; κρυϛαλλος, Rev. iv, 6; xxii,
1. Crystal is supposed to have its name from its resemblance to ice. The
Greek word, κρύϛαλλος, is formed from κρύος, _ice_, and ϛαλάσσομαι, _to
concrete_. The word, זכוכית, is translated _crystal_, in Job xxviii, 17.
Dr. Good observes, “We are not certain of the exact signification,
farther than that it denotes some perfectly transparent and hyaline
gem.”

CUBIT, a measure used among the ancients. The Hebrews call it אמא, the
mother of other measures: in Greek ϖῆχυς. A cubit originally was the
distance from the elbow to the extremity of the middle finger: this is
the fourth part of a well proportioned man’s stature. The common cubit
is eighteen inches. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and
M. Pelletier, is twenty-one inches; but others fix it at eighteen
inches. The Talmudists observe, that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one
quarter than the Roman. Lewis Capellus and others have asserted that
there were two sorts of cubits among the Hebrews; one sacred, the other
common; the sacred containing three feet, the common containing a foot
and a half. Moses assigns to the Levites a thousand sacred cubits of
land round about their cities, Num. xxxv, 4; and in the next verse he
gives them two thousand common ones. The opinion, however, is very
probable, that the cubit varied in different districts and cities, and
at different times, &c.

CUCUMBER, קשאים, σίκυος, _cucumis_, Num. xi, 5, the fruit of a plant
very common in our gardens. Tournefort mentions six kinds, of which the
white and green are most esteemed. They are very plentiful in the east,
especially in Egypt, and much superior to ours. Maillet, in describing
the vegetables which the modern Egyptians have for food, tells us, that
melons, cucumbers, and onions are the most common; and Celsius and
Alpinus describe the Egyptian cucumbers as more agreeable to the taste
and of more easy digestion than the European.

CULDEES, a body of religious, who chiefly resided in Scotland, Ireland,
and some of the adjacent isles. The name has been also written _Keldees_
and _Kyldees_. Various etymons have been given of it. Two of these seem
to have superior claims to attention. It may be deduced either from
Irish _ceile_, or, _gille_, a servant, and _De_, _Dia_, God; or from
_cuil_, _ceal_, in Welsh _cel_, a sequestered corner, a retreat. The
latter seems to derive support from the established sense of _kil_,
retained in the names of so many places, which, in an early age, have
been consecrated to religion. It is more than probable that Christianity
had found its way into Scotland before the close of the second century;
and that it continued to be professed by a few scattered individuals
even before the arrival of Ninian, in the beginning of the fifth. But we
have no proof of the existence of any religious societies observing a
particular institute, till the year 563, when Columba landed in Hii, or
Iona; which, in honour of him, was afterward called _I-colum-kill_; that
is, the isle of Colum, or Columba, of the cells. He was born in Ireland,
A. D. 521; and, after founding many seminaries of religion there,
prompted by zeal for the propagation of Christianity, set sail for
Scotland with twelve companions. According to Bede, having converted the
northern Picts, he received from Brudi, their king, the island of Hii in
possession, for the purpose of erecting a monastery. Here he almost
constantly resided till the year 597, when he died. He made occasional
visits to the mainland, proceeding even as far as to Inverness: also to
Ireland, where he was held in high estimation. As he was himself much
devoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures, he taught his disciples to
confirm their doctrines by testimonies brought from this unpolluted
fountain, and declared that only to be the divine counsel which he found
there. His followers, faithful to his instructions, “would receive those
things only which are contained in the writings of the Prophets,
Evangelists, and Apostles, diligently observing the works of piety and
purity.” They lived, indeed, according to a certain institute, which, it
is said, was composed by their venerable instructer. But there was this
remarkable distinction between them and those societies properly called
monastic, that they were not associated expressly for the purpose of
observing this rule. While they seem to have reckoned something of this
kind necessary for the preservation of order, and for the attainment of
habits of diligence, their great design was, by the instruction of those
committed to their charge, to train them up for the work of the
ministry. Hence it has been justly observed, that the Culdean
fraternities may more properly be viewed as colleges than as
monasteries; as being in fact, the seminaries of the church both in
North Britain and in Ireland. There were also Culdees in Wales; and, for
many ages, the Christians of that country held the same doctrines, and
observed the same rites, with their Scottish and Irish brethren. The
presbyters not only acted as the ministers of religion to those in their
vicinity, but were still instructing others, and sending forth
missionaries whenever they had a call, or any prospect of success.

2. In each regular establishment of the Culdees, it would appear that
there were twelve brethren, with one who presided over them. Their
ecclesiastical government has been viewed as materially the same with
the Presbyterian. Their president, or abbot, was not a bishop, but a
presbyter; to whose authority, as we learn from Bede, even the bishops
of the district were subject. In their meetings, all matters were
settled by plurality of voices. The members of this council had the
general designation of _seniores_, or elders. To them, collectively,
belonged the trial of the gifts of those who had been educated in their
seminaries, when they were to be employed in the public ministry; from
them they received ordination and mission, and to them they were
amenable in the discharge of their office. Those whom they thus employed
are, by ancient writers, often denominated bishops. But that they
attached to this designation no dignity superior to that of presbyter,
appears incontrovertible from their being afterward called to account,
and sometimes censured by the fraternity. It has been asserted by the
friends of diocesan episcopacy, that a bishop _must_ always have resided
at Iona for the purpose of conferring ordination. But there is not the
slightest evidence of this. The contrary appears from all the records of
these early ages. We learn from the Saxon Chronicle, that “there was
always an abbot at Hii, but no bishop.” It is a singular fact, that
those who were first acknowledged as bishops in the northern parts of
England, and were indeed instrumental in the introduction of
Christianity there, were not only trained up at Iona, but received all
their authority from the council of seniors in that island. This was the
case with respect to Corman, the bishop of the Northumbrians, as well as
Aidan, Finan, and Colman, who succeeded each other in this mission. From
the testimony of Bede, it is evident that by means of Scottish
missionaries, or of those whom they had instructed and ordained, not
only the Northumbrians, but the Middle-Angles, the Mercians and
East-Saxons, all the way to the river Thames, that is, the inhabitants
of by far the greatest part of the country now called England, were
converted to Christianity; and for some time acknowledged subjection to
the ecclesiastical government of the Scots. The latter lost their
influence merely because their missionaries chose rather to give up
their charges than to submit to the prevailing influence of the church
of Rome, to which the Saxons of the west and of Kent had subjected
themselves.

3. Their doctrines were not less unpalatable than their mode of
government to the friends of the church of Rome. In England, in a very
early period, the adherents of the Popish missionary Augustine were
viewed by the delegates from Iona in the light of heretics. They
accordingly refused to hold communion with them. Matters were carried so
high in support of the Roman authority in the synod of Stroneschalch,
now Whitby, in England, A. D. 662, that Colman, the Scottish bishop of
Lindisfarne, left his bishopric, and with his adherents returned to
Scotland. Thus, as Bede informs us, “the Catholic institution daily
increasing, all the Scots who resided among the Angles, either conformed
to them or returned to their own country.” It was decreed in the council
of Cealhythe, A. D. 816, that no Scottish priest should be allowed to
perform any duty of his function in England. But in Scotland the Culdean
doctrine had taken deeper root; and, although equally offensive to the
votaries of Rome, kept its ground for several centuries. The Popish
writers themselves celebrate the piety, the purity, the humility, and
even the learning, of the Culdees; but while they were displeased with
the simplicity, or what they deemed the barbarism, of their worship,
they charged them with various deviations from the faith of the Catholic
church. It was not the least of these, that they did not observe Easter
at the proper time. They did not acknowledge auricular confession; they
rejected penance and authoritative absolution; they made no use of
chrism in baptism; confirmation was unknown; they opposed the doctrine
of the real presence; they withstood the idolatrous worship of saints
and angels, dedicating all their churches to the Holy Trinity; they
denied the doctrine of works of supererogation; they were enemies to the
celibacy of the clergy, themselves living in the married state. One
sweeping charge brought against them is, that they preferred their own
opinions to “the statutes of the holy fathers.”

4. The Scots, having received the Christian faith by the labours of the
Culdees, long withstood the errors and usurpations of Rome. It was not
till the twelfth century that their influence began to decline. The
difference between the lower classes of society in England and those of
the same description in Scotland, both with respect to religious
knowledge and moral conduct, is generally considered to be very
striking. Some writers, whose attention has been arrested by this
singular circumstance, and who could not be influenced by local
attachments, have ascribed the disparity to the relative influence,
however remote it may seem, of the doctrine and example of the Culdees.
Notwithstanding their great disinterestedness and diligence in
propagating the Gospel in England, these good men, it has been remarked,
within thirty years after the commencement of their mission, were
obliged to give way to the adherents of Rome; whereas the Scots, it is
certainly known, enjoyed the benefit of their labours for more than
seven centuries, and seem to have still retained their predilection for
the doctrines and modes which they so early received.

CUMMIN, כמון, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27; κύμινον, Matt. xxiii, 23. This is
an umbelliferous plant, in appeara resembling fennel, but smaller. Is
seeds have a bitterish warm taste, accompanied with an aromatic flavour,
not of the most agreeable kind. An essential oil is obtained from them
by distillation. The Jews sowed it in their fields, and when ripe
threshed out the seeds with a rod, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27. The Maltese
sow it, and collect the seeds in the same manner.

CUP. This word is taken in a twofold sense; proper, and figurative. In a
proper sense, it signifies a vessel, such as people drink out of at
meals, Gen. xl, 13. It was anciently the custom, at great
entertainments, for the governor of the feast to appoint to each of his
guests the kind and proportion of wine which they were to drink, and
what he had thus appointed them it was deemed a breach of good manners
either to refuse or not to drink up; hence a man’s cup, both in sacred
and profane authors, came to signify the portion, whether of good or
evil, which happens to him in this world. Thus, to drink “the cup of
trembling,” or of “the fury of the Lord,” is to be afflicted with sore
and terrible judgments, Isaiah li, 17; Jeremiah xxv, 15–29; Psalm lxxv,
8. What Christ means by the expression, we cannot be at a loss to
understand, since in two remarkable passages, Luke xxii, 42, and John
xviii, 11, he has been his own interpreter. _Lethale poculum bibere_,
“to drink the deadly cup,” or cup of death, was a common phrase among
the Jews; and from them, we have reason to believe, our Lord borrowed
it.

CUP OF BLESSING, 1 Corinth. x, 16, is that which was blessed in
entertainments of ceremony, or solemn services; or, rather, a cup over
which God was blessed for having furnished its contents; that is, for
giving to men the fruit of the vine. Our Saviour, in the Last Supper,
blessed the cup, and gave it to each of his Apostles to drink, Luke
xxii, 20.

CUP OF SALVATION, Psalm cxvi, 13, a phrase of nearly the same import as
the former, a cup of thanksgiving, of blessing the Lord for his saving
mercies. We see, in 2 Macc. vi, 27, that the Jews of Egypt, in their
festivals for deliverance, offered cups of salvation. The Jews have at
this day cups of thanksgiving, which are blessed, in their marriage
ceremonies, and in entertainments made at the circumcision of their
children. Some commentators think that “the cup of salvation” was a
libation of wine poured on the victim sacrificed on thanksgiving
occasions, according to the law of Moses, Exod. xxix, 40.

CURSE. To curse, signifies to imprecate, to call for mischief upon, or
wish evil to, any one. Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, Gen. ix, 25:
Jacob cursed the fury of his two sons, Gen. xlix, 7: Moses enjoins the
people of Israel to denounce curses against the violaters of the law,
Deut. xxvii, 15, 16, &c. Joshua pronounced a curse upon him who should
undertake to rebuild Jericho. These curses were such as were either
ordained by God himself, and pronounced by men under the influence of
his Spirit; or they were predictions of certain evils which would happen
to individuals, or to a people, uttered in the form of imprecations.
They were not the effects of passion, impatience, or revenge; and,
therefore, were not things condemned by God in his law, like the cursing
mentioned, Exodus xxi, 17, xxii, 28, Leviticus xix, 14.

CUSH, the eldest son of Ham, and father of Nimrod, Seba, Havilah,
Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecha; and the grandfather of Sheba and Dedan.
The posterity of Cush, spread over great part of Asia and Africa, were
called Cushim, or Cushites; and by the Greeks and Romans, and in our
Bible, Ethiopians.

CUSH, CUTHA, CUTHEA, CUSHAN, ETHIOPIA, _Land of Cush_, the country or
countries peopled by the descendants of Cush; whose first plantations
were on the gulf of Persia, in that part which still bears the name of
Chuzestan, and from whence they spread over India and great part of
Arabia; particularly its western part, on the coast of the Red Sea;
invaded Egypt, under the name of Hyc-Sos, or shepherd-kings; and thence
passed, as well probably as by the straits of Babelmandel, into Central
Africa, and first peopled the countries to the south of Egypt, Nubia,
Abyssinia, and parts farther to the south and west. The indiscriminate
use of the term Ethiopia in our Bible, for all the countries peopled by
the posterity of Cush, and the almost exclusive application of the same
term by the Greek and Roman writers to the before mentioned countries of
Africa, have involved some portions of both sacred and profane history
in almost inextricable confusion. The first country which bore this
name, and which was doubtless the original settlement, was that which is
described by Moses as encompassed by the river Gihon, or Gyndes; which
encircles a great part of the province of Chuzestan in Persia. In
process of time, the increasing family spread over the vast territory of
India and Arabia: the whole of which tract, from the Ganges to the
borders of Egypt, then became the land of Cush, or Asiatic Ethiopia, the
_Cusha Dweepa within_, of Hindoo geography. Until dispossessed of this
country, or a great part of it, by the posterity of Abraham, the
Ishmaelites and Midianites, they, by a farther dispersion, passed over
into Africa; which, in its turn, became the land of Cush, or Ethiopia,
the _Cusha Dweepa without_, of the Hindoos: the only country so
understood after the commencement of the Christian æra. Even from this
last refuge, they were compelled, by the influx of fresh settlers from
Arabia, Egypt, and Canaan, to extend their migrations still farther
westward, into the heart of the African continent; where only in the
woolly-headed negro, the genuine Cushite is to be found.

Herodotus relates that Xerxes had, in the army prepared for his Grecian
expedition, both Oriental and African Ethiopians: and adds, that they
resembled each other in every outward circumstance except their hair;
that of the Asiatic Ethiopians being long and straight, while the hair
of those of Africa was curled. This is a very remarkable fact; and leads
to the question, How came this singular distinction between people of
the same stock? Did it arise from change of climate and of habits? or
from some original difference in a particular branch of the great family
of Cush? The former appears by far the more probable. It is not likely
that a people descended from a common parent should naturally be
distinguished by such a peculiar difference; but that it might be
acquired by change of soil and condition, we have every reason to
believe. We have something exactly analogous to it, in the change which
the hair of animals undergoes when removed from their native state. But
a modern writer has furnished us with a fact which will go farther than
either theory or analogy. Dr. Prichard, in his researches into the
Physical History of Man, relates, on the authority of Dr. S. S. Smith,
of the negroes settled in the southern districts of the United States of
America, that the field-slaves, who live on the plantations, and retain
pretty nearly the rude manners of their African progenitors, preserve in
the third generation much of their original structure, though their
features are not so strongly marked as those of imported slaves. But the
domestic servants of the same race, who are treated with lenity, and
whose condition is little different from that of the lower class of
white people, in the third generation have the nose raised, the mouth
and lips of moderate size, the eyes lively and sparkling, and often the
whole composition of the features extremely agreeable. “The hair grows
sensibly longer in each succeeding race, and extends to three, four, and
sometimes to six or eight inches.”

About four hundred years before Christ, Herodotus, in his second book
which treats of Egypt, makes frequent mention of Ethiopia; meaning
exclusively the Ethiopia above Egypt. In the time of our Saviour, (and
indeed from that time forward,) by Ethiopia, was meant, in a general
sense, the countries south of Egypt, then but imperfectly known: of one
of which, that Candace was queen whose eunuch was baptized by Philip.

From a review of the history of this remarkable people, we may see that
those writers must necessarily be wrong who would confine the Ethiopians
to either Arabia or Africa. Many parts of Scripture history cannot
possibly be understood, without supposing them to have settlements in
both; which Herodotus expressly asserts was the case. In fine, we may
conclude, that in the times of the prophets, and during the transactions
recorded in the second books of Kings and Chronicles, the Cushites,
still retaining a part of their ancient territories in Arabia, had
crossed the Red Sea in great numbers, and obtained extensive possessions
in Africa; where, being, in a farther course of time, altogether
expelled from the east by the Ishmaelites, &c, their remains are now
concentrated. It is to be observed, however, that the Cushites probably
at the time of their expulsion from Egypt, migrated, or sent colonies
into several other parts, particularly to Phenicia, Colchis, and Greece;
where, in process of time, they became blended with the other
inhabitants of those countries, the families of Javan, Meshek, and
Tubal, and their distinctive character totally lost.

CYPRESS, תרזה, Isa. xliv, 14; and κυπάρισσος, Ecclus. xxiv, 13; l, 10; a
large evergreen tree. The wood is fragrant, very compact, and heavy. It
scarcely ever rots, decays, or is worm-eaten; for which reason the
ancients used to make the statues of their gods with it. The
unperishable chests which contain the Egyptian mummies were of cypress.
The gates of St. Peter’s church at Rome, which had lasted from the time
of Constantine to that of Pope Eugene IV, that is to say eleven hundred
years, were of cypress, and had in that time suffered no decay. But
Celsius thinks that Isaiah speaks of the ilex, a kind of oak; and Bishop
Lowth, that the pine is intended. The cypress, however, was more
frequently used, and more fit for the purpose which the prophet
mentions, than either of these trees.

CYPRUS, a large island in the Mediterranean, situated between Cilicia
and Syria. Its inhabitants were plunged in all manner of luxury and
debauchery. Their principal deity was Venus. The Apostles Paul and
Barnabas landed in the isle of Cyprus, A. D. 44, Acts xiii, 4. While
they continued at Salamis, they preached Jesus Christ in the Jewish
synagogues; from thence they visited all the cities of the island,
preaching the Gospel. At Paphos, they found Bar-Jesus, a false prophet,
with Sergius Paulus, the governor: Paul struck Bar-Jesus with blindness;
and the proconsul embraced Christianity. Some time after, Barnabas went
again into this island with John, surnamed Mark, Acts xv, 39. Barnabas
is considered as the principal Apostle, and first bishop, of Cyprus;
where it is said he was martyred, being stoned to death by the Jews of
Salamis.

CYRENE was a city of Lybia in Africa, which, as it was the principal
city of that province, gave to it the name of Cyrenaica. This city was
once so powerful as to contend with Carthage for preëminence. In profane
writers, it is mentioned as the birthplace of Eratosthenes the
mathematician, and Callimachus the poet; and in holy writ, of Simon,
whom the Jews compelled to bear our Saviour’s cross, Matt. xxvii, 32;
Luke xxiii, 26. At Cyrene resided many Jews, a great part of whom
embraced the Christian religion; but others opposed it with much
obstinacy. Among the most inveterate enemies of Christianity, Luke
reckons those of this province, who had a synagogue at Jerusalem, and
excited the people against St. Stephen, Acts xi, 20.

CYRENIUS, governor of Syria, Luke ii, 1, 2. Great difficulties have been
raised on the history of the taxing under Cyrenius, for the different
solutions of which we must refer to the commentators.

It may be observed on the passage in Luke ii, 1, 2, That the word
οἰκȣμένη, rendered _all the world_, sometimes signifies the whole of a
country, region, or district, as perhaps Acts xi, 28, and certainly Luke
xxi, 26. The expression, “all the country,” is peculiarly proper in this
place, because Galilee, as well as Judea, was included, and perhaps all
other parts in which were Jews. The word ἀπογραφὴ, which is rendered
_taxing_, should have been translated _enrolment_; as a taxation did not
always really follow such enrolment, though such enrolment generally
preceded a taxation. The difficulty of the passage is in the word ϖρώτη,
_first_, because, ten or eleven years after, there was actually a
taxation, which, as a decisive mark of subjection to the Roman power,
was very mortifying to the Jewish nation. To this taxation Gamaliel
alludes, “Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the taxing,” Acts v,
37, when mobs and riots were frequent, under pretence of liberty.

The narrative of St. Luke may be combined in the following order, which
is probably not far from its true import: “In those days Cæsar
Augustus,” who was displeased with the conduct of Herod, and wished him
to feel his dependence on the Roman empire, “issued a decree that the
whole land” of Judea “should be enrolled,” as well persons as
possessions, that the true state of the inhabitants, their families, and
their property, might be known and recorded. Accordingly, “all were
enrolled,” but the taxation did not immediately follow this enrolment,
because Augustus was reconciled to Herod; and this accounts for the
silence of Josephus on an assessment not carried into effect. “And this
was the first assessment (or enrolment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.
And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city;” and, as the
emperor’s order was urgent, and Cyrenius was known to be active in the
despatch of business, even Mary, though far advanced “in her pregnancy,
went with Joseph, and while they waited” for their turn to be enrolled,
“Mary was delivered of Jesus.” It is not, however, improbable, that Mary
had some small landed estate, for which her appearance was necessary.
Jesus, therefore, was enrolled with Mary and Joseph, as Julian the
Apostate expressly says.

An officer being sent from Rome to enrol and assess the subjects of a
king, implied that such king was dependent on the Roman emperor, and
demonstrates that the sceptre was departed from Judah. This occurrence,
added to the alarm of Herod on the inquiry of the Magi respecting the
birthplace of the Messiah, might sufficiently exasperate Herod, not
merely to slay the infants of Bethlehem, but to every act of cruelty.
Hence, after such an occurrence, all Jerusalem might well be alarmed
with Herod, Matt. ii, 3; and the priests, &c, study caution in their
answers to him. This occurrence would quicken the attention of all who
expected temporal redemption in Israel, as it would extremely mortify
every Jewish national feeling.

The overruling providence of God appointed, that, at the time of
Christ’s birth, there should be a public, authentic, and general
production of titles, pedigrees, &c, which should prove that Jesus was
descended from the house and direct family line of David; and that this
should be proved judicially on such a scrutinizing occasion. This
occurrence brought about the birth of the Messiah, at the very place
appointed by prophecy long before, though the usual residence of Joseph
and Mary was at Nazareth.

CYRUS, son of Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane, daughter of
Astyages, king of the Medes. At the age of thirty, Cyrus was made
general of the Persian troops, and sent, at the head of thirty thousand
men, to assist his uncle, Cyaxares, whom the Babylonians were preparing
to attack. Cyaxares and Cyrus gave them battle, and dispersed them.
After this, Cyrus carried the war into the countries beyond the river
Halys; subdued Cappadocia; marched against Crœsus, king of Lydia,
defeated him, and took Sardis, his capital. Having reduced almost all
Asia, Cyrus repassed the Euphrates, and turned his arms against the
Assyrians: having defeated them, he laid siege to Babylon, which he took
on a festival day, after having diverted the course of the river which
ran through it. On his return to Persia, he married his cousin, the
daughter and heiress of Cyaxares; after which he engaged in several
wars, and subdued all the nations between Syria and the Red Sea. He died
at the age of seventy, after a reign of thirty years. Authors differ
much concerning the manner of his death.

2. We learn few particulars respecting Cyrus from Scripture; but they
are more certain than those derived from other sources. Daniel, in the
remarkable vision in which God showed him the ruin of several great
empires which preceded the birth of the Messiah, represents Cyrus as “a
ram which had two horns, both high, but one rose higher than the other,
and the higher came up last. This ram pushed westward, and northward,
and southward, so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was
there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to
his will, and became great,” Daniel viii, 3, 4, 20. The two horns
signify the two empires which Cyrus united in his person, that of the
Medes and that of the Persians. In another place, Daniel compares Cyrus
to a bear, with three ribs in its mouth, to which it was said, “Arise,
devour much flesh.” Cyrus succeeded Cambyses in the kingdom of Persia,
and Darius the Mede (by Xenophon called Cyaxares, and Astyages in the
Greek of Dan. xiii, 65,) also in the kingdom of the Medes, and the
empire of Babylon. He was monarch, as he speaks “of all the earth,” Ezra
i, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 22, 23, when he permitted the Jews to return
into their own country, A. M. 3466, B. C. 538. He had always a
particular regard for Daniel, and continued him in his great
employments.

3. The prophets foretold the exploits of Cyrus. Isaiah, xliv, 28,
particularly declares his name, above a century before he was born.
Josephus says, that the Jews of Babylon showed this passage to Cyrus;
and that, in the edict which he granted for their return, he
acknowledged that he received the empire of the world from the God of
Israel. The peculiar designation by name, which Cyrus received, must be
regarded as one of the most remarkable circumstances in the prophetic
writings. He was the heir of a monarch who ruled over one of the poorest
and most inconsiderable kingdoms of Asia, but whose hardy inhabitants
were at that time the bravest of the brave; and the providential
circumstances in which he was placed precluded him from all knowledge of
this oracular declaration in his favour. He did not become acquainted
with the sacred books in which it was contained, nor with the singular
people in whose possession it was found, till he had accomplished all
the purposes for which he had been raised up, except that of saying to
Jerusalem, as the “anointed” vicegerent of Heaven, “Thou shalt be
inhabited;” and to the cities of Judah, “Ye shall be built, and I will
raise up their ruins.” The national pride of the Jews during the days of
their unhallowed prosperity, would hinder them from divulging among
other nations such prophecies as this, which contained the most severe
yet deserved reflections upon their wicked practices and ungrateful
conduct; and it was only when they were captives in Babylon that they
submitted to the humiliating expedient of exhibiting, to the mighty
monarch whose bondmen they had become, the prophetic record of their own
apostasy and punishment, and of his still higher destination, as the
rebuilder of Jerusalem. No temptation therefore could be laid before the
conqueror in early life to excite his latent ambition to accomplish this
very full and explicit prophecy; and the facts of his life, as recorded
by historians of very opposite sentiments and feelings, all concur in
developing a series of consecutive events, in which he acted no
insignificant part; which, though astonishing in their results, differ
greatly from those rapid strides perceptible in the hurried career of
other mighty men of war in the east; and which, from the unbroken
connection in which they are presented to us, appear like the common
occurrences of life naturally following each other, and mutually
dependent. Yet this consideration does not preclude the presence of a
mighty Spirit working within him; which, according to Isaiah, said to
him, “I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me.” Concerning the
genius, or guardian angel, of Socrates many learned controversies have
arisen; but, though a few of the disputants have endeavoured to explain
it away, the majority of them have left the Greek philosopher in
possession of a greater portion of inspiration than, with marvellous
inconsistency, some of them are willing to accord to the Jewish
prophets. In this view it is highly interesting to recollect that the
elegant historian who first informed his refined countrymen of this
moral prodigy, is he who subsequently introduced them to an acquaintance
with the noble and heroic Cyrus. The didactic discourses and the
comparatively elevated morality which Xenophon embodied in his “Memoirs
of Socrates,” are generally admitted to have been purposely illustrated
in his subsequent admirable production, the _Cyropædia_, or “Education
of Cyrus;” the basis of which is true history adorned and refined by
philosophy, and exhibiting for universal imitation the life and actions
of a prince who was cradled in the ancient Persian school of the
Pischdadians, the parent of the Socratic. Isaiah describes, in fine
poetic imagery, the Almighty going before Cyrus to remove every
obstruction out of his way:--

           “I will go before thee, and level mountains,
           I will burst asunder the folding-doors of brass,
           And split in twain the bars of iron.
           Even I will give thee the dark treasures,
           And the hidden wealth of secret places:
           That thou mayest know, that I THE LORD,
           Who call thee by thy name, am THE GOD OF ISRAEL.”

According to Herodotus, Babylon was famous for its brazen gates and
doors; a hundred were in the city walls, beside those which led to the
river, and others which belonged to the temple of Belus. When Sardis and
Babylon were taken by Cyrus, they were the wealthiest cities in the
world. Crœsus gave an exact inventory of his immense treasures to
Cyrus, and they were removed from Sardis in waggons. Pliny gives the
following account of the wealth which Cyrus obtained by his conquests in
Asia: “He found thirty-four thousand pounds’ weight of gold, beside
vessels of gold, and gold wrought into the leaves of a platanus and of a
vine; five hundred thousand talents of silver, and the cup of Semiramis,
which weighed fifteen talents. The Egyptian talent, according to Varro,
was equal to eighty pounds.” Mr. Brerewood estimates the value of the
gold and silver in this enumeration at 126,224,000_l._ sterling. Other
particulars relating to him, and the accomplishment of prophecy in his
conquest of that large city, will be found under the article _Babylon_.
It is the God of Israel who, in these sublime prophecies, confounds the
omens and prognostics of the Babylonian soothsayers or diviners, after
they had predicted the stability of that empire; and who announces the
restoration of Israel, and the rebuilding of the city and temple of
Jerusalem, through Cyrus his “shepherd” and his “anointed” messenger.
Chosen thus by God to execute his high behests, he subdued and reigned
over many nations,--the Cilicians, Syrians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians,
Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Phenicians, Arabians, Egyptians,
Babylonians, Assyrians, Bactrians, &c.

         “I am He who frustrateth the tokens of the impostors,
         And maketh the diviners mad; &c.
         Who saith to the abyss, [Babylon,]
         ‘Be desolate, and I will dry up thy rivers:’
         Who saith to Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd,
         And shall perform all my pleasure.’
         Thus saith the Lord to his anointed,
         To Cyrus whom I hold by the right hand,
         To subdue before him nations,
         And ungird the loins of kings,
         To open before him [palace] folding-doors;
         Even [river] gates shall not be shut:
         For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my chosen,
         I have surnamed thee;” &c.

4. Herodotus has painted the portrait of Cyrus in dark colours, and has
been followed in many particulars by Ctesias, Diodorus Siculus,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plato, Strabo, Justin, and others; in
opposition to the contrary accounts of Æschylus, Xenophon, Josephus, the
Persian historians, and, apparently, the Holy Scriptures. The motive for
this conduct of Herodotus is probably to be found in his aversion to
Cyrus, for having been the enslaver of his country. The Greek historian
was a man of free and independent spirit, and could never brook the
mention of the surrender of his native city, Halicarnassus, to the
troops of Cyrus. But, allowing that heartlessness and cruelty are too
often the accompaniments of mighty conquerors, and that very few escape
their direful contagion; yet, when the worst is told about Cyrus,
abundance of authentic facts remain to attest his worth, and to elevate
his character above the standard of ordinary mortals. Xenophon informs
us, that the seven last years of his full sovereignty this prince spent
in peace and tranquillity at home, revered and beloved by all classes of
his subjects. In his dying moments he was surrounded by his family,
friends, and children; and delivered to them the noblest exhortations to
the practice of piety, virtue, and concord. This testimony is in
substance confirmed by the Persian historians, who relate, that, after a
long and bloody war, Khosru, or Cyrus, subdued the empire of Turan, and
made the city of Balk, in Chorasan, a royal residence, to keep in order
his new subjects; that he repaid every family in Persia proper the
amount of their war-taxes, out of the immense spoils which he had
acquired by his conquests; that he endeavoured to promote peace and
harmony between the Turanians and Iranians; that he regulated the pay of
his soldiery, reformed civil and religious abuses throughout the
provinces, and, at length, after a long and glorious reign, resigned the
crown to his son Lohorasp, and retired to solitude, confessing that he
had lived long enough for his own glory, and that it was then time for
him to devote the remainder of his days to God. Saadi, in his Gulistan,
copies the wise inscription which Cyrus ordered to be inscribed on his
crown: “What avails a long life spent in the enjoyment of worldly
grandeur, since others, mortal like ourselves, will one day trample
under foot our pride! This crown, handed down to me from my
predecessors, must soon pass in succession upon the head of many
others.” In the last book of the “Cyropædia” we find the following
devout thanksgivings to the gods: “I am abundantly thankful for being
truly sensible of your care, and for never being elated by prosperity
above my condition. I beseech you to prosper my children, wife, friends,
and country. And for myself, I ask, that such as is the life ye have
vouchsafed to me, such may be my end.” The reflections of Dr. Hales on
this passage are very judicious: “Here, Xenophon, a polytheist himself,
represents Cyrus praying to the gods in the plural number; but that he
really prayed to one only, the patriarchal God, worshipped by his
venerable ancestors, the Pischdadians, may appear from the watchword, or
signal, which he gave to his soldiers before the great battle, in which
Evil Merodach was slain:

                    ΖΕΥΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ ΚΑΙ ἩΓΕΜΩΝ.

                    “JOVE, OUR SAVIOUR AND LEADER.”

Who this god was, we learn from the preamble of his famous proclamation,
permitting the Jews to return from the Babylonian captivity: ‘The Lord,
the God of heaven, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he
hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem,’ &c, Ezra i, 1, 2.
But where did the Lord, (Iahoh, or Jove) so charge him?--In that signal
prophecy of Isaiah, predicting his name and his actions, about B. C.
712, above a century before his birth; a prophecy which was undoubtedly
communicated to him by the venerable Prophet Daniel, the Archimagus, who
saw the beginning of the Babylonish captivity, and also its end, here
foretold to be effected by the instrumentality of Cyrus.”

5. Pliny notices the tomb of Cyrus at Passagardæ in Persia. Arrian and
Strabo describe it; and they agree with Curtius, that Alexander the
Great offered funeral honours to his shade there; that he opened the
tomb, and found, not the treasures he expected, but a rotten shield, two
Scythian bows, and a Persian scymetar. And Plutarch records the
following inscription upon it, in his life of Alexander:--“O man,
whoever thou art, and whenever thou comest, (for come, I know, thou
wilt,) I am Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire. Envy me not the
little earth that covers my body.” Alexander was much affected at this
inscription, which set before him, in so striking a light, the
uncertainty and vicissitude of worldly things. And he placed the crown
of gold which he wore, upon the tomb in which the body lay, wondering
that a prince so renowned, and possessed of such immense treasures, had
not been buried more sumptuously than if he had been a private person.
Cyrus, indeed, in his last instructions to his children, desired that
“his body, when he died, might not be deposited in gold or silver, nor
in any other sumptuous monument, but committed, as soon as possible, to
the ground.”

The observation which Dr. Hales here makes, is worthy of record:--“This
is a most signal and extraordinary epitaph. It seems to have been
designed as a useful _memento mori_, [memento of death,] for Alexander
the Great, in the full pride of conquest, “whose coming” it predicts
with a prophetic spirit, “For come I know thou wilt.” But how could
Cyrus know of his coming?--Very easily. Daniel the Archimagus, his
venerable friend, who warned the haughty Nebuchadnezzar, that “head of
gold,” or founder of the Babylonian empire, that it should be subverted
by “the breast and arms of silver,” Dan. ii, 37, 39, or “the Mede and
the Persian,” Darius and Cyrus, as he more plainly told the impious
Belshazzar, Dan. v, 28, we may rest assured, communicated to Cyrus also,
the founder of the Persian empire, the symbolical vision of the goat,
with the notable horn in his forehead, Alexander of Macedon coming
swiftly from the west, to overturn the Persian empire, Daniel viii, 5,
8, under the last king Codomannus, the fourth from Darius Nothus, as
afterward more distinctly explained, Dan. xi, 1, 4. Cyrus, therefore,
decidedly addresses the short-lived conqueror, _O man, whoever thou art,
&c._

“Juvenal, in that noble satire, the tenth, verse 168, has a fine
reflection on the vanity of Alexander’s wild ambition to conquer worlds,
soon destined himself to be confined in a narrow coffin; by a pointed
allusion to the epitaph on the tomb of Cyrus:--

        _Unus Pellæo Juveni non sufficit orbis;
        Æstuat, infelix angusto limite mundi:
        Cum tamen a figulis munitam intraverit urbem,
        Sarcophago contentus erit.--Mors sola fatetur
        Quantula sint hominum corpuscula!_”

      ‘A single globe suffices not the Pellæan youth;
      Discontented, he scorns the scanty limits of the world;
      As if within a prison’s narrow bounds confined:
      But when he shall enter the _brick-walled_ city, [Babylon,]
      A coffin will content him.--_The epitaph alone owns,
      How small are the diminutive bodies of men!_’

“The emotion of Alexander, on visiting the tomb, and reading the
inscription, is not less remarkable. He evidently applied to himself, as
the destroyer, the awful rebuke of the founder of the Persian empire,
for violating the sanctity of his tomb, from motives of profane
curiosity, and perhaps of avarice. And we may justly consider the
significant act of laying down his golden crown upon the tomb itself, as
an _amende honorable_, a homage due to the offended shade of the pious
and lowly-minded Cyrus the Great.” These reflections must close our
account of one of the most remarkable characters that ever appeared
among the eastern conquerors.


DAGON, דגון, _corn_, from דגן, or דג, _a fish_, god of the Philistines.
It is the opinion of some that Dagon was represented like a woman, with
the lower parts of a fish, like a triton or syren. Scripture shows
clearly that the statue of Dagon was human, at least, the upper part of
it, 1 Sam. v, 4, 5. A temple of Dagon at Gaza was pulled down by Samson,
Judges xvi, 23, &c. In another, at Ashdod, the Philistines deposited the
ark of God, 1 Sam. v, 1–3. A city in Judah was called Beth-Dagon; that
is, the house, or temple, of Dagon, Joshua xv, 41; and another on the
frontiers of Asher, Joshua xix, 27.

DALMANUTHA. St. Mark says that Jesus Christ embarked with his disciples
on the lake of Tiberias, and came to Dalmanutha, Mark viii, 10, but St.
Matthew calls it Magdala, Matt. xv, 39. It seems that Dalmanutha was
near to Magdala, on the western side of the lake.

DALMATIA, a part of old Illyria, lying along the gulf of Venice. Titus
preached here, 2 Tim. iv, 10.

DAMASCUS, a celebrated city of Asia, and anciently the capital of Syria,
may be accounted one of the most venerable places in the world for its
antiquity. It is supposed to have been founded by Ux, the son of Aram;
and is, at least, known to have subsisted in the time of Abraham, Gen.
xv, 2. It was the residence of the Syrian kings, during the space of
three centuries; and experienced a number of vicissitudes in every
period of its history. Its sovereign, Hadad, whom Josephus calls the
first of its kings, was conquered by David, king of Israel. In the reign
of Ahaz, it was taken by Tiglath Pileser, who slew its last king, Rezin,
and added its provinces to the Assyrian empire. It was taken and
plundered, also, by Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, the generals of
Alexander the Great, Judas Maccabeus, and at length by the Romans in the
war conducted by Pompey against Tigranes, in the year before Christ, 65.
During the time of the emperors, it was one of their principal arsenals
in Asia, and is celebrated by the emperor Julian as, even in his day,
“the eye of the whole east.” About the year 634, it was taken by the
Saracen princes, who made it the place of their residence, till Bagdad
was prepared for their reception; and, after suffering a variety of
revolutions, it was taken and destroyed by Tamerlane, A. D. 1400. It was
repaired by the Mamelukes, when they gained possession of Syria; but was
wrested from them by the Turks, in 1506; and since that period has
formed the capital of one of their pachalics. The modern city is
delightfully situated about fifty miles from the sea, in a fertile and
extensive plain, watered by the river which the Greeks called
Chrysorrhoras, or “Golden River,” but which is known by the name of
Barrady, and of which the ancient Abana and Pharpar are supposed to have
been branches. The city is nearly two miles in length from its
north-east to its north-west extremity; but of very inconsiderable
breadth, especially near the middle of its extent, where its width is
much contracted. It is surrounded by a circular wall, which is strong,
though not lofty; but its suburbs are extensive and irregular. Its
streets are narrow; and one of them, called Straight, mentioned in Acts
ix, 11, still runs through the city about half a mile in length. The
houses, and especially those which front the streets, are very
indifferently built, chiefly of mud formed into the shape of bricks, and
dried in the sun; but those toward the gardens, and in the squares,
present a more handsome appearance. In these mud walls, however, the
gates and doors are often adorned with marble portals, carved and inlaid
with great beauty and variety; and the inside of the habitation, which
is generally a large square court, is ornamented with fragrant trees and
marble fountains, and surrounded with splendid apartments, furnished and
painted in the highest style of luxury. The market places are well
constructed, and adorned with a rich colonnade of variegated marble. The
principal public buildings are, the castle, which is about three hundred
and forty paces in length; the hospital, a charitable establishment for
the reception of strangers, composing a large quadrangle lined with a
colonnade, and roofed in small domes covered with lead; and the mosque,
the entrance of which is supported by four large columns of red granite;
the apartments in it are numerous and magnificent, and the top is
covered with a cupola ornamented with two minarets.

Damascus is surrounded by a fruitful and delightful country, forming a
plain nearly eighty miles in circumference; and the lands, most adjacent
to the city, are formed into gardens of great extent, which are stored
with fruit trees of every description. “No place in the world,” says Mr.
Maundrell “can promise to the beholder at a distance a greater
voluptuousness;” and he mentions a tradition of the Turks, that their
prophet, when approaching Damascus, took his station upon a certain
precipice, in order to view the city; and, after considering its
ravishing beauty and delightful aspect, was unwilling to tempt his
frailty by going farther; but instantly took his departure with this
remark, that there was but one paradise designed for man, and that, for
his part, he was resolved not to take his in this world. The air or
water of Damascus, or both, are supposed to have a powerful effect in
curing the leprosy, or, at least, in arresting its progress, while the
patient remains in the place.

The Rev. James Conner visited Damascus in 1820, as an agent of the
Church Missionary Society. He had a letter from the archbishop of Cyprus
to Seraphim, patriarch of Antioch, the head of the Christian church in
the east, who resides at Damascus. This good man received Mr. Conner in
the most friendly manner; and expressed himself delighted with the
system and operations of the Bible Society. He undertook to encourage
and promote, to the utmost of his power, the sale and distribution of
the Scriptures throughout the patriarchate; and, as a proof of his
earnestness in the cause, he ordered, the next day, a number of letters
to be prepared, and sent to his archbishops and bishops, urging them to
promote the objects of the Bible Society in their respective stations.

DAMN, and DAMNATION, are words synonymous with condemn and condemnation.
Generally speaking, the words are taken to denote the final and eternal
punishment of the ungodly. These terms, however, sometimes occur in the
New Testament in what may be termed a less strict, or secondary sense.
Thus, when the Apostle says to the Romans, “He that doubteth,” namely,
the lawfulness of what he is doing, “is _damned_ if he eat,” Rom. xiv,
23; the meaning is, he stands condemned in his own mind. Again: when St.
Paul tells the Corinthians, that “he that eateth and drinketh” of the
Lord’s Supper “unworthily, eateth and drinketh _damnation_ to himself,”
1 Cor. xi, 29; the original word, κρίμα, there is thought by many to
import no more than temporal judgments, and that the Apostle explains
himself in the same sense when he says, “For this cause many among you
are weak and sickly, and many sleep,” or die. This is at least one mode
of interpreting the “damnation” of which St. Paul here speaks; but
probably the true sense is the bringing guilt upon the conscience, and
thereby a liability, without remission, to future judgment.

DAN, the fifth son of Jacob, Gen. xxx, 1–6. Dan had but one son, whose
name was Hushim, Gen. xlvi, 23; yet he had a numerous posterity; for, on
leaving Egypt, this tribe consisted of sixty-two thousand seven hundred
men able to bear arms, Num. i, 38. Of Jacob’s blessing Dan, see Gen.
xlix, 16, 17. They took Laish, Judges xviii, 1; Joshua xix, 47. They
called the city Dan, after their progenitor. The city of Dan was
situated at the northern extremity of the land of Israel: hence the
phrase, “from Dan to Beersheba,” denoting the whole length of the land
of promise. Here Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, set up one of his golden
calves, 1 Kings xii, 29; and the other at Bethel.

DANCING. It is still the custom in the east to testify their respect for
persons of distinction by music and dancing. When Baron Du Tott, who was
sent by the French government to inspect their factories in the Levant,
approached an encampment of Turcomans, between Aleppo and Alexandretta,
the musicians of the different hordes turned out, playing and dancing
before him all the time he and his escort were passing by their camp.
Thus, it will be recollected, “the women came out of all the cities of
Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy,
and with instruments of music,” when he returned in triumph from the
slaughter of the Philistines. In the oriental dances, in which the women
engage by themselves, the lady of highest rank in the company takes the
lead, and is followed by her companions, who imitate her steps, and if
she sings, make up the chorus. The tunes are extremely gay and lively,
yet with something in them wonderfully soft. The steps are varied
according to the pleasure of her who leads the dance, but always in
exact time. This statement may enable us to form a correct idea of the
dance, which the women of Israel performed under the direction of
Miriam, on the banks of the Red Sea. The prophetess, we are told, “took
a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her, with
timbrels and dances.” She led the dance, while they imitated her steps,
which were not conducted according to a set, well-known form, as in this
country, but extemporaneous. The conjecture of Mr. Harmer is extremely
probable, that David did not dance alone before the Lord, when he
brought up the ark, but, as being the highest in rank, and more skilful
than any of the people, he led the religious dance of the males.

DANIEL was a descendant of the kings of Judah, and is said to have been
born at Upper Bethoron, in the territory of Ephraim. He was carried away
captive to Babylon when he was about eighteen or twenty years of age, in
the year 606 before the Christian æra. He was placed in the court of
Nebuchadnezzar, and was afterward raised to situations of great rank and
power, both in the empire of Babylon and of Persia. He lived to the end
of the captivity, but being then nearly ninety years old, it is most
probable that he did not return to Judea. It is generally believed that
he died at Susa, soon after his last vision, which is dated in the third
year of the reign of Cyrus. Daniel seems to have been the only prophet
who enjoyed a great share of worldly prosperity; but amidst the
corruptions of a licentious court he preserved his virtue and integrity
inviolate, and no danger or temptation could divert him from the worship
of the true God. The book of Daniel is a mixture of history and
prophecy: in the first six chapters is recorded a variety of events
which occurred in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius;
and, in particular, the second chapter contains Nebuchadnezzar’s
prophetic dream concerning the four great successive monarchies, and the
everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which dream God enabled Daniel to
interpret. In the last six chapters we have a series of prophecies,
revealed at different times, extending from the days of Daniel to the
general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the
Roman empires, are all particularly described under appropriate
characters; and it is expressly declared that the last of them was to be
divided into ten lesser kingdoms; the time at which Christ was to appear
is precisely fixed; the rise and fall of antichrist, and the duration of
his power, are exactly determined; and the future restoration of the
Jews, the victory of Christ over all his enemies, and the universal
prevalence of true religion, are distinctly foretold, as being to
precede the consummation of that stupendous plan of God, which “was laid
before the foundation of the world,” and reaches to its dissolution.
Part of this book is written in the Chaldaic language, namely, from the
fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter;
these chapters relate chiefly to the affairs of Babylon, and it is
probable that some passages were taken from the public registers. This
book abounds with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout
gratitude; its style is clear, simple, and concise; and many of its
prophecies are delivered in terms so plain and circumstantial, that some
unbelievers have asserted, in opposition to the strongest evidence, that
they were written after the events which they describe had taken place.
With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the hook of Daniel,
there is abundance both of external and internal evidence; indeed all
that can well be had or desired in a case of this nature: not only the
testimony of the whole Jewish church and nation, who have constantly
received this book as canonical, but of Josephus particularly, who
recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; of the Jewish Targums
and Talmuds, which frequently cite and appeal to his authority; of St.
Paul and St. John, who have copied many of his prophecies; and of our
Saviour himself, who cites his words, and styles him, “Daniel the
prophet.” Nor is the internal less powerful and convincing than the
external evidence; for the language, the style, the manner of writing,
and all other internal marks and characters, are perfectly agreeable to
that age; and finally he appears plainly and undeniably to have been a
prophet by the exact accomplishment of his prophecies.

DARIUS was the name of several princes in history, some of whom are
mentioned in Scripture.

1. DARIUS the Mede, spoken of in Daniel v, 31; ix, 1; xi, 1, &c, was the
son of Astyages, king of the Medes, and brother to Mandane, the mother
of Cyrus, and to Amyit, the mother of Evil-merodach, and grandmother of
Belshazzar. Darius the Mede, therefore, was uncle by the mother’s side
to Evil-merodach and Cyrus. The Septuagint, in Daniel vii, give him the
name of Artaxerxes; the thirteenth, or apocryphal chapter of Daniel,
calls him Astyages; and Xenophon designates him by the name of Cyaxares.
He succeeded Belshazzar, king of Babylon, his nephew’s son, or his
sister’s grandson, in the year of the world, 3448, according to Calmet,
or in 3468, according to Usher. Daniel does not inform us of any
previous war between them; but the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah supply
this deficiency. Isa. xiii, xiv, xlv, xlvi, xlvii; Jer. l, li.

2. DARIUS, the son of Hystaspes, has been supposed by some, on the
authority of Archbishop Usher and Calmet, to be the Ahasuerus of
Scripture, and the husband of Esther. But Dr. Prideaux thinks, that
Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes Longimanus. This prince recovered Babylon after
a siege of twenty months. This city, which had been formerly the capital
of the east, revolted from Persia, taking advantage of the revolutions
that happened, first at the death of Cambyses, and afterward on the
massacre of the Magi. The Babylonians employed four years in
preparations, and when they thought that their city was furnished with
provisions for a long time, they raised the standard of rebellion.
Darius levied an army in great haste, and besieged Babylon. The
Babylonians shut themselves up within their walls, whose height and
thickness secured them from assault; and as they had nothing to fear but
famine, they assembled all their women and children, and strangled them,
each reserving only his most beloved wife, and one servant. Thus was
fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, xlvii, 7–9. Some believe that the Jews
were either expelled by the Babylonians, as being too much in the
interest of Darius; or that, in obedience to the frequent admonitions of
the prophets, they quitted that city when they saw the people determined
to rebel, Isa. xlviii, 20; Jer. l, 8; li, 6–9; Zech. xi, 6, 7. Darius
lay twenty months before Babylon, without making any considerable
progress; but, at length, Zopyrus, one of his generals, obtained
possession of the city by stratagem. Darius ordered the hundred gates of
brass to be taken away, according to the prediction of Jeremiah, li, 58,
“Thus saith the Lord, The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly
broken, and her high gates shall be burnt with fire, and the people
shall labour in vain.” This is related in Herodotus.

3. DARIUS CODOMANUS was of the royal family of Persia, but very remote
from the crown. He was in a low condition, when Bagoas, the eunuch, who
had procured the destruction of two kings, Ochus and Arses, placed him
on the throne. His true name was Codoman, and he did not take that of
Darius till he was king. He was descended from Darius Nothus, whose son,
Ostanes, was father to Arsames, that begat Codomanus. He was at first
only a courier to the emperor Ochus. But one day when he was at this
prince’s army, one of their enemies challenged the bravest of the
Persians. Codomanus offered himself for the combat, and overcame the
challenger, and was made governor of Armenia. From this situation,
Bagoas placed him on the throne of Persia. Alexander the Great invaded
the Persian empire, and defeated Darius in three successive battles.
After the third battle, Darius fled toward Media, in hopes of raising
another army. At Ecbatana, the capital of Media, he gathered the remains
of his forces, and some new levies. Alexander having wintered at Babylon
and Persepolis, took the field in search of Darius, who quitted
Ecbatana, with an intention of retreating into Bactria; but, changing
his resolution, Darius stopped short, and determined to hazard a battle,
though his army at this time consisted only of forty thousand men. While
he was preparing for this conflict, Bessus, governor of Bactria, and
Narbazanes, a grandee of Persia, seized him, loaded him with chains,
forced him into a covered chariot, and fled, carrying him with them
toward Bactria. If Alexander pursued them, they intended to purchase
their peace by delivering Darius into his hands; but if not, to kill
him, seize the crown, and renew the war. Eight days after their
departure, Alexander arrived at Ecbatana, and set out in pursuit of
them, which he continued for eleven days: at length he stopped at Rages,
in Media, despairing to overtake Darius. Thence he went into Parthia,
where he learned what had happened to that unfortunate prince. After a
precipitate march of many days, he overtook the traitors, who, seeing
themselves pressed, endeavoured to compel Darius to get upon horseback,
and save himself with them; but he refusing, they stabbed him in several
places, and left him expiring in his chariot. He was dead when Alexander
arrived, who could not forbear weeping at so sad a spectacle. Alexander
covered Darius with his own cloak, and sent him to Sisygambis his wife,
that she might bury him in the tombs of the kings of Persia. Thus were
verified the prophecies of Daniel, viii, who had foretold the
destruction of the Persian monarchy, under the symbol of a ram, which
butted with its horns westward, northward, and southward, and which
nothing could resist; but a goat which had a very large horn between his
eyes, and which denoted Alexander the Great, came from the west, and
overran the world without touching the earth; springing forward with
impetuosity, the goat ran against the ram with all his force, attacked
him with fury, struck him, broke his two horns, trampled him under foot,
and no one could rescue the ram. Nothing can be clearer than these
prophecies.

DARKNESS, the absence of light. “Darkness was upon the face of the
deep,” Gen. i, 2; that is, the chaos was immersed in thick darkness,
because light was withheld from it. The most terrible darkness was that
brought on Egypt as a plague; it was so thick as to be, as it were,
palpable; so horrible, that no one durst stir out of his place; and so
lasting, that it endured three days and three nights, Exod. x, 21, 22;
Wisdom xvii, 2, 3. The darkness at our Saviour’s death began at the
sixth hour, or noon, and ended at the third hour, or three o’clock in
the afternoon. Thus it lasted almost the whole time he was on the cross;
compare Matt. xxvii, 45, with John xix, 14, and Mark xv, 25. Origen,
Maldonatus, Erasmus, Vatablus, and others, were of opinion that this
darkness covered Judea only; which is sometimes called the _whole
earth_; that is, the whole country. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact,
and others, thought it extended over a hemisphere. Origen says it was
caused by a thick mist, which precluded the sight of the sun. That it
was preternatural is certain, for, the moon being at full, a natural
eclipse of the sun was impossible. Darkness is sometimes used
metaphorically for death. “The land of darkness” is the grave, Job x,
22; Psalm cvii, 10. It is also used to denote misfortunes and
calamities: “A day of darkness” is a day of affliction, Esther xi, 8.
“Let that day be darkness; let darkness stain it,”--let it be reckoned
among the unfortunate days, Job iii, 4, 5. The expressions, “I will
cover the heavens with darkness;” “The sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood,” &c, signify very great political
calamities, involving the overthrow of kings, princes, and nobles,
represented by the luminaries of heaven. In a moral sense, darkness
denotes ignorance and vice; hence “the children of light,” in opposition
to “the children of darkness,” are the righteous distinguished from the
wicked.

DAVID, the celebrated king of Israel, was the youngest son of Jesse, of
the tribe of Judah, and was born 1085 years before Christ. The following
is an abstract of his history: He was chosen of God to be king of
Israel, and at his command was anointed to this dignity by the hands of
Samuel, a venerable prophet, in the room of Saul; who had been rejected
for his disobedience to the divine orders, in feloniously seizing, to
his own use the prey of an enemy, which God, the supreme King of Israel,
had devoted to destruction. He was introduced to court as a man expert
in music, a singularly valiant man, a man of war, prudent in matters, of
a comely person, and one favoured of the Lord. By his skill in music, he
relieved Saul under a melancholy indisposition that had seized him, was
highly beloved by his royal master, and made one of his guards. In a war
with the Philistines he accepted the challenge of a gigantic champion,
who defied the armies of Israel, and being skilful at the sling, he slew
him with a stone, returned safely with his head, and thus secured to his
prince an easy victory over his country’s enemies. The reputation he
gained, by this glorious action, raised an incurable jealousy and
resentment against him, in the mind of the king his master; who made two
unsuccessful attempts to murder him. In his exalted station, and amidst
the dangers that encompassed him, he behaved with singular prudence, so
that he was in high esteem both in the court and camp. The modesty and
prudence of his behaviour, and his approved courage and resolution,
gained him the confidence and friendship of Jonathan, the king’s eldest
son, “who loved him as his own soul,” became his advocate with his
father, and obtained from him a promise, confirmed by an oath, that he
would no more attempt to destroy him. But Saul’s jealousy returned by a
fresh victory David gained over the Philistines; who, finding the king
was determined to seek his life, retired from court, and was dismissed
in peace by Jonathan, after a solemn renewal of their friendship, to
provide for his own safety. In this state of banishment, there resorted
to him companies of men, who were uneasy in their circumstances,
oppressed by their creditors, or discontented with Saul’s tyrannical
government, to the number of six hundred men. These he kept in the most
excellent order, and by their valour he gained signal advantages for his
country; but never employed them in rebellion against the king, or in a
single instance to distress or subvert his government. On the contrary
such was the veneration he paid him, and such the generosity of his
temper, that though it was thrice in his power to have him cut off, he
spared him, and was determined never to destroy him, whom God had
constituted the king of Israel. His friendship with Jonathan, the king’s
son, was a friendship of strict honour, for he never seduced him from
his allegiance and filial duty. Being provoked by a churlish farmer, who
evil treated and abused his messengers, he, in the warmth of his temper,
swore he would destroy him and his family; but was immediately pacified
by the address and prudence of a wife, of whom the wretch was unworthy:
her he sent in peace and honour to her family, and blessed for her
advice, and keeping him from avenging himself with his own hand. Being
forced to banish himself into an enemy’s country, he was faithful to the
prince who protected him: and, at the same time, mindful of the interest
of his own nation, he cut off many of those who had harassed and
plundered his fellow subjects. When pressed by the king, into whose
dominions he retired, to join in a war against his own country and
father-in-law, he prudently gave him such an answer as his situation
required; neither promising the aid demanded of him, nor tying up his
hands from serving his own prince, and the army that fought under him;
only assuring him in general, that he had never done any thing that
could give him just reason to think he would refuse to assist him
against his enemies. Upon the death of Saul, he cut off the Amalekite
who came to make a merit of having slain him; and by the immediate
direction of God, who had promised him the succession, went up to
Hebron, where, on a free election, he was anointed king over the house
of Judah; and after about a seven years’ contest, he was unanimously
chosen king by all the tribes of Israel, “according to the word of the
Lord by Samuel.” As king of Israel, he administered justice and judgment
to all his people, was a prince of courage, and great military prudence
and conduct; had frequent wars with the neighbouring nations, to which
he was generally forced by their invading his dominions, and plundering
his subjects. Against them he never lost a battle; he never besieged a
city without taking it; nor, as for any thing that can be proved, used
any severities against those he conquered, beyond what the law of arms
allowed, his own safety required, or the cruelties of his enemies
rendered just, by way of retaliation; enriching his people by the spoils
he took, and providing large stores of every thing necessary for the
magnificent temple he intended to erect, in honour of the God of Israel.
Having rescued Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jebusites, he made it
the capital of his kingdom, and the place of his residence; and being
willing to honour it with the presence of the ark of God, he brought it
to Jerusalem in triumph, and divesting himself of his royal robes, out
of reverence to God, he clothed himself in the habit of his ministers,
and with them expressed his joy by dancing and music; contemned only by
one haughty woman; whom, as a just punishment of her insolence, he seems
ever after to have separated from his bed. Though his crimes were
henious, and highly aggravated, in the affair of Uriah and Bathsheba, he
patiently endured reproof, humbly submitted to the punishment appointed
him, deeply repented, and obtained mercy and forgiveness from God,
though not without some severe marks of his displeasure, for the
grievous offences of which he had been guilty. A rebellion was raised
against him by his son Absalom. When forced by it to depart from
Jerusalem, a circumstance most pathetically described by the sacred
historian, he prevented the just punishment of Shimei, a wretch who
cursed and stoned him. When restored to his throne, he spared him upon
his submission, and would not permit a single man to be put to death in
Israel upon account of this treason. He, with a noble confidence, made
the commander of the rebel forces general of his own army, in the room
of Joab, whom he intended to call to an account for murder and other
crimes. After this, when obliged, by the command of God, to give up some
of Saul’s family to justice, for the murder of the Gibeonites, he spared
Mephibosheth, Micah, and his family, the male descendants of Saul and
Jonathan, who alone could have any pretence to dispute the crown with
him, and surrendered only Saul’s bastard children, and those of his
daughter by Adriel, who had no right or possible claim to the throne,
and could never give him any uneasiness in the possession of it; and
thus showed his inviolable regard for his oaths, his tenderness to Saul,
and the warmth of his gratitude and friendship to Jonathan. In the close
of his life, and in the near prospect of death, to demonstrate his love
of justice, he charged Solomon to punish with death Joab, for the base
murder of two great men, whom he assassinated under the pretence of
peace and friendship. To this catalogue of his noble actions must be
added, that he gave the most shining and indisputable proofs of an
undissembled reverence for, and sincere piety to, God; ever obeying the
direction of his prophets, worshipping him alone, to the exclusion of
all idols, throughout the whole of his life, and making the wisest
settlement to perpetuate the worship of the same God, through all
succeeding generations.

To this abstract a few miscellaneous remarks may be added.

1. When David is called “the man after God’s own heart,” a phrase which
profane persons have often perverted, his general character, and not
every particular of it, is to be understood as approved by God; and
especially his faithful and undeviating adherence to the true religion,
from which he never deviated into any act of idolatry.

2. He was chosen to accomplish to their full extent the promises made to
Abraham to give to his seed, the whole country from the river of Egypt
to the great river Euphrates. He had succeeded to a kingdom distracted
with civil dissension, environed on every side by powerful and
victorious enemies, without a capital, almost without an army, without
any bond of union between the tribes. He left a compact and united
state, stretching from the frontier of Egypt to the foot of Lebanon,
from the Euphrates to the sea. He had crushed the power of the
Philistines, subdued or curbed all the adjacent kingdoms: he had formed
a lasting and important alliance with the great city of Tyre. He had
organized an immense disposable force; for every month 24,000 men,
furnished in rotation by the tribes, appeared in arms, and were trained
as the standing militia of the country. At the head of his army were
officers of consummate experience, and, what was more highly esteemed in
the warfare of the time, extraordinary personal activity, strength, and
valour. The Hebrew nation owed the long peace of Solomon the son’s reign
to the bravery and wisdom of the father.

3. As a conqueror he was a type of Christ, and the country “from the
river to the ends of the earth,” was also the prophetic type of Christ’s
dominion over the whole earth.

4. His inspired psalms not only place him among the most eminent
prophets; but have rendered him the leader of the devotions of good men,
in all ages. The hymns of David excel no less in sublimity and
tenderness of expression than in loftiness and purity of religious
sentiment. In comparison with them the sacred poetry of all other
nations sinks into mediocrity. They have embodied so exquisitely the
universal language of religious emotion, that they have entered with
unquestioned propriety into the ritual of the higher and more perfect
religion of Christ. The songs which cheered the solitude of the desert
caves of Engedi, or resounded from the voice of the Hebrew people as
they wound along the glens or the hill sides of Judea, have been
repeated for ages in almost every part of the habitable world, in the
remotest islands of the ocean, among the forests of America or the sands
of Africa. How many human hearts have these inspired songs softened,
purified, exalted! Of how many wretched beings have they been the secret
consolation! On how many communities have they drawn down the blessings
of Divine providence, by bringing the affections into unison with their
deep devotional fervour, and leading to a constant and explicit
recognition of the government, rights, and mercies of God!

DAY. The Hebrews, in conformity with the Mosaic law, reckoned the day
from evening to evening. The natural day, that is, the portion of time
from sunrise to sunset, was divided by the Hebrews, as it is now by the
Arabians, into six unequal parts. These divisions were as follows:--1.
The break of day. This portion of time was, at a recent period, divided
into two parts, in imitation of the Persians; the first of which began
when the eastern, the second, when the western, division of the horizon
was illuminated. The authors of the Jerusalem Talmud divided it into
four parts; the first of which was called in Hebrew איּלת השחר, which
occurs in Psalm xxii, 1, and corresponds to the phrase, λίαν ϖρωΐ, in
the New Testament, Mark xvi, 2; John xx, 1. 2. The morning or sunrise.
3. The heat of the day. This began about nine o’clock, Gen. xviii, 1; 1
Sam. xi, 11. 4. Midday. 5. The cool of the day; literally, the wind of
the day. This expression is grounded on the fact, that a wind commences
blowing regularly a few hours before sunset, and continues till evening,
Gen. iii, 8. 6. The evening. This was divided into two parts, ערבים; the
first of which began, according to the Caraites and Samaritans, at
sunset, the second, when it began to grow dark. But, according to the
rabbins, the first commenced just before sunset, the second, precisely
at sunset. The Arabians agree with the Caraites and Samaritans; and in
this way the Hebrews appear to have computed, previous to the captivity.

The mention of שעה, _hours_, occurs first in Daniel iii, 6, 15; v, 5.
They were first measured by _gnomons_, which merely indicated the
meridian; afterward, by the _hour-watch_, σκιαθέρικον; and subsequently
still, by the _clepsydra_, or instrument for measuring time by means of
water. The hour-watch or dial, otherwise called the sun-dial, is
mentioned in the reign of King Hezekiah, 2 Kings xx, 9, 10; Isaiah
xxxviii, 8. Its being called “the sundial of Ahaz” renders it probable
that Ahaz first introduced it from Babylon; whence, also, Anaximenes,
the Milesian, brought the first _skiathericon_ into Greece. This
instrument was of no use during the night, nor indeed during a cloudy
day. In consequence of this defect, the _clepsydra_ was invented, which
was used in Persia as late as the seventeenth century in its simplest
form. The _clepsydra_ was a small circular vessel, constructed of
thinly-beaten copper or brass, and having a small perforation through
the bottom. It was placed in another vessel, filled with water. The
diameter of the hole in the bottom of the _clepsydra_ was such, that it
filled with water in three hours, and sunk. It was necessary that there
should be a servant to tend it, who should take it up when it had sunk,
pour out the water, and place it again empty on the surface of the water
in the vase.

The hours of principal note in the course of the day were the third, the
sixth, and the ninth. These hours, it would seem, were consecrated by
Daniel to prayer, Dan. vi, 10; Acts ii, 15; iii, 1; x, 9. The day was
divided into twelve hours, which, of course, varied in length, being
shorter in the winter and longer in the summer, John xi, 9. In the
winter, therefore, the _clepsydras_ were so constructed that the water
might sink them more rapidly. The hours were numbered from the rising of
the sun, so that, at the season of the equinox, the third corresponded
to the ninth of our reckoning; the sixth, to our twelfth; and the ninth,
to three o’clock in the afternoon. At other seasons of the year, it is
necessary to observe the time when the sun rises, and reduce the hours
to our time accordingly. We observe, therefore, that the sun in
Palestine, at the summer solstice, rises at five of our time, and sets
about seven. At the winter solstice, it rises about seven, and sets
about five.

Before the captivity, the night was divided into three watches. The
first, which continued till midnight, was denominated the commencing or
first watch, Lam. ii, 19. The second was denominated the middle watch,
and continued from midnight till the crowing of the cock. The third,
called the morning watch, extended from the second to the rising of the
sun. These divisions and names appear to have owed their origin to the
watches of the Levites in the tabernacle and temple, Exod. xiv, 24; 1
Sam. xi, 11. In the time of Christ, however, the night, in imitation of
the Romans, was divided into four watches. According to the English mode
of reckoning they were as follows: 1. The evening, from twilight to nine
o’clock. 2. The midnight, from nine to twelve. 3. The cock crowing, from
twelve to three. 4. From three o’clock till daybreak. A day is used in
the prophetic Scripture for a year: “I have appointed thee each day for
a year,” Ezek. iv, 6. See COCK.

DEACON, from the Greek word διάκονος, in its proper and primitive sense,
denotes a _servant_ who attends his master, waits on him at table, and
is always near his person to obey his orders, which was accounted a more
creditable kind of service than that which is imported by the word
δοῦλος _a slave_; but this distinction is not usually observed in the
New Testament. Our Lord makes use of both terms in Matt. xx, 26, 27,
though they are not distinctly marked in our translation: “Whosoever
will be great among you, let him be your _deacon_; and whosoever will be
chief among you, let him be your _servant_.” The appointment of deacons
in the first Christian church is distinctly recorded, Acts vi, 1–16. The
number of disciples having greatly increased in Jerusalem, the Greeks,
or Hellenistic Jews, began to murmur against the Hebrews, complaining
that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of the
church’s bounty. The twelve Apostles, who hitherto had discharged the
different offices of Apostle, presbyter, and deacon, upon the principle
that the greater office always includes the less, now convened the
church, and said unto them, “It is not reasonable that we should leave
the ministration of the word of God, and serve tables: look ye out,
therefore, among yourselves, seven men of good report, full of the Holy
Ghost, and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will
give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”
And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they (the multitude)
chose Stephen, and six others, whom they set before the Apostles, &c.

The qualifications of deacons are stated by the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim.
iii, 8–12. There were also, in the primitive churches females invested
with this office, who were termed deaconesses. Of this number was
Phœbe, a member of the church of Cenchrea, mentioned by St. Paul,
Rom. xvi, 1. “They served the church,” says Calmet, “in those offices
which the deacons could not themselves exercise, visiting those of their
own sex in sickness, or when imprisoned for the faith. They were persons
of advanced age, when chosen; and appointed to the office by imposition
of hands.” It is probably of these deaconesses that the Apostle speaks,
where he describes the ministering widows, 1 Tim. v, 5–10.

DEAD. See BURIAL.

DEAD, MOURNINGS FOR THE. The ancient Israelites, in imitation of the
Heathen, from whom they borrowed the practice, frequently cut themselves
with knives and lancets, scratched their faces, or pricked certain parts
of their bodies with needles. These superstitious practices were
expressly forbidden in their law: “Ye are the children of the Lord your
God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your
eyes for the dead.” The bereaved Greeks tore, cut off, and sometimes
shaved, their hair; they reckoned it a duty which they owed to the dead,
to deprive their heads of the greatest part of their honours, or, in the
language of Scripture, made a baldness between their eyes. The same
custom prevailed among the ancient Persians, and the neighbouring
states. When the patriarch Job was informed of the death of his
children, and the destruction of his property, he arose and rent his
mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground and
worshipped; and in the prophecies of Jeremiah, we read of eighty men who
were going to lament the desolations of Jerusalem, having their beards
shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, in direct
violation of the divine law, with offerings and incense in their hand,
to bring them to the house of the Lord, Jer. xii, 5. Shaving, however,
was, on some occasions, a sign of joy; and to let the hair grow long,
the practice of mourners, or persons in affliction. Joseph shaved
himself before he went into the palace, Gen. xli, 14; and Mephibosheth
let his hair grow during the time David was banished from Jerusalem, but
shaved himself on his return. In ordinary sorrows they only neglected
their hair, or suffered it to hang down loose upon their shoulders; in
more poignant grief they cut it off; but in a sudden and violent
paroxysm, they plucked it off with their hands. Such a violent
expression of sorrow is exemplified in the conduct of Ezra, which he
thus describes: “And when I heard this thing I rent my garment and my
mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head, and of my beard, and sat
down astonied,” Ezra ix, 3. The Greeks, and other nations around them,
expressed the violence of their sorrow in the same way; for in Homer,
Ulysses and his companions, bewailing the death of Elpenor, howled and
plucked off their hair. Mourners withdrew as much as possible from the
world; they abstained from banquets and entertainments; they banished
from their houses as unsuitable to their circumstances, and even painful
to their feelings, musical instruments of every kind, and whatever was
calculated to excite pleasure, or that wore an air of mirth and gaiety.
Thus did the king of Persia testify his sorrow for the decree, into
which his wily courtiers had betrayed him, and which, without the
miraculous interposition of Heaven, had proved fatal to his favourite
minister: “Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night
fasting; neither were instruments of music brought before him,” Dan. vi,
18.

2. Oriental mourners divested themselves of all ornaments, and laid
aside their jewels, gold, and every thing rich and splendid in their
dress. This proof of humiliation and submission Jehovah required of his
offending people in the wilderness: “Therefore, now put off thy
ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the
children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the Mount
Horeb,” Exodus xxxiii, 5, 6. Long after the time of Moses, that
rebellious nation again received a command of similar import: “Strip
you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins,” Isaiah
xxxii, 11. The garments of the mourner were always black. Progne, having
notice of Philomela’s death, lays aside her robes, beaming with a
profusion of gold, and appears in sable vestments; and Althæa, when her
brethren were slain by Meleager, exchanged her glittering robes for
black:--

              “_Et auratas mutavit vestibus atris._” OVID.

These sable vestments differed from their ordinary dress, not only in
colour, but also in value, being made of cheap and coarse stuff, as
appears from these lines of Terence:--

              “_Texentem telam studiose ipsam offendimus
              Mediocriter vestitam veste lugubri
              Ejus anus causa, opinor, quæ erat mortua._”

“We found her busy at the loom, in a cheap mourning habit, which she
wore I suppose for the old woman’s death.” In Judea, the mourner was
clothed in sackcloth of hair, and by consequence, in sable robes; and
penitents, by assuming it, seemed to confess that their guilt exposed
them to death. Some of the eastern nations, in modern times, bury in
linen; but Chardin informs us, that others still retain the use of
sackcloth for that purpose. To sit in sackcloth and ashes, was a
frequent expression of mourning in the oriental regions; and persons
overwhelmed with grief, and unable to sustain the weight of their
calamities, often threw themselves upon the earth, and rolled in the
dust; and the more dirty the ground was, the better it served to defile
them, and to express their sorrow and dejection. In this way Tamar
signified her distress, after being dishonoured by Amnon, “She put ashes
on her head;” and when Mordecai understood that the doom of his nation
was sealed, he “rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes.” Our
Lord alludes to the same custom, in that denunciation: “Wo unto thee,
Chorazin! wo unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were
done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented
long ago, in sackcloth and ashes,” Matt. xi, 21. Intimately connected
with this, is the custom of putting dust upon the head. When the armies
of Israel were defeated before Ai, “Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to
the earth upon his face, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon
their heads.” The mourner sometimes laid his hands upon his head; for
the prophet, expostulating with his people, predicts their humiliation
in these words: “Yea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine hands upon
thine head; for the Lord hath rejected thy confidences, and thou shalt
not prosper in them,” Jer. ii, 37. In both these cases, the head of the
mourner was uncovered; but they sometimes adopted the opposite custom,
and covered their heads in great distress, or when they were loaded with
disgrace and infamy.

3. To cover the lips was a very ancient sign of mourning; and it
continues to be practised among the Jews of Barbary to this day. When
they return from the grave to the house of the deceased, the chief
mourner receives them with his jaws tied up with a linen cloth, in
imitation of the manner in which the face of the dead is covered; and by
this the mourner is said to testify that he was ready to die for his
friend. Muffled in this way, the mourner goes for seven days, during
which the rest of his friends come twice every twenty-four hours to pray
with him. This allusion is perhaps involved in the charge which Ezekiel
received when his wife died, to abstain from the customary forms of
mourning: “Forbear to cry; make no mourning for the dead; bind the tire
of thy head upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover not
thy lips, and eat not the bread of men,” Ezekiel xxiv, 17.

4. Sitting on the ground was a posture which denoted severe distress.
Thus the prophet represents the elders of Israel, after the destruction
of Jerusalem, and the captivity of those whom the sword had spared: “The
elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence;
they have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves
with sackcloth; the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the
ground,” Lam. ii, 10. Judea is represented on several coins of Vespasian
and Titus, as a solitary female in this very posture of sorrow and
captivity sitting upon the ground. It is remarkable, that we find Judea
represented as a sorrowful woman sitting on the ground, in a passage of
the prophet, where the same calamity which was recorded on the medals of
these Roman emperors is foretold: “And she being desolate shall sit upon
the ground,” Isaiah iii, 26.

5. Chardin informs us that when the king of Persia dies, his physicians
and astrologers lose their places, and are excluded from the court; the
first, because they could not cure their sovereign, and the last,
because they did not give previous notice of his death. This whimsical
custom he supposes has descended to modern times from a very remote
antiquity; and to have been the true reason that Daniel was absent when
Belshazzar saw the hand writing his doom on the wall. If the conjecture
of that intelligent traveller be well founded, the venerable prophet had
been forced by the established etiquette of the court to retire from the
management of public affairs at the death of Nebuchadnezzar; and had
remained in a private station for twenty-three years, neglected or
forgotten, till the awful occurrence of that memorable night rendered
his assistance necessary, and brought him again into public notice. This
accounts in a very satisfactory manner, as well for Belshazzar’s
ignorance of Daniel, as for the recollection of Nitocris, the
queen-mother, who had long known his character and abilities during the
reign of her husband. This solution of the difficulty is at least
ingenious.

6. It was a custom among the Jews to visit the sepulchres of their
deceased friends three days; for so long they supposed their spirits
hovered about them; but when once they perceived their visage begin to
change, as it would in that time in those warm countries, all hopes of a
return to life were then at an end. But it appears from an incident in
the narrative of the raising of Lazarus, that in Judea they were
accustomed to visit the graves of their deceased relations after the
third day, merely to lament their loss, and give vent to their grief. If
this had not been a common practice, the people that came to comfort the
sisters of Lazarus would not so readily have concluded, when Mary, on
the fourth day, went hastily out to meet her Saviour, “She goeth to the
grave to weep there.” The Turkish women continue to follow this custom:
they go before sunrising on Friday, the stated day of their worship, to
the grave of the deceased, where, with many tears and lamentations, they
sprinkle their monuments with water and flowers.

DEAD SEA. This was anciently called the _Sea of the Plain_, Deut. iii,
17; iv, 49, from its situation in the great hollow or plain of the
Jordan; the _Salt Sea_, Deut. iii, 17; Joshua xv, 5, from the extreme
saltness of its waters; and the _East Sea_, Ezek. xlvii, 18; Joel ii,
20, from its situation relative to Judea, and in contradistinction to
the _West Sea_, or Mediterranean. It is likewise called by Josephus, and
by the Greek and Latin writers generally, _Lacus Asphaltites_, from the
bitumen found in it; and the _Dead Sea_, its more frequent modern
appellation, from a tradition, commonly though erroneously received,
that no living creature could exist in its saline and sulphureous
waters. It is at present known in Syria by the names of _Almotanah_ and
_Bahar Loth_: and occupies what may be considered as the southern
extremity of the vale of Jordan; forming, in that direction, the western
boundary to the Holy Land. The Dead Sea is about seventy miles in
length, and twenty in breadth at its broadest part; having, like the
Caspian, no visible communication with the ocean. Its depth seems to be
altogether unknown; nor does it appear that a boat has ever navigated
its surface. Toward its southern extremity, however, in a contracted
part of the lake, is a ford, about six miles over, made use of by the
Arabs: in the middle of which they report the water to be warm;
indicating the presence of warm springs beneath. In general, toward the
shore, it is shallow; and rises and falls with the seasons, and the
quantity of water carried into it by seven streams, which fall into this
their common receptacle, the chief of which is the Jordan.

The water now covering these ruins occupies what was formerly the vale
of Siddim; a rich and fruitful valley, in which stood the five cities,
called the cities of the plain, namely, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim,
and Bela or Zoar: the four first of which were destroyed, while the
latter, being “a little city,” was preserved at the intercession of Lot;
to which he fled for refuge from the impending catastrophe, and where he
remained in safety during its accomplishment.

The specific gravity of the waters of the Dead Sea is supposed to have
been much exaggerated by the ancient writers, but their statements are
now proved to be by no means very wide of the truth. Pliny says, that no
living bodies would sink in it; and Strabo, that persons who went into
it were borne up to their middle. Van Egmont and Heyman state, that, on
swimming to some distance from the shore, they found themselves, to
their great surprise, lifted up by the water. “When I had swam to some
distance,” says the latter, “I endeavoured to sink to the bottom, but
could not; for the water kept me continually up, and would certainly
have thrown me upon my face, had I not put forth all the strength I was
master of, to keep myself in a perpendicular posture; so that I walked
in the sea as if I had trod on firm ground, without having occasion to
make any of the motions necessary in treading fresh water; and when I
was swimming, I was obliged to keep my legs the greatest part of the
time out of the water. My fellow traveller was agreeably surprised to
find that he could swim here, having never learned. But this proceeded
from the gravity of the water, as this certainly does from the
extraordinary quantity of salt in it.” Mr. Joliffe says, he found it
very little more buoyant than other seas, but he did not go out of his
depth. “The descent of the beach,” he says, “is so gently gradual, that
I must have waded above a hundred yards to get completely out of my
depth, and the impatience of the Arabians would not allow of time
sufficient for this.” Captain Mangles says: “The water is as bitter and
as buoyant as the people have reported. Those of our party who could not
swim, floated on its surface like corks. On dipping the head in, the
eyes smarted dreadfully.” With regard to the agents employed in this
catastrophe, there might seem reason to suppose that volcanic phenomena
had some share in producing it; but Chateaubriand’s remark is deserving
of attention. “I cannot,” he says, “coincide in opinion with those who
suppose the Dead Sea to be the crater of a volcano. I have seen
Vesuvius, Solfatara, Monte Nuovo in the lake of Fusino, the peak of the
Azores, the Mamalif opposite to Carthage, the extinguished volcanoes of
Auvergne; and remarked in all of them the same characters; that is to
say, mountains excavated in the form of a tunnel, lava, and ashes, which
exhibited incontestable proofs of the agency of fire.” After noticing
the very different shape and position of the Dead Sea, he adds:
“Bitumen, warm springs, and phosphoric stones are found, it is true, in
the mountains of Arabia; but then, the presence of hot springs, sulphur,
and asphaltos is not sufficient to attest the anterior existence of a
volcano.” The learned Frenchman inclines to adopt the idea of Professors
Michaëlis and Busching, that Sodom and Gomorrah were built upon a mine
of bitumen; that lightning kindled the combustible mass, and that the
cities sunk in the subterraneous conflagration. M. Malte Brun
ingeniously suggests, that the cities might themselves have been built
of bituminous stones, and thus have been set in flames by the fire of
heaven. We learn from the Mosaic account, that the Vale of Siddim, which
is now occupied by the Dead Sea, was full of “slime pits,” or pits of
bitumen. Pococke says: “It is observed, that the bitumen floats on the
water, and comes ashore after windy weather; the Arabs gather it up, and
it serves as pitch for all uses, goes into the composition of medicines,
and is thought to have been a very great ingredient in the bitumen used
in embalming the bodies in Egypt: it has been much used for cerecloths,
and has an ill smell when burnt. It is probable that there are
subterraneous fires, that throw up this bitumen at the bottom of the
sea, where it may form itself into a mass, which may be broken by the
motion of the water occasioned by high winds; and it is very remarkable,
that the stone called the stone of Moses, found about two or three
leagues from the sea, which burns like a coal, and turns only to a white
stone, and not to ashes, has the same smell, when burnt, as this pitch;
so that it is probable, a stratum of the stone under the Dead Sea is one
part of the matter that feeds the subterraneous fires, and that this
bitumen boils up out of it.” To give force to this last conjecture,
however, it would be requisite to ascertain, whether bitumen is capable
of being detached from this stone, in a liquid state, by the action of
fire. The stone in question is the black feited limestone, used at
Jerusalem in the manufacture of rosaries and amulets, and worn as a
charm against the plague. The effluvia which it emits on friction, is
owing to a strong impregnation of sulphuretted hydrogen. If the
buildings were constructed of materials of this description, with
quarries of which the neighbouring mountains abound, they would be
easily susceptible of ignition by lightning. The Scriptural account,
however, is explicit, that “the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from heaven;” which we may safely interpret as
implying a shower of inflamed sulphur, or nitre. At the same time it is
evident, that the whole plain underwent a simultaneous convulsion, which
seems referable to the consequences of a bituminous explosion. In
perfect accordance with this view of the catastrophe, we find the very
materials, as it were, of this awful visitation still at hand in the
neighbouring hills; from which they might have been poured down by the
agency of thunder storms, directed by the hand of offended Heaven.
Captains Irby and Mangles collected, on the southern coast, lumps of
nitre and fine sulphur, from the size of a nutmeg up to that of a small
hen’s egg, which, it was evident from their situation, had been brought
down by the rain: “their great deposit must be sought for,” they say,
“in the cliff.” These cliffs then were probably swept by the lightnings,
and their flaming masses poured in a deluge of fire upon the plain.

DEBORAH, a prophetess, wife of Lapidoth, judged the Israelites, and
dwelt under a palm tree between Ramah and Bethel, Judges iv, 4, 5. She
sent for Barak, directed him to attack Sisera, and, in the name of God,
promised him victory; but Barak refusing to go, unless she went with
him, she told him, that the honour of this expedition would be given to
a woman, and not to him. After the victory, Deborah and Barak sung a
fine thanksgiving song, the composition probably of Deborah alone, which
is preserved, Judges v.

DEBTS. In nothing, perhaps, do the Israelitish laws deviate so far from
our own, as in regard to matters of debt. Imprisonment was unknown among
the Hebrews, who were equally free from those long and expensive modes
of procedure with which we are acquainted, for the recovery of debts.
Their laws in this respect were simple, but efficient. Where pledges
were lodged with a creditor for the payment of a debt, which was not
discharged, the creditor was allowed to appropriate the pledge to his
own benefit, without any interposition of a magistrate, and to keep it
as rightfully as if it had been bought with the sum which had been lent
for it. But, beside the pledge, every Israelite had various pieces of
property, on which execution for debt might readily be made; as (1.) His
hereditary land, the produce of which might be attached till the year of
jubilee: (2.) His houses, which, with the sole exception of those of the
Levites, might be sold in perpetuity, Lev. xxv, 29, 30: (3.) His cattle,
household furniture, and ornaments, appear also liable to be taken in
execution. See Job xxiv, 3; Proverbs xxii, 27. From Deut. xv, 1–11, we
see that no debt could be exacted from a poor man in the seventh year;
because the land lying fallow, he had no income whence to pay it: (4.)
The person of the debtor, who might be sold, along with his wife and
children, if he had any. See Lev. xxv, 39; Job xxiv, 9; 2 Kings iv, 1;
Isaiah l, 1; Nehemiah v. We have no intimation, in the writings of
Moses, that suretyship was practised among the Hebrews in cases of debt.
In the Proverbs of Solomon, however, there are many admonitions
respecting it. Where this warranty was given, the surety was treated
with the same severity as if he had been the actual debtor; and if he
could not pay, his very bed might be taken from under him, Prov. xxii,
27. There is a reference to the custom observed in contracting this
obligation in Prov. xvii, 18: “A man void of understanding striketh
hands,” &c; and also in Prov. xxii, 26: “Be not thou one of them that
strike hands,” &c. It is to be observed that the hand was given, not to
the creditor, but to the debtor, in the creditor’s presence. By this act
the surety intimated that he became in a legal sense one with the
debtor, and rendered himself liable to pay the debt.

2. We have above noticed the practice of lending on pledge; but as this
was liable to considerable abuse, the following judicial regulations
were adopted: (1.) The creditor was not allowed to enter the house of
the debtor to fetch the pledge, but was obliged to stand without the
door, and wait till it was brought to him, Deut. xxiv, 10, 11. This law
was wisely designed to restrain avaricious and unprincipled persons from
taking advantage of their poor brethren in choosing their own pledges.
(2.) The upper garment, which served by night for a blanket, Exod. xxii,
25, 26; Deut. xxiv, 12, 13, and mills and millstones, if taken in
pledge, were to be restored to the owner before sunset. The reason of
this law was, that these articles were indispensable to the comfortable
subsistence of the poor; and for the same reason, it is likely that it
extended to all necessary utensils. Such a restoration was no loss to
the creditor; for he had it in his power at last, by the aid of summary
justice, to lay hold of the whole property of the debtor; and if he had
none, of his person: and, in the event of non-payment, as before stated,
to take him for a bond slave.

DECALOGUE, the ten principal commandments, Exod. xx, 1, &c, from the
Greek δεκὰ _ten_, and λόγοι _words_. The Jews call these precepts, _the
ten words_.

DECAPOLIS, a country in Palestine, so called, because it contained ten
principal cities; some situated on the west, and some on the east side
of Jordan, Matt. iv, 25; Mark v, 20.

DEDICATION, a religious ceremony, whereby any person or thing was set
apart to the service of God, and the purposes of religion. Dedications
of persons, temples, and houses, were frequent among the Jews. See
CONSECRATION.

DEFILEMENT. Under the law, many were those blemishes of person and
conduct, which were considered as defilements: some were voluntary,
others involuntary; some were inevitable, and the effect of nature
itself, others arose from personal transgression. Under the Gospel,
defilements are those of the heart, of the mind, the temper, and
conduct. The ceremonial uncleannesses of the law are superseded as
religious rites; though many of them claim attention as usages of
health, decency, and civility.

DEGREES. _Psalms of Degrees_ is a name given to fifteen psalms, from the
cxx, to the cxxxiv, inclusive. The Hebrew text calls them _a song of
ascents_. Junius and Tremellius translate the Hebrew _a song of
excellences, or an excellent song_, from the excellent matter they
contain. Some call them _psalms of elevation_, because they were sung
with an exalted voice, or because at every psalm the voice was raised;
but the translation of _psalms of degrees_ has more generally obtained.
Some think that they were called psalms of degrees, because they were
sung upon the fifteen steps of the temple; but they are not agreed where
these steps were. Others are of opinion, that they were so denominated,
because sung in a gallery, which was in the court of Israel, where the
Levites sometimes read the law. Calmet thinks, that they were called
songs of degrees, or of ascent, because they were composed on occasion
of the deliverance of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon, either to
implore this deliverance from God, or to return thanks for it after it
had been obtained; and that the Hebrews used the term _to go up_, when
they spoke of their journeying from Babylon to Jerusalem. Others are of
opinion, that these psalms were sung during the time of service, while
the flesh, &c, were consuming on the altar, and while the fume and smoke
_ascended_ toward heaven; and that the title _Psalms of Ascent_ seems to
favour this supposition. The point is involved in entire obscurity; and,
after all, the title of these Psalms may be only a musical direction to
the temple choir.

DEISTS. This term appears to have had an honourable origin, being of the
same import as _Theists_, designating those who believe in the existence
of a supreme intelligent cause, in opposition to the Epicureans, and
other Atheistical philosophers. The name, in modern times, is said to
have been first assumed about the middle of the sixteenth century, by
some persons on the continent, in order to avoid the imputation of
Atheism. Peter Viret, a divine of that century, mentions it as a new
name assumed by those who rejected Christianity. Lord Edw. Herbert,
baron of Cherbury, in the seventeenth century, has been regarded as the
first Deistical writer in this country, or at least, the first who
reduced Deism to a system; affirming the sufficiency of reason and
natural religion, and rejecting divine revelation as unnecessary and
superfluous. His system, however, embraced these five articles:--1. The
being of God. 2. That he is to be worshipped. 3. That piety and moral
virtue are the chief parts of worship. 4. That God will pardon our
faults on repentance. And, 5. That there is a future state of rewards
and punishment. Some have divided all Deists into two classes--those who
admit a future state, and those who deny it. But Dr. S. Clarke, taking
the term in the most extensive sense, arranges them under four
classes:--1. Those who admit a Supreme Being, but deny that he concerns
himself with the conduct or affairs of men; maintaining, with Lucretius,
that God

          “Ne’er smiles at good, nor frowns at wicked, deeds.”

2. Those who admit not only the being but the providence of God, with
respect to the natural world; but who allow no difference between moral
good and evil, nor that God takes any notice of our moral conduct. 3.
Such as believe in the natural attributes of God, and his all-governing
providence; yet deny the immortality of the soul, or any future state.
4. Such as admit the existence of God, his providence, and the
obligations of natural religion; but so far only as these things are
discoverable by the light of nature, without any divine revelation. Some
of the Deists have attempted to overthrow the Christian dispensation, by
opposing to it what they call the absolute perfection of natural
religion. Others, as Blount, Collins, and Morgan, have endeavoured to
gain the same purpose, by attacking particular parts of the Christian
scheme, by explaining away the literal sense and meaning of certain
passages, or by placing one portion of the sacred canon in opposition to
the other. A third class, wherein we meet with the names of Shaftesbury
and Bolingbroke, advancing farther in their progress, expunge from their
creed the doctrine of future existence, deny or controvert all the moral
perfections of the Deity, and wholly reject the Scriptures.

The Deists of the present day are distinguished by their zealous efforts
to diffuse the principles of infidelity among the common people. Hume,
Bolingbroke, and Gibbon, addressed themselves solely to the more
polished classes of the community; but of late the writings of Paine,
Carlile, and others, have diffused infidelity among the lower orders of
society, and clothed it in the dress of vulgar ridicule, the more
effectually to destroy in the common people all reverence for sacred
things. Among the disciples of this school, Deism has led to the most
disgusting Atheism. Thus “evil men and seducers wax worse and worse.”

DELUGE signifies, in general, any great inundation; but more
particularly that universal flood by which the whole inhabitants of this
globe were destroyed, except Noah and his family. According to the most
approved systems of chronology, this remarkable event happened in the
year 1656 after the creation, or about 2348 before the Christian æra. Of
so general a calamity, from which only a single family of all who lived
then on the face of the earth was preserved, we might naturally expect
to find some memorials in the traditionary records of Pagan history, as
well as in the sacred volume, where its peculiar cause, and the
circumstances which attended it, are so distinctly and so fully related.
Its magnitude and singularity could scarcely fail to make an indelible
impression on the minds of the survivors, which would be communicated
from them to their children, and would not be easily effaced from the
traditions even of their latest posterity. A deficiency in such traces
of this awful event, though perhaps it might not serve entirely to
invalidate our belief of its reality, would certainly tend considerably
to weaken its claim to credibility; it being scarcely probable that the
knowledge of it should be utterly lost to the rest of the world, and
confined to the documents of the Jewish nation alone. What we might
reasonably expect has, accordingly, been actually and completely
realized. The evidence which has been brought from almost every quarter
of the world to bear upon the reality of this event, is of the most
conclusive and irresistible kind; and every investigation, whether
etymological or historical, which has been made concerning Heathen rites
and traditions, has constantly added to its force, no less than to its
extent.

And here, it were injustice to the memory of ingenuity and erudition
almost unexampled in modern times, were we not to mention the labours of
Bryant, the learned analysist of ancient mythology, whose patience and
profoundness of research have thrown such new and convincing light on
this subject. Nor must we forget his ardent and successful disciple, Mr.
Faber, who, in his “Dissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabiri,” has in
travelling over similar ground with his illustrious master at once
corrected some of his statements, and greatly strengthened his general
conclusions. As the basis of their system, however, rests on a most
extensive etymological examination of the names of the deities and other
mythological personages worshipped and celebrated by the Heathen,
compared with the varied traditions respecting their histories, and the
nature of the rites and names of the places that were sacred to them, we
cannot do more, in the present article, than shortly state the result of
their investigations, referring for the particular details, to the
highly original treatises already mentioned. According to them, the
memory of the deluge was incorporated with almost every part of the
Gentile mythology and worship; Noah, under a vast multitude of
characters, being one of their first deities, to whom all the nations of
the Heathen world looked up as their founder; and to some circumstance
or other in whose history, and that of his sons and the first
patriarchs, most, if not all, of their religious ceremonies may be
considered as not indistinctly referring. Traces of these, neither vague
nor obscure, they conceive to be found in the history and character, not
only of Deucalion, but of Atlas, Cronus, or Saturn, Dionusos, Inachus,
Janus, Minos, Zeus, and others among the Greeks; of Isis, Osiris,
Sesostris, Oannes, Typhon, &c, among the Egyptians; of Dagon, Agruerus,
Sydyk, &c, among the Phenicians; of Astarte, Derceto, &c, among the
Assyrians; of Buddha, Menu, Vishnu, &c, among the Hindus; of Fohi, and a
deity represented as sitting upon the lotos in the midst of waters,
among the Chinese; of Budo and Iakusi among the Japanese, &c. They
discover allusions to the ark, in many of the ancient mysteries, and
traditions with respect to the dove and the rainbow, by which several of
these allegorical personages were attended, which are not easily
explicable, unless they be supposed to relate to the history of the
deluge. By the celebrated Ogdoas of the Egyptians, consisting of eight
persons sailing together in the sacred _baris_ or ark, they imagine the
family of Noah, which was precisely eight in number, to have been
designated; and in the rites of Adonis or Thammuz, in particular, they
point out many circumstances which seem to possess a distinct reference
to the events recorded in the sixth and seventh chapters of Genesis.
With regard to this system, we shall only farther observe, that, after
every reasonable deduction is made from it, which the exuberant
indulgence of fancy occasionally exhibited by its authors appears to
render necessary, it contains so much that is relevant and conclusive,
that it induces the conviction that it has a solid foundation in truth
and fact; it being scarcely possible to conceive, that a mere hypothesis
could be supported by evidence so varied, so extensive, and in many
particulars so demonstrative, as that which its framers have produced.

Beside, however, the allusions to the deluge in the mythology and
religious ceremonies of the Heathen, to which we have thus concisely
adverted, there is a variety of traditions concerning it still more
direct and circumstantial, the coincidence of which, with the narrative
of Moses, it will require no common degree of skeptical hardihood to
deny. We are informed by one of the circumnavigators of the world, who
visited the remote island of Otaheite, that some of the inhabitants
being asked concerning their origin, answered, that their supreme God
having, a long time ago, been angry, dragged the earth through the sea,
when their island was broken off and preserved. In the island of Cuba,
the people are said to believe that the world was once destroyed by
water by three persons, evidently alluding to the three sons of Noah. It
is even related, that they have a tradition among them, that an old man,
knowing that the deluge was approaching, built a large ship, and went
into it with a great number of animals; and that he sent out from the
ship a crow, which did not immediately come back, staying to feed on the
carcasses of dead animals, but afterward returned with a green branch in
its mouth. The author who gives the above account likewise affirms that
it was reported by the inhabitants of Castella del Oro, in Terra Firma,
that during a universal deluge, one man, and his children, were the only
persons who escaped, by means of a canoe, and that from them the world
was afterward peopled. According to the Peruvians, in consequence of a
general inundation, occasioned by violent and continued rains, a
universal destruction of the human species took place, a few persons
only excepted, who escaped into caves on the tops of the mountains, into
which they had previously conveyed a stock of provisions, and a number
of live animals, lest when the waters abated, the whole race should have
become extinct. Others of them affirm, that only six persons were saved,
by means of a float or raft, and that from them all the inhabitants of
the country are descended. They farther believe, that this event took
place before there were any _incas_ or kings among them, and when the
country was extremely populous. The Brazilians not only preserve the
tradition of a deluge, but believe that the whole race of mankind
perished in it, except one man and his sister; or, according to others,
two brothers with their wives, who were preserved by climbing the
highest trees on their loftiest mountains; and who afterward became the
heads of two different nations. The memory of this event they are even
said to celebrate in some of their religious anthems or songs. Acosta,
in his history of the Indies, says, that the Mexicans speak of a deluge
in their country, by which all men were drowned; and that it was
afterward peopled by _viracocha_, who came out of the lake Titicaca;
and, according to Herrera, the Machoachans, a people comparatively in
the neighbourhood of Mexico, had a tradition, that a single family was
formerly preserved in an ark amid a deluge of waters; and that along
with them, a sufficient number of animals were saved to stock the new
world. During the time that they were shut up in the ark, several ravens
were sent out, one of which brought back the branch of a tree. Among the
Iroquois it is reported that a certain spirit, called by them Otkon, was
the creator of the world; and that another being, called Messou,
repaired it after a deluge, which happened in consequence of Otkon’s
dogs having one day while he was hunting with them lost themselves in a
great lake, which, in consequence of this, overflowed its banks, and in
a short time covered the whole earth.

Passing from the more remote western to the eastern continent, nearer to
the region where Noah is generally supposed to have lived, we find the
traditions respecting the deluge still more particular and minute.
According to Josephus, there were a multitude of ancient authors who
concurred in asserting that the world had once been destroyed by a
flood: “This deluge,” says he, “and the ark are mentioned by all who
have written barbaric histories, one of whom is Berosus the Chaldean.”
Eusebius informs us, that Melo, a bitter enemy of the Jews, and whose
testimony is on this account peculiarly valuable, takes notice of the
person who was saved along with his sons from the flood, having been,
after his preservation, driven away from Armenia, whence he retired to
the mountainous parts of Syria. Abydenus, after giving an account of the
deluge from which Xisuthrus, the Chaldean Noah, was saved, concludes
with asserting, in exact concurrence with Berosus, that the ark first
rested on the mountains of Armenia, and that its remains were used by
the natives as a talisman; and Plutarch mentions the Noachic dove being
sent out of the ark, and returning to it again, as an intimation to
Deucalion that the storm had not yet ceased.

This, however, is by no means all: Sir W. Jones, speaking of one of the
Chinese fables, says, “Although I cannot insist with confidence, that
the rainbow mentioned in it alludes to the Mosaic narrative of the
flood, nor build any solid argument on the divine person _Niuva_, of
whose character, and even of whose sex the historians of China speak
very doubtfully; I may nevertheless assure you, after full inquiry and
consideration, that the Chinese believe the earth to have been wholly
covered with water, which, in works of undisputed authenticity, they
describe as flowing abundantly, then subsiding, and separating the
higher from the lower age of mankind.” Still more coincident even than
this with the Mosaic account, is the Grecian history of the deluge, as
preserved by Lucian, a native of Samosata on the Euphrates; and its
authority is the more incontrovertible, on account of his being an
avowed derider of all religions. The antediluvians, according to him,
had gradually become so hardened and profligate, as to be guilty of
every species of injustice. They paid no regard to the obligation of
oaths; were insolent, inhospitable, and unmerciful. For this reason they
were visited with an awful calamity. Suddenly the earth poured forth a
vast quantity of water, the rain descended in torrents, the rivers
overflowed their banks, and the sea rose to a prodigious height, so that
“all things became water,” and all men were destroyed except Deucalion.
He alone, for the sake of his prudence and piety, was reserved to a
second generation. In obedience to a divine nomination, he entered, with
his sons and their wives, into a large ark, which they had built for
their preservation; and immediately swine, and horses, and lions, and
serpents, and all other animals which live on earth, came to him by
pairs, and were admitted by him into the ark. There they became
perfectly mild and innoxious, their natures being changed by the gods,
who created such a friendship between them, that they all sailed
peaceably together, so long as the waters prevailed over the surface of
the globe.

Scarcely less remarkable is the Hindoo tradition. It is contained in the
ancient poem of the _Bhavagat_; and forms the subject of the first
Purana, entitled _Matsya_, or “The Fish.” The following is Sir William
Jones’s abridgment of it; and the identity of the event which it
describes, with that of the Hebrew historian, is too obvious to require
any particular illustration: “The demon Hayagriva, having purloined the
Vedas from the custody of Brahma, while he was reposing at the close of
the sixth Manwantara, the whole race of men became corrupt, except the
seven Rishis, and Satyavrata, who then reigned in Dravira, a maritime
region to the south of Carnata. This prince was performing his ablutions
in the river Critimala, when Vishnu appeared to him in the shape of a
small fish, and after several augmentations of bulk in different waters,
was placed by Satyavrata in the ocean, where he thus addressed his
amazed votary: ‘In seven days all creatures who have offended me shall
be destroyed by a deluge, but thou shalt be secured in a capacious
vessel miraculously formed; take therefore all kinds of medicinal herbs,
and esculent grain for food, and, together with the seven holy men, your
respective wives, and pairs of all animals, enter the ark without fear:
then shalt thou know God face to face, and all thy questions shall be
answered.’ Saying this, he disappeared; and after seven days the ocean
began to overflow the coasts, and the earth to be flooded by constant
showers, when Satyavrata, meditating on the deity, saw a large vessel
moving on the waters. He entered it, having in all respects conformed to
the instructions of Vishnu; who in the form of a vast fish, suffered the
vessel to be tied with a great sea serpent, as with a cable, to his
measureless horn. When the deluge had ceased, Vishnu slew the demon, and
recovered the Vedas, instructed Satyavrata in divine knowledge, and
appointed him the seventh Menu, by the name of Vaivaswata.”

When we thus meet with some traditions of a deluge in almost every
country, though the persons saved from it are said, in those various
accounts to have resided in different districts widely separated from
each other, we are constrained to allow that such a general concurrence
of belief could never have originated merely from accident. While the
mind is in this situation, Scripture comes forward, and, presenting a
narrative more simple, better connected, and bearing an infinitely
greater resemblance to authentic history, than any of those mythological
accounts which occur in the traditions of Paganism, immediately flashes
the conviction upon the understanding, that this must be the true
history of those remarkable facts which other nations have handed down
to us, only through the medium of allegory and fable. By the evidence
adduced in this article, indeed, the moral certainty of the Mosaic
history of the flood appears to be established on a basis sufficiently
firm to bid defiance to the cavils of skepticism. “Let the ingenuity of
unbelief first account satisfactorily for this universal agreement of
the Pagan world; and she may then, with a greater degree of
plausibility, impeach the truth of the Scriptural narrative of the
deluge.” The fact, however, is not only preserved in the traditions of
all nations, as we have already seen; but after all the philosophical
arguments which were formerly urged against it, philosophy has at length
acknowledged that the present surface of the earth must have been
submerged under water. “Not only,” says Kirwan, “in every region of
Europe, but also of both the old and new continents, immense quantities
of marine shells, either dispersed or collected, have been discovered.”
This and several other facts seem to prove, that at least a great part
of the present earth was, before the last general convulsion to which it
has been subjected, the bed of an ocean which, at that time, was
withdrawn from it. Other facts seem also to prove with sufficient
evidence, that this was not a gradual retirement of the waters which
once covered the parts now inhabited by men; but a violent one, such as
may be supposed from the brief but emphatic relation of Moses. The
violent action of water has left its traces in various undisputed
phenomena. Stratified mountains of various heights exist in different
parts of Europe, and of both continents; in and between whose strata,
various substances of marine, and some vegetables of terrestrial,
origin, repose either in their natural state, or petrified. To
overspread the plains of the arctic circle with the shells of Indian
seas, and with the bodies of elephants and rhinoceri, surrounded by
masses of submarine vegetation; to accumulate on a single spot, as at La
Bolca, in promiscuous confusion, the marine productions of the four
quarters of the globe; what conceivable instrument would be efficacious
but the rush of mighty waters? These facts, about which there is no
dispute, and which are acknowledged by the advocates of each of the
prevailing geological theories, give a sufficient attestation to the
deluge of Noah, in which “the fountains of the great deep were broken
up,” and from which precisely such phenomena might be expected to
follow. To this may be added, though less decisive in proof, yet
certainly strong as presumptive evidence, that the very aspect of the
earth’s surface exhibits interesting marks both of the violent action,
and the rapid subsidence, of waters; as well as affords a most
interesting instance of the divine goodness in converting what was ruin
itself into utility and beauty. The great frame-work of the varied
surface of the habitable earth was probably laid by a more powerful
agency than that of water; either when on the third day the waters under
the heavens were gathered into one place, and the crust of the primitive
earth was broken down to receive them, so that “the dry land might
appear;” by those mighty convulsions which appear to have accompanied
the general deluge; but the rounding, so to speak, of what was rugged,
where the substance was yielding, and the graceful undulations of hill
and dale which so frequently present themselves, were probably effected
by the retiring waters. The flood has passed away; but the soils which
it deposited remain; and the valleys through which its last streams were
drawn off to the ocean, with many an eddy and sinuous course, still
exist, exhibiting visible proofs of its agency, and impressed with forms
so adapted to the benefit of man, and often so gratifying to the finest
taste, that, when the flood “turned,” it may be said to have “left a
blessing behind it.”

The objections once made to the _fact_ of a general deluge have, indeed,
been greatly weakened by the progress of philosophical knowledge; and
may be regarded as nearly given up, like the former notion of the high
antiquity of the race of men, founded on the Chinese and Egyptian
chronologies and pretended histories. Philosophy has even at last found
out that there is sufficient water in the ocean, if called forth, to
overflow the highest mountains to the height given by Moses,--a
conclusion which it once stoutly denied. Keill formerly computed that
twenty-eight oceans would be necessary for that purpose; but we are now
informed “that a farther progress in mathematical and physical knowledge
has shown the different seas and oceans to contain, at least,
forty-eight times more water than they were then supposed to do; and
that the mere raising of the temperature of the whole body of the ocean
to a degree no greater than marine animals live in, in the shallow seas
between the tropics, would so expand it as more than to produce the
height above the mountains stated in the Mosaic account.” As to the
deluge of Noah, therefore, infidelity has almost entirely lost the aid
of philosophy in framing objections to the Scriptures.

DEMONIAC, a human being possessed with and actuated by some spiritual
malignant being of superior power. The word _demon_ is used by Pagan
writers often in a good sense, and is applied to their divinities; but
the demons of holy writ are malignant spirits. We are not informed very
particularly about their origin or destiny; but we find them represented
as ϖνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα, and ϖνεύματα ϖονηρὰ, _unclean_ and _evil spirits_;
and we must consider them as in league with the devil, as the subjects
of his dominion, and the instruments of his will. They were the
immediate agents in all possessions; and to expel or restrain them, or
to cure the diseases which they were supposed to occasion, was one of
the miraculous gifts of the early times.

2. On this subject an ardent controversy was agitated about the middle
and toward the end of the last century, between Dr. Farmer and his
opponents. In this controversy, of which we shall attempt to give a
short view, it was contended, on the one hand, that the demoniacal cases
recorded in the books of the New Testament, were instances of real
possession; and, on the other, that they were merely diseases, set forth
under the notion of possessions, in conformity with the belief which was
prevalent at the time. By the one party, the language of holy writ was
interpreted literally; and by the other it was considered as figurative,
and used in the way of accommodation to the existing opinions. The
leading asseveration of Dr. Farmer, upon the general question, is, that
miracles, or works surpassing the power of men, are never performed
without a divine interposition; and by a divine interposition he means,
either the immediate agency of the Deity himself, or of beings empowered
and commissioned by him. And the proof of this asseveration, he tells
us, may very easily be found, if we consider that, on any other
supposition, it is impossible to show that a religion supported by
miracles is really from God. For the miracles in question, or works
surpassing the power of human beings, may have been performed by evil
spirits, acting independently of the Divinity, thwarting his purposes,
and marring the operation of his goodness. Should it be said that, from
the tendency of the miracle itself, and _a fortiori_, from the tendency
of the miracle and religion when taken together, we may easily infer the
character of the being from whom the whole scheme proceeds,--to this
also Dr. Farmer is ready with his answer. “With regard to doctrines,”
says he “of a moral or useful tendency, it is not, in all cases, easy
for the bulk of mankind, or even for the wise and learned, to form a
certain judgment concerning them. What to men appeared to have a
tendency to promote virtue and happiness, superior beings, who discerned
its remotest effects, might know to be a curse rather than a blessing,
and give it countenance from a motive of malevolence. On the other hand,
a doctrine really subservient to the cause of piety and virtue, men
might judge to be prejudicial to it. And were the sanctity of the
doctrine ever so apparent, it would not (on the principles of those with
whom we are here arguing) certainly follow from hence, that the miracles
recommending it were wrought by God; inasmuch as other beings, from
motives unknown to us, might interest themselves in favour of such a
doctrine.” In one word, according to this author, we do not know whether
the tendency of the miracle, or of the religion, be good or not; and
therefore we can form no accurate idea of the character really belonging
to the being from whom the revelation proceeds. To our eyes the system
may appear well calculated to promote our happiness, but it may have
been the contrivance of wicked spirits. According to the sense and
discernment of men, the miracle is useful in itself, but we cannot be
sure whether it may not have been performed by one of the rebellious
angels “who kept not their first estate.” In conformity with these
opinions, Dr. Farmer maintains that there is not an instance recorded in
sacred Scripture, where a miracle has been wrought, and where there is
not sufficient reason to believe that the effect was produced either by
the Deity himself, or by agents commissioned and empowered to act in his
name. Hence he considers the Egyptian magicians as jugglers; the witch
of Endor, as a ventriloquist; and, completing the system, he has written
an elaborate dissertation to prove, that when Christ was “tempted of the
devil,” as the Evangelist Matthew expresses it, that apostate angel was
not really present; and that the whole transaction took place in a
vision or a dream.

With regard to the demoniacs of the New Testament, this writer and his
followers contend that, among the Jews, certain diseases, such as
madness and epilepsy, were usually ascribed to the agency of evil
spirits. This was the current notion and belief of the country. Upon
this notion the ordinary phraseology was built. Our Lord and his
Apostles adapted their instructions to this prevailing notion, and used
the language which had been formed upon it; just as Moses, in his
account of the creation, adapts himself to the popular astronomy of his
time, instead of laying before us the true system of the heavenly
bodies. He speaks, not in relation to what is physically correct, but in
relation to what was believed. He founds his instructions upon the ideas
already entertained by the people to whom the revelation was first
communicated: and Christ and his Apostles do the very same thing. They
speak of the demoniacs, not according to the real state of the case, but
according to the notions which the Jews entertained of it. Not a few of
those demoniacs appear to have been persons of a disordered
understanding, subject to attacks of mania; some of them were afflicted
with the epilepsy, or falling sickness, some were deaf, and others were
dumb. When a demon is said to enter into a man, the meaning is, that his
madness is about to show itself in a violent paroxysm; when a demon is
said to speak, it is only the unhappy victim of the disease himself that
speaks; and when a demon or devil is expelled, the exact truth of the
case, as well as the whole of the miracle, is nothing more than that the
disease is cured. Occasionally, too, say those who contend against the
reality of demoniacal possessions, the language of the sacred books
confirms the explanation which has just been given. Thus, in the tenth
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find the Jews saying of Christ, “He
hath a devil, and is mad,” as if the expressions were perfectly
equivalent; and the person who is represented, in the seventeenth
chapter of Matthew, as a lunatic, is spoken of by St. Mark as vexed with
a dumb spirit. It is farther argued on this side of the question, that
the instances of possession recorded in the books of the New Testament
have all the features and appearance of ordinary diseases. The madness
shows itself in these cases, just as it shows itself in the cases which
occur among ourselves in the present day: it is now melancholy, and the
patient is silent and sullen, and now it vents itself in bursts of anger
and ferocious resentment. And the epilepsy of the sacred books is the
epilepsy of all our systems of nosology: the phenomena of the diseases
are precisely the same. Nor does this, say they, detract from the very
high character which Christ undoubtedly sustains in the inspired
writings, or diminish the value of his miracles as the evidences of our
religion; since it must be allowed, that to cure a disease with a word
or a touch is an effort of power far beyond the reach of any human
being. And let it be remembered, that those who deny the expulsion of
demons are ready to admit that diseases were miraculously cured. There
is a miracle in either case; and, in either case, it is a sufficient
proof of our Saviour’s mission, and an adequate support of the Christian
faith.

3. To these statements and reasonings, the advocates of possessions have
not been slow to reply. They call in question the truth of Dr. Farmer’s
leading asseveration; namely, “that extraordinary works have never been
performed without a divine interposition;” and contend, that as human
beings have a certain sphere and agency allotted them, so it is
reasonable to believe that malignant spirits have a wider sphere, and an
agency less controlled; and that within this sphere, and in the exercise
of this agency, they perform actions, the tendency of which is to thwart
the purposes of the divine beneficence, and to introduce confusion and
misery into the world. They argue, too, that the devil himself, the
chief of the apostate spirits, is often represented in holy writ as
exerting his malignity in opposition to the designs of infinite
goodness; and in the case of our first parents, as a remarkable example,
he tempted them to disobedience, and led them to their fall. It was in
consequence of his machinations, that they brought down upon themselves
the wrath of Heaven, and were driven from the garden in which “the Lord
had placed them.” The advocates of possessions contend still farther,
that the revelation which is made to us in sacred Scripture is addressed
to our understandings; that it is not only in our power, but that it is
our indispensable duty, to examine it, and to judge of it; that the
tendency of any miracle, or system of doctrine, is a sufficient evidence
of the character belonging to him who performs the miracle, or publishes
the doctrine; that good actions are demonstrative of the quality of
goodness; and, in short, that a religion calculated to make us happy
must have proceeded from a Being who has consulted and provided for our
happiness. Nor is this a matter so abstruse and remote from human
apprehension, that we can form no opinion about it. “For,” say they, “if
any thing connected with Christianity be plain, it seems to be that the
tendency of the religion is beneficent; and that it is no less pure in
its character than blessed in its effects. The very miracles recorded in
Scripture are proofs of goodness. They must have been wrought by a good
being. And,” they continue, “we think ourselves entitled to hold our
religion as true, and to regard it as in the highest degree beneficial,
though we must allow, at the same time, that the magicians of Egypt
performed many wonderful works by the agency of wicked spirits; that the
sorceress of Endor was in league with the powers of darkness, and that
Christ was literally tempted ‘of the devil,’ in the wilderness of
Judea.”

4. With regard to the more specific question of demoniacal possessions,
they answer, that though God has often been pleased to accommodate
himself to our apprehension by adopting the current language of the
countries, where the revelation was first published; yet the account of
the creation given by Moses is not altogether an instance in point. For,
say they, while it is granted that the true system of the universe is
not laid before us in the first chapter of Genesis, it ought to be
remembered that the statements in that chapter are exceedingly general;
and that, while the whole truth is not told, it being no part of the
revelation to tell it, there is, at the same time, no error directly
inculcated. In the demoniacal cases, however, the conduct of the
inspired writers, and, indeed, of Christ himself, is widely different.
They positively and directly inform us, that a demon “enters into” a
man, and “comes out” of him; they represent the demons as speaking, and
reasoning, and hoping, and fearing, as having inclinations and aversions
peculiar to themselves, and distinct from those of the person who is the
subject of the possession; they tell us of one unhappy sufferer who was
vexed with many devils; and, in the case of the demoniac of Gadara, they
assure us that the devils were “cast out” of the man, and were
permitted, at their own request, to “enter into” a herd of swine which
were feeding in the neighbourhood, and that immediately the herd ran
violently down a steep place, and were drowned in the sea. Who ever
heard of swine afflicted with madness as a natural disease? Or, when and
where has the epilepsy, or falling sickness, been predicable of the sow?
For, it must be carefully observed that the disease of the man, the
affection of the human sufferer, whatever that affection might have
been, was clearly transferred from him to the animals in question.
Beside, as various instances are recorded in Scripture, and as several
cases are given at considerable length, might we not expect, if
possessions were really nothing more than ordinary diseases, that the
truth would be somewhere told or hinted at? that, within the compass of
the sacred canon, something would be said, or something insinuated,
which would lead us to understand that the language, though inaccurate
and improper, was used in accommodation to the popular belief? Might we
not expect that Christ himself would have declared, in one unequivocal
affirmation, or in some intelligible way, the exact truth of the case?
Or, at all events, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles
on the day of pentecost, and when the full disclosure of the revelation
appears to have been made, might it not reasonably have been looked for
that the popular error would have been rectified, and the language
reduced from its figurative character to a state of simple correctness?
What conceivable motive could influence our Saviour, or his Apostles, to
sanction the delusion of the multitude? And does it not strike at the
root of the Christian religion itself, to have it thought, for a single
moment, that its “Author and Finisher,” who came to enlighten and to
reform the world, should have, on so many occasions, not only
countenanced, but confirmed, an opinion which he must have known to be
“the reverse of the truth”?

Let us then, say they, beware how we relinquish the literal sense of
holy writ, in search of allegorical or figurative interpretations. And
if, upon any occasion, we think it proper to do so, let us consider well
the grounds and reasons upon which our determination is built. It is
evident that the devil and his angels, according to all that we can
learn of them in the sacred books, are real beings; that the demons of
the New Testament are malignant spirits; and that they act upon the same
principles, and even under the authority of Satan himself, who is
otherwise called Beelzebub, and the prince of the devils. Nay, in these
very cases of possession, the chief of the apostate angels is clearly
set forth as acting either in his own person, or by means of his
infernal agents. And it is on this supposition alone that we can explain
the language of Christ in that remarkable declaration which he makes to
the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, and which we find recorded in the
twelfth chapter of the Gospel by St. Matthew. “The Pharisees heard it,”
observes the Evangelist, “and they said, This fellow doth not cast out
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their
thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: how shall then his kingdom stand?”

5. On this subject of diseases it is also to be observed, that the
inspired writers uniformly make a distinction between diseases occurring
in the ordinary course of nature, and diseases occasioned by the agency
of evil spirits. “There is every where,” says Bishop Porteus, “a plain
distinction made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions,
which shows that they are totally different things. In the fourth
chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the very first mention is
made of these possessions, it is said that our Lord’s fame went
throughout all Syria, and that they brought unto him ‘all sick people,
that were taken with divers diseases and torments,’ and those ‘which
were possessed with devils,’ and he healed them. Here those that were
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those possessed with
devils, are mentioned as distinct and separate persons: a plain proof
that the demoniacal possessions were not natural diseases: and the very
same distinction is made in several other passages of holy writ. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the demoniacs were persons really
possessed with evil spirits; and although it may appear strange to us,
yet we find, from Josephus and other historians, that it was in those
times no uncommon case.”

6. We may conclude, from the argument on both sides of the question,
that the only reason which can be urged for departing from the obvious
sense of Scripture is, that cases of possession involve a philosophical
mystery. This, truly, is a very insufficient ground, and especially when
we consider that if we better knew the nature of spirits, and of our own
frame, the philosophy might appear all on the opposite side, and no
doubt would do so. But no one who admits the Scriptures to decide this
question, can consistently stand upon that objectionable ground of
interpretation to which he is forced by denying the plain and consistent
sense of innumerable passages. If he admits this error, he must admit
many others; for a Bible, so interpreted, may be made to mean any thing.

DESTRUCTIONISTS, a denomination of Christians who believe that the final
punishment threatened in the Gospel to the wicked and impenitent,
consists not in eternal misery, but in a total extinction of being; and
that the sentence of annihilation shall be executed with more or less
previous torment, in proportion to the greater or less guilt of the
criminal. This doctrine is largely maintained in the sermons of the late
Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich; Mr. S. Bourn, of Birmingham; and many
others. In defence of the system, Mr. Bourn argues, that there are many
passages of Scripture, in which the ultimate punishment to which wicked
men shall be adjudged is defined, in the most precise and intelligible
terms, to be an everlasting destruction, proceeding from Him who is
equally able to destroy as to create; and who, by our Lord himself, is
said to be “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” By the
“everlasting punishment of the wicked,” therefore, Mr. B. understands
“everlasting destruction,” literally speaking, “from the presence of the
Lord,” which is “the second death;” from which there can be no
resurrection, and which is set in opposition to “eternal life.” In
speaking of the images used to illustrate this subject, Mr. B. remarks,
that the wicked are compared to combustible materials, as brands, tares,
&c, which the fire utterly consumes: so Sodom and Gomorrah suffer “the
vengeance of eternal fire,” that is, they are destroyed for ever; and
the phrases, “the worm that dieth not, and the fire which is not
quenched,” are placed in opposition to entering into life, and denote
the termination of existence, Mark ix, 43.

To all this it may be answered: 1. That annihilation, as a punishment,
admits of no degrees. 2. If we connect with this a previous state of
torment, (as Mr. Winchester says, “for ages of ages,”) annihilation must
be rather a relief from punishment, than the punishment itself. 3. That
annihilation is rather a suspension than an exertion of divine power. 4.
That the punishment of impenitent men is described as the same with that
of the fallen angels, who are not annihilated, Matt. xxv, 41, but remain
in expectation of future punishment, “Art thou come to torment us before
the time?” Matt. viii, 29. 5. In the state of future punishment, there
is said to be “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” Matt. xxiv, 51. 6. As the
happiness of saints in the future state consists not merely in being,
but in well being, or happiness; so the punishment of the wicked
requires the idea of eternal suffering to support the contrast. It might
be added, that annihilation, as far as we know, forms no part of the
divine economy. One thing is also certain and indisputable: the strong
language of Scripture is intended to deter men from sin; and whoever
attempts to remove the barrier, offers insult to the divine wisdom, and
trifles with his own destiny. But the capital argument is, that it is
unscriptural:--“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched,” is, like many others, a declaration, to which no dexterity of
interpretation can give any other good sense, than the continuance of
conscious punishment.

DEVIL, _Diabolus_, an evil angel. The word is formed from the French
_diable_, of the Latin _diabolus_, which comes from the Greek διάϐολος,
which, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies _calumniator_, _traducer_,
or _false accuser_, from the verb διαϐάλλειν, _to calumniate_, &c; or
from the ancient British _diafol_. Dr. Campbell observes, that, though
the word is sometimes, both in the Old Testament and the New, applied to
men and women, as traducers, it is, by way of eminence, employed to
denote that apostate angel, who is exhibited to us, particularly in the
New Testament, as the great enemy of God and man. In the two first
chapters of Job, it is the word in the Septuagint by which the Hebrew
שטן, _Satan_, or _adversary_, is translated. Indeed, the Hebrew word in
this application, as well as the Greek, has been naturalized in most
modern languages. Thus we say, indifferently, _the devil_, or _Satan_;
only the latter has more the appearance of a proper name, as it is not
attended with the article. There is, however, this difference between
the import of such terms, as occurring in their native tongues, and as
modernized in translations. In the former, they always retain somewhat
of their primitive meaning, and, beside indicating a particular being,
or class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and make a
special character or note of distinction in such beings. Whereas, when
thus Latinized or Englished, they answer solely the first of these uses,
as they come nearer the nature of proper names. Διάϐολος is sometimes
applied to human beings; but nothing is more easy than to distinguish
this application from the more frequent application to the
arch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that, in this last use of the
term, it is never found in the plural. When the plural is used, the
context always shows that it refers to human beings, and not to fallen
angels. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and that only in the
epistles of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, 11; 2 Tim. iii, 3; Titus ii, 3.
Another criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of
darkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The
term almost invariably is ὁ διάϐολος. The excepted instances occur in
the address of Paul to Elymas the sorcerer, Acts xiii, 10; and that of
our Lord to the Pharisees, John viii, 44. The more doubtful cases are
those in 1 Peter v, 8, and Rev. xx, 2. These are all the examples in
which the word, though used indefinitely or without the article,
evidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy; and the examples in
which it occurs in this sense with the article, are too numerous to be
recited.

2. That there are angels and spirits, good and bad, says an eminent
writer; that at the head of these last, there is one more considerable
and malignant than the rest, who, in the form, or under the name, of a
serpent, was deeply concerned in the fall of man, and whose head, in the
language of prophecy, the Son of Man was one day to bruise; that this
evil spirit, though that prophecy be in part fulfilled, has not yet
received his death’s wound, but is still permitted, for ends to us
unsearchable, and in ways which we cannot particularly explain, to have
a certain degree of power in this world, hostile to its virtue and
happiness,--all this is so clear from Scripture, that no believer,
unless he be previously “spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit,” can
possibly entertain a doubt of it. Certainly, among the numerous
refinements of modern times, there is scarcely any thing more
extraordinary than the attempt that has been made, and is still making,
to persuade us that there really exists no such being in the world as
the devil; and that when the inspired writers speak of such a being, all
that they mean is, to personify the evil principle! A bold effort
unquestionably; and could its advocates succeed in persuading men into
the universal belief of it, they would do more to promote his cause and
interest in the world than he himself has been able to effect since the
seduction of our first parents. But to be armed against this subtle
stratagem, let us attend to the plain doctrine of divine revelation
respecting this matter. In the Old Testament, particularly in the first
two chapters of Job, this evil spirit is called Satan; and in the New
Testament, he is spoken of under various titles, which are also
descriptive of his power and malignity; as for example, he is called,
“the prince of this world,” John xii, 31; “the prince of the power of
the air,” Eph. ii, 2; “the god of this world,” 2 Cor. iv, 4; “the
dragon, that old serpent, the devil,” Rev. xx, 2; “the wicked one,” 1
John v, 19. He is represented as exercising a sovereign sway over the
human race in their natural state, or previous to their being
enlightened, regenerated, and sanctified by the Gospel, Eph. ii, 2, 3.
His kingdom is described as a kingdom of darkness; and the influence
which he exercises over the human mind is called “the power,” or energy,
“of darkness,” Col. i, 13. Hence believers are said to be “called out of
darkness into marvellous light,” 1 Peter ii, 9. Farther, he is said to
go about “as a roaring lion, seeking its prey, that he may destroy men’s
souls,” 1 Peter v, 8. Christ says, “He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him;
when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of that which is his own, for he is
a liar, and the father of it,” John viii, 44. We are also taught that
this grand adversary of God and man has a numerous band of fallen
spirits under his control; and that both he and they are reserved under
a sentence of condemnation unto the judgment of the great day, Jude 6;
and that “everlasting fire,” or perpetual torment, “is prepared for the
devil and his angels,” Matt. xxv, 41. In these various passages of
Scripture, and many others which might be added, the existence of the
devil is expressly stated; but if, as our modern Sadducees affirm,
nothing more is intended in them than a personification of the abstract
quality of evil, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, must be
eminently calculated to mislead us in matters which intimately concern
our eternal interests. If, in inferring from them the existence of evil
spirits in this world, we can be mistaken, it will not be an easy matter
to show what inference deduced from Scripture premises may safely be
relied on. It ought not, however, to surprise Christians that attempts
of this kind should be made. St. Paul tells us, that in his day there
were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into
the apostles of Christ; and no wonder,” says he, “for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light,” 2 Cor. xi, 13, 14.

3. To the notion, that the Jews derived their opinions on this subject
from the oriental philosophy, and that like the Persians they set up a
rival god; it may be replied, that the Jewish notion of the devil had no
resemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterward,
called the evil principle; which they made in some sort coördinate with
God, and the first source of all evil, as the other is of good. For the
devil, in the Jewish system, is a creature as much as any other being in
the universe, and is liable to be controlled by omnipotence,--an
attribute which they ascribed to God alone.

4. The arguments from philosophy against the existence of evil spirits
are as frail as that which is pretended to be grounded upon criticism.
For that there is nothing irrational in the notion of superior beings,
is plain from this: that if there be other beings below us, there may be
others above us. If we have demonstration of one Being at least who is
invisible, there may be many other created invisible and spiritual
beings. If we see men sometimes so bad as to delight in tempting others
to sin and ruin, there may exist a whole order of fallen beings who may
have the same business and the same malignant pleasure; and if we see
some men furiously bent upon destroying truth and piety, this is
precisely what is ascribed to these evil spirits. It is one of the
serious circumstances of our probation on earth, that we should be
exposed to this influence of Satan, and we are therefore called to
“watch and pray that we enter not into temptation.”

5. The establishment of the worship of devils so general in some form
throughout a great part of the Heathen world, is at once a painful and a
curious subject, and deserves a more careful investigation than it has
received. In modern times, devil-worship is seen systematized in Ceylon,
Burmah, and many parts of the East Indies; and an order of devil-priests
exists, though contrary to the Budhist religion, against the temples of
which it sets up rival altars.

Mr. Ives, in his Travels through Persia, gives the following curious
account of devil-worship: “These people (the Sanjacks, a nation
inhabiting the country about Mosul, the ancient Nineveh) once professed
Christianity, then Mohammedanism, and last of all devilism. They say it
is true that the devil has at present a quarrel with God; but the time
will come when, the pride of his heart being subdued, he will make his
submission to the Almighty; and, as the Deity cannot be implacable, the
devil will receive a full pardon for all his transgressions, and both
he, and all those who paid him attention during his disgrace, will be
admitted into the blessed mansions. This is the foundation of their
hope, and this chance for heaven they esteem to be a better one than
that of trusting to their own merits, or the merits of the leader of any
other religion whatsoever. The person of the devil they look on as
sacred; and when they affirm any thing solemnly, they do it by his name.
All disrespectful expressions of him they would punish with death, did
not the Turkish power prevent them. Whenever they speak of him, it is
with the utmost respect; and they always put before his name a certain
title corresponding to that of highness or lord.” The worshippers of the
devil mentioned by Ives were also found by Niebuhr in the same country,
in a village between Bagdad and Mosul, called Abd-el-asis, on the great
Zab, a river which empties itself into the Tigris. This village, says
he, is entirely inhabited by people who are called Isidians, and also
Dauâsin. As the Turks allow the free exercise of religion only to those
who possess sacred books, that is, the Mohammedans, Christians, and
Jews, the Isidians are obliged to keep the principles of their religion
very secret. They therefore call themselves Mohammedans, Christians, or
Jews, according to the party of him who inquires what their religion is.
Some accuse them of worshipping the devil under the name of Tschellebi;
that is, Lord. Others say that they show great reverence for the sun and
fire, that they are unpolished Heathens, and have horrid customs. I have
also been assured that the Dauâsins do not worship the devil; but adore
God alone as the Creator and Benefactor of all mankind. They will not
speak of Satan, nor even have his name mentioned. They say that it is
just as improper for men to take a part in the dispute between God and a
fallen angel, as for a peasant to ridicule and curse a servant of the
pacha who has fallen into disgrace; that God did not require our
assistance to punish Satan for his disobedience; it might happen that he
might receive him into favour again; and then we must be ashamed before
the judgment seat of God, if we had, uncalled for, abused one of his
angels: it was therefore the best not to trouble one’s self about the
devil; but endeavour not to incur God’s displeasure ourselves. When the
Isidians go to Mosul, they are not detained by the magistrates, even if
they are known. The vulgar, however, sometimes attempt to extort money
from them. When they offer eggs or butter to them for sale, they
endeavour first to get the articles into their hands, and then dispute
about the price, or for this or other reasons to abuse Satan with all
their might; on which the Dauâsin is often polite enough to leave every
thing behind, rather than hear the devil abused. But in the countries
where they have the upper hand, nobody is allowed to curse him, unless
he chooses to be beaten, or perhaps even to lose his life.

DEUTERONOMY, from δέυτερος, _second_, and νομὸς, _law_; the last book of
the Pentateuch or five books of Moses. As its name imports, it contains
a repetition of the civil and moral law, which was a second time
delivered by Moses, with some additions and explanations, as well to
impress it more forcibly upon the Israelites in general, as in
particular for the benefit of those who, being born in the wilderness,
were not present at the first promulgation of the law. It contains also
a recapitulation of the several events which had befallen the Israelites
since their departure from Egypt, with severe reproaches for their past
misconduct, and earnest exhortations to future obedience. The Messiah is
explicitly foretold in this book; and there are many remarkable
predictions interspersed in it, particularly in the twenty-eighth,
thirtieth, thirty-second, and thirty-third chapters, relative to the
future condition of the Jews. The book of Deuteronomy finishes with an
account of the death of Moses, which is supposed to have been added by
his successor, Joshua.

DEW. Dews in Palestine are very plentiful, like a small shower of rain
every morning. Gideon filled a basin with the dew which fell on a fleece
of wool, Judges vi, 38. Isaac, blessing Jacob, wished him the dew of
heaven, which fattens the fields, Gen. xxvii, 28. In those warm
countries where it seldom rains, the night dews supply the want of
showers. Isaiah speaks of rain as if it were a dew, Isaiah xviii, 4.
Some of the most beautiful and illustrative of the images of the Hebrew
poets are taken from the dews of their country. The reviving influence
of the Gospel, the copiousness of its blessings, and the multitude of
its converts, are thus set forth.

DIADEM. See CROWN.

DIAL is not mentioned in Scripture before the reign of Ahaz.
Interpreters differ concerning the form of the dial of Ahaz, 2 Kings xx.
The generality of expositors think that it was a staircase so disposed,
that the sun showed the hours upon it by the shadow. Others suppose that
it was a pillar erected in the middle of a very level and smooth
pavement, on which the hours were engraven. According to these authors,
the lines marked in this pavement are what the Scripture calls degrees.
Grotius describes it as follows: “It was a concave hemisphere, and in
the midst was a globe, the shadow of which fell on the different lines
engraven in the concavity of the hemisphere; these lines were
twenty-eight in number.” This description answers pretty nearly to that
kind of dial, which the Greeks called _scapha_, a boat or hemisphere,
the invention (rather introduction) of which, Vitruvius ascribes to
Berosus the Chaldean. It would seem, indeed, that the most ancient sun
dial known is in the form of a half circle, hollowed into the stone, and
the stone cut down to an angle. This kind of dial was invented in
Babylon, and was very probably the same as that of Ahaz.

DIAMOND, יהלם. Exod. xxviii, 18; xxix, 11; Ezek. xxviii, 13. This has
from remote antiquity been considered as the most valuable, or, more
properly, the most costly substance in nature. The reason of the high
estimation in which it was held by the ancients was its rarity and its
extreme hardness and brilliancy. It filled the sixth place in the high
priest’s breastplate, and on it was engraven the name of Naphtali.

DIANA, a celebrated goddess of the Heathens, who was honoured
principally at Ephesus, Acts xix. She was one of the number of the
twelve superior deities, and was called by the several names of Hebe,
Trivia, and Hecate. In the heavens she was the moon, upon earth she was
called Diana, and in hell Hecate. She was worshipped in Palestine,
Jeremiah vii, 18; xliv, 17, 18.

DIONYSIUS, the Areopagite, a convert of St. Paul, Acts xvii, 34.
Chrysostom declares Dionysius to have been a citizen of Athens; which is
credible, because the judges of the Areopagus generally were so. After
his conversion, Dionysius was made the first bishop of Athens; having
laboured, and suffered much in the Gospel, he is said to have been burnt
at Athens, A. D. 95. The works attributed to Dionysius are generally
reputed spurious.

DIRECTORY, an ecclesiastical instrument, containing directions for the
conduct of religious worship, drawn up by the assembly of divines, by
order of parliament, in 1645. It was intended to supply the use of the
Common Prayer Book, which had been abolished. It orders the reverent
observation of public worship, prayer, singing of psalms, the reading
and exposition of the Scriptures, &c. It enjoins no forms, but
recommends the Lord’s prayer as a model of devotion; directs that the
Lord’s Supper may be received sitting; that the Sabbath day be strictly
observed; but puts down all saints’ days, consecrations of churches, and
private or lay baptisms. This Directory, which was formerly bound with
the Westminster confession of faith, is still, in effect, the plan of
worship among the Dissenters, and especially the Presbyterians.

DISCIPLE. The proper signification of this word is a learner; but it
signifies in the New Testament, a believer, a Christian, a follower of
Jesus Christ. Disciple is often used instead of Apostle in the Gospels;
but, subsequently, Apostles were distinguished from disciples. The
seventy-two who followed our Saviour from the beginning, are called
disciples; as are others who were of the body of believers and bore no
office. In subsequent times, the name disciple, in the sense of learner,
was sometimes given to the κατηχουμενοι, “_auditores_,” persons who, in
the primitive church, were receiving a preparatory instruction in
Christianity. They were divided into two classes, those who received
private instruction, and those who were admitted to the congregations,
and were under immediate preparation for baptism. The church readers
were, in some places, appointed to instruct the catechumens; and at
Alexandria, where often learned men presented themselves for
instruction, the office of catechist was filled by learned laymen, and
these catechists laid the foundation of an important theological school.

DISEASES. In the primitive ages of the world, diseases, in consequence
of the great simplicity in the mode of living, were but few in number.
At a subsequent period the number was increased by the accession of
diseases that had been previously unknown. Epidemics also, diseases
somewhat peculiar in their character, and still more fearful in their
consequences, soon made their appearance, some infesting one period of
life, and some another; some limiting their ravages to one country, and
some to another. Prosper Alpinus mentions the diseases which are
prevalent in Egypt, and in other countries in the same climate: they are
ophthalmies, leprosies, inflammations of the brain, pains in the joints,
the hernia, the stone in the reins and bladder, the phthisic, hectic,
pestilential and tertian fevers, weakness of the stomach, obstructions
in the liver, and the spleen. Of these diseases, ophthalmies,
pestilential fevers, and inflammations of the brain, are epidemics; the
others are of a different character. The leprosy prevails in Egypt, in
the southern part of Upper Asia, and in fact may be considered a disease
endemic in warm climates generally. Accordingly, it is not at all
surprising, if many of the Hebrews, when they left Egypt, were infected
with it; but the assertion of Manetho, that they were all thus infected,
and were in consequence of the infection, driven out by force, in which
he is precipitately and carelessly followed by Strabo, Tacitus, by
Justin Trogus, and others more recent, is a mere dream without any
foundation. The appearance of the disease externally is not always the
same. The spot is commonly small, and resembling in its appearance the
small red spot that would be the consequence of a puncture from a
needle, or the pustules of a ringworm. The spots for the most part make
their appearance very suddenly, especially if the infected person, at
the period when the disease shows itself externally, happens to be in
great fear, or to be moved with anger, Num. xii, 10; 2 Chron. xxvi, 19.
They commonly exhibit themselves in the first instance on the face,
about the nose and eyes; and gradually increase in size for a number of
years, till they become, as respects the extent of surface which they
embrace on the skin, as large as a pea or bean; they are then called
שאת. The white spot or pustule, בהרת, _morphea alba_, and also the dark
spot, ספחת, _morphea nigra_, are indications of the existence of the
real leprosy, Lev. xiii, 2, 39; xiv, 56. From these it is necessary to
distinguish the spot, which, whatever resemblance there may be in form,
is so different in its effects, called בהק, and also the harmless sort
of scab, which occurs under the word, מספחת, Lev. xiii, 6–8, 29. Moses,
in the thirteenth chapter of Leviticus, lays down very explicit rules
for the purpose of distinguishing between those spots which are proofs
of the actual existence of the leprosy, and those spots which are
harmless and result from some other cause. Those spots which are the
genuine effects and marks of the leprosy gradually dilate themselves,
till at length they cover the whole body. Not only the skin is subject
to a total destruction, but the body is affected in every part. The
pain, it is true, is not very great, but there is a great debility of
the system, and great uneasiness and grief, so much so, as almost to
drive the victim of the disease to self-destruction.

2. Moses acted the part of a wise legislator in making those laws which
have come down to us concerning the inspection and separation of leprous
persons. The object of these laws will appear peculiarly worthy, when it
is considered, that they were designed, not wantonly to fix the charge
of being a leper upon an innocent person, and thus to impose upon him
those restraints and inconveniences which the truth of such a charge
naturally implies, but to ascertain, in the fairest and most
satisfactory manner, and to separate those, and those only, who were
truly and really leprous. As this was the prominent object of his laws
that have come down to us on this subject, namely, to secure a fair and
impartial decision on a question of this kind, he has not mentioned
those signs of leprosy which admitted of no doubt, but those only which
might be the subject of contention; and left it to the priests, who also
fulfilled the office of physicians, to distinguish between the really
leprous, and those who had only the appearance of being such. We find
mention, in the rules laid down by Moses for the purpose of ascertaining
the true tokens of leprosy, of a cutaneous disorder which is denominated
by him _bohak_. The words of Moses, which may be found in Lev. xiii, 38,
39, are as follows: “If a man or woman have white spots on the skin, and
the priest see that the colour of these spots is faint and pale, it is,
in this case, the _bohak_ that has broken out on the skin, and they are
clean.” A person, accordingly, who was attacked with this disease, the
_bohak_, was not declared unclean; and the reason of it was, that it is
not only harmless in itself, but is free from that infectious and
hereditary character which belongs to the true leprosy. “The _bohak_”
says Mr. Niebuhr, “is neither infectious nor dangerous. A black boy at
Mocha, who was attacked with this sort of leprosy, had white spots here
and there on his body. It was said that the use of sulphur had for some
time been of service to this boy, but had not altogether removed the
disease.” He then adds the following extract from the papers of a Dr.
Foster: “May 15th, 1763, I myself saw a case of the _bohak_ in a Jew at
Mocha. The spots in this disease are of unequal size. They have no
shining appearance, nor are they perceptibly elevated above the skin;
and they do not change the colour of the hair. Their colour is an
obscure white or somewhat reddish. The rest of the skin of this patient
was blacker than that of the people of the country was in general, but
the spots were not so white as the skin of an European when not
sunburnt. The spots, in this species of leprosy, do not appear on the
hands, nor about the navel, but on the neck and face; not, however, on
that part of the head where the hair grows very thick. They gradually
spread, and continue sometimes only about two months; but in some cases,
indeed, as long as two years, and then disappear, by degrees, of
themselves. This disorder is neither infectious nor hereditary, nor does
it occasion any inconvenience.” “That all this,” remarks Michaëlis,
“should still be found exactly to hold at the distance of three thousand
five hundred years from the time of Moses, ought certainly to gain some
credit to his laws, even with those who will not allow them to be of
divine authority.” The pestilence, in its effects, is equally terrible
with the leprosy, and is much more rapid in its progress; for it
terminates the existence of those who are infected with it almost
immediately, and at the farthest within three or four days. The Gentiles
were in the habit of referring back the pestilence to the agency and
interference of that being, whatever it might be, whether idol or
spirit, whom they regarded as the divinity. The Hebrews, also, every
where attribute it to the agency either of God himself, or of that
legate or angel, whom they denominate מלאך.

3. The _palsy_ of the New Testament is a disease of very wide import.
Many infirmities, as Richter has demonstrated, were comprehended under
the word which is rendered _palsy_ in the New Testament. 1. The
apoplexy, a paralytic shock, which affected the whole body. 2. The
hemiplegy, which affects and paralyzes only one side of the body. 3. The
paraplegy, which paralyzes all the parts of the system below the neck.
4. The catalepsy, which is caused by a contraction of the muscles in the
whole or a part of the body, for example, in the hands, and is very
dangerous. The effects upon the parts seized are very violent and
deadly. For instance: when a person is struck with it, if his hand
happens to be extended, he is unable to draw it back. If the hand is not
extended when he is struck with the disease, he is unable to extend it:
it appears diminished in size, and dried up in appearance. Hence the
Hebrews were in the habit of calling it “a withered hand,” 1 Kings xiii,
4–6; Zech. xi, 17; Matt. xii, 10–13; John v, 3. 5. The cramp, in
oriental countries, is a fearful malady, and by no means unfrequent. It
originates from the chills of the night. The limbs, when seized with it,
remain immovable, sometimes turned in, and sometimes out, in the same
position as when they were first seized. The person afflicted resembles
those undergoing the torture βασανιζομένοι, and experiences nearly the
same exquisite sufferings. Death follows the disease in a few days,
Matt. viii, 6, 8; Luke vii, 2; 1 Macc. ix, 55–58.

DISPENSATIONS, DIVINE. These are otherwise called “the ways of God,” and
denote those schemes or methods which are devised and pursued by the
wisdom and goodness of God, in order to manifest his perfections and
will to mankind, for the purpose of their instruction, discipline,
reformation, and advancement in rectitude of temper and conduct, in
order to promote their happiness. These are the grand ends of the divine
dispensations; and in their aptitude to promote these ends consist their
excellence and glory. The works or constitutions of nature are, in a
general sense, divine dispensations, by which God condescends to display
to us his being and attributes, and thus to lead us to the
acknowledgment, adoration, and love, of our Creator, Father, and
Benefactor. The sacred Scriptures reveal and record other dispensations
of divine providence, which have been directed to the promotion of the
religious principles, moral conduct, and true happiness of mankind.
These have varied in several ages of the world, and have been adapted by
the wisdom and goodness of God to the circumstances of his intelligent
and accountable creatures. In this sense the various revelations which
God has communicated to mankind at different periods, and the means he
has used, as occasion has required, for their discipline and
improvement, have been justly denominated divine dispensations.
Accordingly, we read in the works of theological writers of the various
dispensations of religion; that of the patriarchs, that of Moses, and
that of Christ, called the dispensation of grace, the perfection and
ultimate object of every other. All these were adapted to the conditions
of the human race at these several periods; all, in regular succession,
were mutually connected and rendered preparatory one to the other; and
all were subservient to the design of saving the world, and promoting
the perfection and happiness of its rational and moral inhabitants. See
COVENANT.

DISPERSION OF MANKIND. See DIVISION OF THE EARTH.

DIVINATION, a conjecture or surmise, formed concerning future events,
from things which are supposed to presage them. The eastern people were
always fond of divination, magic, the curious arts of interpreting
dreams, and of obtaining a knowledge of future events. When Moses
published the law, this disposition had long been common in Egypt and
the neighbouring countries. To prevent the Israelites from consulting
diviners, fortune tellers, interpreters of dreams, &c, he forbade them,
under very severe penalties, to consult persons of this description, and
promised to them the true spirit of prophecy as infinitely superior. He
commanded those to be stoned who pretended to have a familiar spirit, or
the spirit of divination, Deut. xviii, 9, 10, 15. The writings of the
prophets are full of invectives against the Israelites who consulted
diviners, and against false prophets who by such means seduced the
people.

2. Different kinds of divination have passed for sciences, as 1.
Aëromancy, divining by the air. 2. Astrology, by the heavens. 3. Augury,
by the flight and singing of birds, &c. 4. Cheiromancy, by inspecting
the lines of the hand. 5. Geomancy, by observing cracks or clefts in the
earth. 6. Haruspicy, by inspecting the bowels of animals. 7. Horoscopy,
a branch of astrology, marking the position of the heavens when a person
is born. 8. Hydromancy, by water. 9. Physiognomy, by the countenance.
10. Pyromancy, a divination made by fire.

3. The kinds of divination, to which superstition in modern times has
given belief, are not less numerous, or less ridiculous, than those
which were practised in the days of profound ignorance. The divining
rod, which is mentioned in Scripture, is still in some repute in the
north of England, though its application is now confined principally to
the discovery of veins of lead ore, seams of coal, or springs. In order
that it may possess the full virtue for this purpose, it should be made
of hazel. Divination by Virgilian, Horatian, or Bible lots, was formerly
very common; and the last kind is still practised. The works are opened
by chance, and the words noticed which are covered by the thumb: if they
can be interpreted in any respect relating to the person, they are
reckoned prophetic. Charles I. is said to have used this kind of
divination to ascertain his fate. The ancient Christians were so much
addicted to the _sortes sanctorum_, or divining by the Bible, that it
was expressly forbidden by a council. Divination by the speal, or blade
bone of a sheep, is used in Scotland. In the Highlands it is called
_sleina-reached_, or reading the speal bone. It was very common in
England in the time of Drayton, particularly among the colony of
Flemings settled in Pembrokeshire. Camden relates of the Irish, that
they looked through the bare blade bone of a sheep; and if they saw any
spot in it darker than ordinary, they believed that somebody would be
buried out of the house. The Persians used this mode of divination.

4. Of all attempts to look into futurity by such means, as well as
resorting to charms and other methods of curing diseases, and
discovering secrets, we may say, that they are relics of Paganism, and
argue an ignorance, folly, or superstition, dishonourable to the
Christian name; and are therefore to be reproved and discouraged.

DIVISION OF THE EARTH. The prophecy of Noah, says Dr. Hales, was uttered
long after the deluge. It evidently alludes to a divine decree for the
orderly division of the earth among the three primitive families of his
sons, because it notices the “tents of Shem” and the “enlargement of
Japheth,” Genesis ix, 20–27. This decree was probably promulgated about
the same time by the venerable patriarch. The prevailing tradition of
such a decree for this threefold division of the earth, is intimated
both in the Old and New Testament. Moses refers to it, as handed down to
the Israelites, “from the days of old, and the years of many
generations; as they might learn from their fathers and their elders,”
and farther, as conveying a special grant of the land of Palestine, to
be the lot of the twelve tribes of Israel:--

     “When the Most High divided to the nations their settlements,
     When he separated the sons of Adam,
     He assigned the boundaries of the peoples [of Israel]
     According to the number of the sons of Israel:
     For the portion of the Lord is his people,
     Jacob is the lot of his inheritance,” Deut. xxxii, 7–9.

And this furnishes an additional proof of the justice of the expulsion
of the Canaanites, as usurpers, by the Israelites, the rightful
possessors of the land of Palestine, under Moses, Joshua, and their
successors, when the original grant was renewed to Abraham, Gen. xv,
13–21. And the knowledge of this divine decree may satisfactorily
account for the panic terror with which the devoted nations of Canaan
were struck at the miraculous passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites,
and approach to their confines, so finely described by Moses:--

         “The nations shall hear [this] and tremble,
         Sorrow shall seize the inhabitants of Palestine.
         Then shall the dukes of Edom be amazed,
         Dismay shall possess the princes of Moab,
         The inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away:
         Fear and terror shall fall upon them,
         By the greatness of thine arm they shall be petrified,
         Till thy people pass over [Jordan] O Lord,
         Till the people pass over, whom thou hast redeemed.”
                                           Exodus xv, 14–16.

St. Paul, also, addressing the Athenians, refers to the same decree, as
a well-known tradition in the Heathen world: “God made of one blood
every nation of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth; having
appointed the predetermined seasons and boundaries of their dwellings,”
Acts xvii, 26. Here he represents mankind as all of “one blood,” race,
or stock, “the sons of Adam” and of Noah in succession; and the seasons
and the boundaries of their respective settlements, as previously
regulated by the divine appointment. And this was conformable to their
own geographical allegory; that Chronus, the god of time, or Saturn,
divided the universe among his three sons, allotting the heaven to
Jupiter, the sea to Neptune, and hell to Pluto. But Chronus represented
Noah, who divided the world among his three sons, allotting the upper
regions of the north to Japheth, the maritime or middle regions to Shem,
and the lower regions of the south to Ham. According to the Armenian
tradition recorded by Abulfaragi, Noah distributed the habitable earth
from north to south between his sons, and gave to Ham the region of the
blacks, to Shem the region of the tawny, _fuscorum_, and to Japheth the
region of the ruddy, _rubrorum_: and he dates the actual division of the
earth in the hundred and fortieth year of Peleg, B. C. 2614, or five
hundred and forty-one years after the deluge, and one hundred and
ninety-one years after the death of Noah, in the following order:--“To
the sons of Shem was allotted the middle of the earth, namely,
Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Samaria, Singar, [or Shinar,] Babel, [or
Babylonia,] Persia, and Hegiaz; [Arabia;] to the sons of Ham, Teimen,
[or Idumea, Jer. xlix, 7,] Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia,
Scindia, and India; [or India west and east of the river Indus;] to the
sons of Japheth, also, Garbia, [the north,] Spain, France, the countries
of the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians.” In this
curious and valuable geographical chart, Armenia, the cradle of the
human race, was allotted to Japheth, by right of primogeniture; and
Samaria and Babel to the sons of Shem; the usurpation of these regions,
therefore, by Nimrod, and of Palestine by Canaan, was in violation of
the divine decree. Though the migration of the primitive families began
at this time, B. C. 2614, or about five hundred and forty-one years
after the deluge, it was a length of time before they all reached their
respective destinations. The “seasons,” as well as the “boundaries” of
their respective settlements were equally the appointment of God; the
nearer countries to the original settlement being planted first, and the
remoter in succession. These primitive settlements seem to have been
scattered and detached from each other according to local convenience.
Even so late as the tenth generation after the flood in Abraham’s days,
there were considerable tracts of land in Palestine unappropriated, on
which he and his nephew, Lot, freely pastured their cattle without
hinderance or molestation. That country was not fully peopled till the
fourth generation after, at the exode of the Israelites from Egypt. And
Herodotus represents Scythia as an uninhabited desert, until Targitorus
planted the first colony there, about a thousand years, at most, before
Darius Hystaspes invaded Scythia, or about B. C. 1508. The orderly
settlements of the three primitive families are recorded in that most
venerable and valuable geographical chart, the tenth chapter of Genesis,
in which it is curious to observe how long the names of the first
settlers have been preserved among their descendants, even down to the
present day:--

1. Japheth, the eldest son of Noah, Gen. x, 21, and his family, are
first noticed, Gen. x, 2–5. The name of the patriarch himself was
preserved among his Grecian descendants, in the proverb, τοῦ Ἰάπετου
ϖρεσβύτερος, _older than Japetus_, denoting the remotest antiquity. The
radical part of the word Ἰάπετ, evidently expresses _Japheth_. (1.)
Gomer, his eldest son, was the father of the Gomerians. These, spreading
from the regions north of Armenia and Bactriana, Ezek. xxxviii, 6,
extended themselves westward over nearly the whole continent of Europe;
still retaining their paternal denomination, with some slight variation,
as Cimmerians, in Asia; Cimbri and Umbri, in Gaul and Italy; and Cymri,
Cambri, and Cumbri, in Wales and Cumberland at the present day. They are
also identified by ancient authors with the Galatæ of Asia Minor, the
Gaels, Gauls, and Celtæ, of Europe, who likewise spread from the Euxine
Sea, to the Western Ocean; and from the Baltic to Italy southward, and
first planted the British Isles. Josephus remarks, that the Galatæ were
called Γομαρείς, _Gomariani_, from their ancestor Gomar. See the
numerous authorities adduced in support of the identity of the Gomerians
and Celts, by that learned and ingenious antiquary, Faber, in his
“Origin of Pagan Idolatry.” Of Gomer’s sons, Ashkenaz appears to have
settled on the coasts of the Euxine Sea, which from him seems to have
received its primary denomination of Ἄξενος, _Axenus_, nearly resembling
Ashkenaz; but forgetting its etymology in process of time, the Greeks
considered it as a compound term in their own language, Α-ξένος,
signifying _inhospitable_; and thence metamorphosed it into Εὖ-ξένος,
_Eu-xenus_, “very hospitable.” His precise settlement is represented in
Scripture as contiguous to Armenia, westward; for the kingdoms of
Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, are noticed together, Jer. li, 27. Riphat,
the second son of Gomer, seems to have given name to the Riphean
mountains of the north of Asia; and Togarmah, the third son, may be
traced in the Trocmi of Strabo, the Trogmi of Cicero, and Trogmades of
the council of Chalcedon, inhabiting the confines of Pontus and
Cappadocia. (2.) Magog, Tubal, and Mesech, sons of Japhet, are noticed
together by Ezekiel, as settled in the north, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 14, 15.
And as the ancestors of the numerous Sclavonic and Tartar tribes, the
first may be traced in the Mongogians, Monguls, and Moguls; the second,
in the Tobolski, of Siberia; and the third, Mesech, or Mosoc, in the
Moschici, Moscow, and Muscovites. (3.) Madai was the father of the
Medes, who are repeatedly so denominated in Scripture, 2 Kings xvii, 6;
Isa. xiii, 17; Jer. li, 11; Dan. v, 28, &c. (4.) From Javan was
descended the Javanians, or Ἰάονες of the Greeks, and the Yavanas of the
Hindus. Greece itself is called Javan by Daniel, xi, 2; and the people
Ἰάονες by Homer in his “Iliad.” These aboriginal Ἰάονες of Greece are
not to be confounded, as is usually the case, with the later Ἴωνες, who
invaded and subdued the Javanian territories, and were of a different
stock. The accurate Pausanias states, that the name of Ἴωνες, was
comparatively modern, while that of Ἰάονες is acknowledged to have been
the primitive title of the barbarians who were subdued by the Ἴωνες.
Strabo remarks that Attica was formerly called both Ionia and Ias, or
Ian; while Herodotus asserts, that the Athenians were not willing to be
called Ἴωνες; and he derives the name from Ἴων, the son of Zuth,
descended from Deucalion or Noah. And this Ion is said by Eusebius to
have been the ringleader in the building of the tower of Babel, and the
first introducer of idol worship, and Sabianism, or adoration of the
sun, moon, and stars. This would identify Ion with Nimrod. And the
Ionians appear to have been composed of the later colonists, the Palli,
Pelasgi, or roving tribes from Asia, Phenicia, and Egypt, who, according
to Herodotus, first corrupted the simplicity of the primitive religion
of Greece, and who, by the Hindus, were called Yonigas, or worshippers
of the yoni or dove. This critical distinction between the Iaones and
the Iones, the Yavanas, and the Yonigas, we owe to the sagacity of
Faber. Of Javan’s sons, Elishah and Dodon, may be recognized in Elis and
Dodona, the oldest settlements of Greece; Kittim, in the Citium of
Macedonia, and Chittim, or maritime coasts of Greece and Italy, Num.
xxiv, 24; and Tarshish, in the Tarsus of Cilicia, and Tartessus of
Spain.

2. Ham and his family are next noticed, Gen. x, 6–20. The name of the
patriarch is recorded in the title frequently given to Egypt, “The land
of Ham,” Psalm cv, 23, &c. (1.) Of his sons, the first and most
celebrated appears to have been Cush, who gave name to the land of Cush,
both in Asia and Africa; the former still called Chusistan by the
Arabian geographers, and Susiana by the Greeks, and Cusha Dwipa Within,
by the Hindus; the other, called Cusha Dwipa Without. And the
enterprising Cushim or Cuthim, of Scripture, in Asia and Europe, assumed
the title of Getæ, Guiths, and Goths; and of Scuths, Scuits, and Scots;
and of Sacas, Sacasenas, and Saxons. The original family settlement of
Abraham was “Ur of the Chasdim,” or Chaldees, Gen. xi, 28, who are
repeatedly mentioned in Scripture, Isa. xiii, 9; Dan. ix, 1, &c.
According to Faber’s ingenious remark, it may more properly be
pronounced Chus-dim, signifying Godlike Cushites. It is highly
improbable that they were so named from Chesed, Abraham’s nephew, Gen.
xxii, 22, who was a mere boy, if born at all, when Abraham left Ur, and
was an obscure individual, never noticed afterward. Of Cush’s sons,
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Sabtacha, and Raamah; and the sons of Raamah,
Sheba, and Dedan, seem to have settled in Idumea and Arabia, from the
similar names of places there; and of his descendants, Nimrod, the
mighty hunter, first founded the kingdom of Babylon, and afterward of
Assyria, invading the settlements of the Shemites, contrary to the
divine decree. His posterity were probably distinguished by the title of
Chusdim, Isaiah xxiii, 13. (2.) The second son of Ham was Misr, or
Mizraim. He settled in Egypt, whence the Egyptians were universally
styled in Scripture, Mizraim, or Mizraites, in the plural form. But the
country is denominated in the east, to this day, “the land of Misr;”
which, therefore, seems to have been the name of the patriarch himself.
The children of Misr, like their father, are denominated in Scripture by
the plural number. Of these, the Ludim and Lehabim were probably the
Copto-Libyans, Ezek. xxx, 5; the Naphtuhim occupied the sea coast, which
by the Egyptians was called Nephthus; whence, probably, originated the
name of the maritime god Neptune. The Pathrusim occupied a part of Lower
Egypt, called from them Pathros, Isa. xi, 11. The Caphtorim and the
Casluhim, whose descendants were the Philistim of Palestine, occupied
the district which lies between the delta of the Nile and the southern
extremity of Palestine, Deut. ii, 23; Amos ix, 7. (3.) Phut is merely
noticed, without any mention of his family. But the tribes of Phut and
Lud are mentioned together, with Cush, or Ethiopia, Jer. xlvi, 9; Ezek.
xxx, 5; and Jerom notices a district in Libya, called Regio Phutensis,
or the land of Phut. (4.) Canaan has been noticed already; and the
original extent of the land of Canaan is carefully marked by Moses. Its
western border, along the Mediterranean Sea, extended from Sidon,
southward, to Gaza; its southern border from thence, eastward, to Sodom
and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, the cities of the plain, afterward
covered by the Dead Sea, or Asphaltite Lake; its eastern border
extending from thence northward, to Laish, Dan, or the springs of the
Jordan; and its northern border, from thence to Sidon, westward. Of
Canaan’s sons, Sidon, the eldest, occupied the north-west corner, and
built the town of that name, so early celebrated for her luxury and
commerce in Scripture, Judges xviii, 7; 1 Kings v, 6; and by Homer, who
calls the Sidonians, πολυδαίδαλοι, _skilled in many arts_. And Tyre, so
flourishing afterward, though boasting of her own antiquity, Isa. xxiii,
7, is styled, “a daughter of Sidon,” or a colony from thence, Isa. v,
12. Heth, his second son, and the Hittites, his descendants appear to
have settled in the south, near Hebron, Gen. xxiii, 3–7; and next to
them, at Jerusalem, the Jebusites, or descendants of Jebus, both
remaining in their original settlements till David’s days; 2 Sam. xi, 3;
v, 6–9. Beyond the Jebusites, were settled the Emorites, or Amorites,
Num. xiii, 29, who extended themselves beyond Jordan, and were the most
powerful of the Canaanite tribes, Gen. xv, 16; Num. xxi, 21, until they
were destroyed by Moses and Joshua, with the rest of the devoted nations
of Canaan’s family.

3. Shem and his family are noticed last, Gen. x, 21–30. His posterity
were confined to middle Asia. (1.) His son Elam appears to have been
settled in Elymais, or southern Persia, contiguous to the maritime tract
of Chusistan, Dan. viii, 2. (2.) His son Ashur planted the land thence
called Assyria, which soon became a province of the Cushite, or Cuthic
empire, founded by Nimrod. (3.) Arphaxad, through his grandson, Eber,
branched out into the two houses of Peleg and Joktan. Peleg probably
remained in Chaldea, or southern Babylonia, at the time of the
dispersion; for there we find his grandson, Terah, and his family,
settled at “Ur of the Chaldees,” Gen. xi, 31. Of the numerous children
of Joktan, it is said by Moses, that “their dwelling was from Mesha, as
thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east.” Faber is inclined to
believe that they were the ancestors of the great body of the Hindus,
who still retain a lively tradition of the patriarch Shem, Shama, or
Sharma; and that the land of Ophir, abounding in gold, so called from
one of the sons of Joktan, lay beyond the Indus, eastward. (4.) Lud was
probably the father of the Ludim or Lydians, of Asia Minor; for this
people had a tradition that they were descended from Lud or Lydus,
according to Josephus. (5.) The children of Aram planted the fertile
country north of Babylonia, called Aram Naharaim, “Aram between the two
rivers,” the Euphrates and the Tigris, thence called by the Greeks,
Mesopotamis, Gen. xxiv, 10, and Padan Aram, the level country of Aram,
Gen. xxv, 20. This country of Aram is frequently rendered Syria in
Scripture, Judges x, 6; Hosea xii, 12, &c; which is not to be confounded
with Palestine Syria, into which they afterward spread themselves, still
retaining their original name of Ἄριμοι, or Arameans, noticed by Homer
in his “Iliad.”

4. Upon this distribution of Noah’s posterity we shall only observe,
that the Deity presided over all their counsels and deliberations, and
that he guided and settled all mankind according to the dictates of his
all-comprehending wisdom and benevolence. To this purpose, the ancients
themselves, according to Pindar, retained some idea that the dispersion
of men was not the effect of chance, but that they had been settled in
different countries by the appointment of Providence, Gen. xi, 8, 9;
Deut. xxii, 8. This dispersion, and that confusion of languages with
which it originated, was intended, by the counsel of an all-wise
Providence, to counteract and defeat the scheme which had been projected
by the descendants of Noah, for maintaining their union, implied in
their proposing to make themselves a name, שם, which Schultens, in Job
i, 1, derives from the Arabic verb שמה, or שמש, _to be high elevated_,
or _eminent_. By this scheme, which seems to have been a project of
state policy, for keeping all men together under the present chiefs and
their successors, a great part of the earth must, for a long time, have
been uninhabited, and overrun with wild beasts. The bad effects which
this project would have had upon the minds, the morals, and religion of
mankind, was, probably, the chief reason why God interposed to frustrate
it as soon as it was formed. It had manifestly a direct tendency to
tyranny, oppression, and slavery. Whereas in forming several independent
governments by a small body of men, the ends of government, and the
security of liberty and property, would be much better attended to, and
more firmly established; which, in fact, was really the case; if we may
judge of the rest by the constitution of one of the most eminent, the
kingdom of Egypt, Gen. xlvii, 15–27. The Egyptians were masters of their
persons and property, till they sold them to Pharaoh for bread; and then
their servitude amounted to no more than the fifth part of the produce
of the country, as an annual tax payable to the king. By this event,
considered as a wise dispensation of Providence, bounds were set to the
contagion of wickedness; evil example was confined, and could not extend
its influence beyond the limits of one country; nor could wicked
projects be carried on, with universal concurrence, by many small
colonies, separated by the natural boundaries of mountains, rivers,
barren deserts, and seas, and hindered from associating together by a
variety of languages, unintelligible to each other. Moreover, in this
dispersed state, they could, whenever God pleased, be made reciprocal
checks upon each other, by invasions and wars, which would weaken the
power, and humble the pride, of corrupt and vicious communities. This
dispensation was, therefore, properly calculated to prevent a second
universal degeneracy; God dealing in it with men as rational agents, and
adapting his scheme to their state and circumstances.

DIVORCE. As the ancient Hebrews paid a stipulated price for the
privilege of marrying, they seemed to consider it the natural
consequence of making a payment of that kind, that they should be at
liberty to exercise a very arbitrary power over their wives, and to
renounce or divorce them whenever they chose. This state of things, as
Moses himself very clearly saw, was not equitable as respected the
woman, and was very often injurious to both parties. Finding himself,
however, unable to overrule feelings and practices of very ancient
standing, he merely annexed to the original institution of marriage a
very serious admonition to this effect, viz. that it would be less
criminal for a man to desert his father and mother, than without
adequate cause to desert his wife, Gen. ii, 14, compared with Malachi
ii, 11–16. He also laid a restriction upon the power of the husband as
far as this, that he would not permit him to repudiate the wife without
giving her a bill of divorce. He farther enacted in reference to this
subject that the husband might receive the repudiated wife back, in case
she had not in the meanwhile been married to another person; but if she
had been thus married, she could never afterward become the wife of her
first husband; a law, which the faith due to the second husband clearly
required, Deut. xxiv, 1–4, compare Jer. iii, 1, and Matt. i, 19; xix, 8.
The inquiry, “What should be considered an adequate cause of divorce,”
was left by Moses to be determined by the husband himself. He had
liberty to divorce her, if he saw in her _any thing naked_, any thing
displeasing or improper, any thing so much at war with propriety, and a
source of so much dissatisfaction as to be, in the estimation of the
husband, sufficient ground for separation. These expressions, however,
were sharply contested as to their meaning in the later times of the
Jewish nation. The school of Hillel contended, that the husband might
lawfully put away the wife for any cause, even the smallest. The mistake
committed by the school of Hillel in taking this ground was, that they
confounded moral and civil law. It is true, as far as the Mosaic statute
or the civil law was concerned, the husband had a right thus to do; but
it is equally clear, that the ground of just separation must have been,
not a _trivial_, but a prominent and important one, when it is
considered, that he was bound to consult the rights of the woman, and
was amenable to his conscience and his God. The school of Shammai
explained the phrase, _nakedness of a thing_, to mean _actual adultery_.
Our Lord agreed with the school of Shammai as far as this, that the
ground of divorce should be one of a moral nature, and not less than
adultery; but he does not appear to have agreed with them in their
opinion in respect to the Mosaic statute. On the contrary, he denied the
equity of that statute, and in justification of Moses maintained, that
he permitted divorces for causes below adultery, only in consequence of
the hardness of the people’s hearts, Matt. v, 31, 32; xviii, 1–9; Mark
x, 2–12; Luke xvi, 18. Wives, who were considered the property of their
husbands, did not enjoy by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and
were not at liberty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a
bill of divorce to that effect. In the latter periods, however, of the
Jewish state, the Jewish matrons, the more powerful of them at least,
appear to have imbibed the spirit of the ladies of Rome, and to have
exercised in their own behalf the same power that was granted by the
Mosaic law only to their husbands, Mark vi, 17–29; x, 12.

DOCETÆ, the advocates of an early heresy, which taught that Christ acted
and suffered, not in reality, but in appearance. They were so
denominated from δοκεῖν, _to appear_. See GNOSTICS.

DOCTORS, or TEACHERS, of the law, a class of men in great repute among
the Jews. They had studied the law of Moses in its various branches, and
the numerous interpretations which had been grafted upon it in later
times; and, on various occasions, they gave their opinion on cases
referred to them for advice. Nicodemus, himself a doctor (διδάσκαλος,
_teacher_) of the law, comes to consult Jesus, whom he compliments in
the same terms as he was accustomed to receive from his scholars:
“Rabbi, we know that thou art διδάσκαλος, a competent teacher from God.”
Doctors of the law were chiefly of the sect of the Pharisees; but they
are sometimes distinguished from that sect, Luke v, 17.

DOG, כלב, an animal well known. By the law of Moses, the dog was
declared unclean, and was held in great contempt among the Jews, 1 Sam.
xvii, 43; xxiv, 14; 2 Sam. ix, 8; 2 Kings viii, 13. Yet they had them in
considerable numbers in their cities. They were not, however, shut up in
their houses or courts, but forced to seek their food where they could
find it. The Psalmist compares violent men to dogs, who go about the
city in the night, prowl about for their food, and growl, and become
clamorous if they be not satisfied, Psalm lix, 6, 14, 15. Mr. Harmer has
illustrated this by quotations from travellers into the east. The Turks
also reckon the dog a filthy creature, and therefore drive him from
their houses; so that with them dogs guard rather the streets and
districts, than particular houses, and live on the offals that are
thrown abroad. In 1 Sam. xxv, 3, Nabal is said to have been “churlish
and evil in his manners; and he was of the house of Caleb;” but Caleb
here is not a proper name. Literally, it is, “He was the son of a dog;”
and so the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic render it,--he was irritable,
snappish, and snarling as a dog. The irritable disposition of the dog is
the foundation of that saying, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with
strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears,”
Prov. xxvi, 17; that is, he wantonly exposes himself to danger.

In 1 Kings xxi, 23, it is said, “The dogs shall eat Jezebel.” Mr. Bruce,
when at Gondar, was witness to a scene in a great measure similar to the
devouring of Jezebel by dogs. He says, “The bodies of those killed by
the sword were hewn to pieces, and scattered about the streets, being
denied burial. I was miserable, and almost driven to despair, at seeing
my hunting dogs, twice let loose by the carelessness of my servants,
bringing into the court yard the heads and arms of slaughtered men, and
which I could no way prevent but by the destruction of the dogs
themselves.” He also adds, that upon being asked by the king the reason
of his dejected and sickly appearance, among other reasons, he informed
him, “it was occasioned by an execution of three men, which he had
lately seen; because the hyænas, allured into the streets by the
quantity of carrion, would not let him pass by night in safety from the
palace; and because the dogs fled into his house, to eat pieces of human
carcasses at their leisure.” This account illustrates also the readiness
of the dogs to lick the blood of Ahab, 1 Kings xxii, 38; in conformity
to which is the expression of the Prophet Jeremiah, xv, 3, “I will
appoint over them the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear.”

2. The dog was held sacred by the Egyptians. This fact we learn from
Juvenal, who complains, in his fifteenth satire,

              _Oppida tota canem vencrantur, nemo Dianam._

              “Thousands regard the hound with holy fear,
              Not one, Diana.”
                                              GIFFORD.

The testimony of the Latin poet is confirmed by Diodorus, who, in his
first book, assures us that the Egyptians highly venerate some animals,
both during their life and after their death; and expressly mentions the
dog as one object of this absurd adoration. To these witnesses may be
added Herodotus, who says, that when a dog expires, all the members of
the family to which he belonged worship the carcass; and that, in every
part of the kingdom, the carcasses of their dogs are embalmed, and
deposited in consecrated ground. The idolatrous veneration of the dog by
the Egyptians is shown in the worship of their dog-god Anubis, to whom
temples and priests were consecrated, and whose image was borne in all
religious ceremonies. Cynopolis, the present Minieh, situated in the
lower Thebais, was built in honour of Anubis. The priests celebrated his
festivals there with great pomp. “Anubis,” says Strabo, “is the city of
dogs, the capital of the Cynopolitan prefecture. These animals are fed
there on sacred aliments, and religion has decreed them a worship.” An
event, however, related by Plutarch, brought them into considerable
discredit with the people. Cambyses, having slain the god Apis, and
thrown his body into the field, all animals respected it except the
dogs, which alone ate of his flesh. This impiety diminished the popular
veneration. Cynopolis was not the only city where incense was burned on
the altars of Anubis. He had chapels in almost all the temples. On
solemnities, his image always accompanied those of Isis and Osiris.
Rome, having adopted the ceremonies of Egypt, the emperor Commodus, to
celebrate the Isiac feasts, shaved his head, and himself carried the dog
Anubis.

3. In Matt. vii, 6, we have this direction of our Saviour: “Give not
that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they,” the swine, “trample them under their feet, and,” the
dogs, “turn again and tear you.” It was customary, not only with the
writers of Greece and Rome, but also with the eastern sages, to denote
certain classes of men by animals supposed to resemble them among the
brutes. Our Saviour was naturally led to adopt the same concise and
energetic method. By _dogs_, which were held in great detestation by the
Jews, he intends men of odious character and violent temper; by _swine_,
the usual emblem of moral filth, he means the sensual and profligate;
and the purport of his admonition is, that as it is a maxim with the
priests not to give any part of the sacrifices to dogs, so it should be
a maxim with you not to impart the holy instruction with which you are
favoured, to those who are likely to blaspheme and to be only excited by
it to rage and persecution. It is, however, a maxim of _prudence_ not of
_cowardice_; and is to be taken along with other precepts of our Lord,
which enjoin the publication of truth, at the expense of ease and even
life.

DORT, _Synod of_. See SYNODS.

DOVE, יונה. This beautiful genus of birds is very numerous in the east.
In the wild state they generally build their nests in the holes or
clefts of rocks, or in excavated trees; but they are easily taught
submission and familiarity with mankind; and, when domesticated, build
in structures erected for their accommodation, called “dove-cotes.” They
are classed by Moses among the clean birds; and it appears from the
sacred as well as other writers, that doves were always held in the
highest estimation among the eastern nations. Rosenmuller, in a note
upon Bochart, derives the name from the Arabic, where it signifies
_mildness_, _gentleness_, &c. The dove is mentioned in Scripture as the
symbol of simplicity, innocence, gentleness, and fidelity, Hosea vii,
11; Matt. x, 16.

The following extract from Morier’s Persian Travels illustrates a
passage in Isaiah: “In the environs of the city, to the westward, near
the Zainderood, are many pigeon houses, erected at a distance from
habitations, for the sole purpose of collecting pigeons’ dung for
manure. They are large round towers, rather broader at the bottom than
the top, and crowned by conical spiracles, through which the pigeons
descend. Their interior resembles a honey-comb, pierced with a thousand
holes, each of which forms a snug retreat for a nest. More care appears
to have been bestowed upon their outside than upon that of the
generality of the dwelling houses; for they are painted and ornamented.
The extraordinary flights of pigeons which I have seen alight upon one
of these buildings afford, perhaps, a good illustration for the passage
in Isaiah lx, 8: ‘Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to
their windows?’ Their great numbers, and the compactness of their mass,
literally look like a cloud at a distance, and obscure the sun in their
passage.”

The first mention of the dove in the Scripture is Genesis viii, 8,
10–12, where Noah sent one from the ark to ascertain if the waters of
the deluge had assuaged. She was sent forth thrice. The first time she
speedily returned; having, in all probability, gone but a little way
from the ark, as she must naturally be terrified at the appearance of
the waters. After seven days, being sent out a second time, she returned
with an olive leaf plucked off, whereby it became evident that the flood
was considerably abated, and had sank below the tops of the trees; and
thus relieved the fears and cheered the heart of Noah and his family.
And hence the olive branch has ever been among the forerunners of peace,
and chief of those emblems by which a happy state of renovation and
restoration to prosperity has been signified to mankind. At the end of
other seven days, the dove, being sent out a third time, returned no
more; from which Noah conjectured that the earth was so far drained as
to afford sustenance for the birds and fowls; and he therefore removed
the covering of the ark, which probably gave liberty to many of the
fowls to fly off; and these circumstances afforded him the greater
facility for making arrangements for disembarking the other animals.
Doves might be offered in sacrifice, when those who were poor could not
bring a more costly offering.

DOWRY. See BRIDE.

DRACHMA. The value of a common drachma was sevenpence, English. A
didrachma, or double drachma, made very near half a shekel; and four
drachmas made nearly a shekel.

DRAGON. This word is frequently to be met with in our English
translation of the Bible. It answers generally to the Hebrew תן, תנין,
תנים; and these words are variously rendered _dragons_, _serpents_,
_sea-monsters_, and _whales_. The Rev. James Hurdis, in a dissertation
relative to this subject, observes, that the word translated “whales,”
in Gen. i, 21, occurs twenty-seven times in Scripture; and he attempts,
with much ingenuity, to prove that it every where signifies the
crocodile. That it sometimes has this meaning, he thinks is clear from
Ezekiel xxix, 3: “Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the
great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers.” For, to what could
a king of Egypt be more properly compared than the crocodile? The same
argument he draws from Isaiah li, 9: “Art thou not he that hath cut
Rahab, [Egypt,] and wounded the dragon?” Among the ancients the
crocodile was the symbol of Egypt, and appears so on Roman coins. Some
however have thought the hippopotamus intended; others, one of the
larger species of serpents.

DRAUGHTS, stupifying potions. At the time of execution, they gave the
malefactor a grain of frankincense in a cup of wine, in order to stupify
and render him less sensible of pain. This custom is traced to the
charge of the wise man: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to
perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts,” Prov. xxxiv, 6. The
prophet makes an allusion to the powerful effects of this stupifying
draught, in that prediction which announces the judgments of God upon
the empire of Babylon: “Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and
cause all the nations to whom I send thee to drink it. And they shall
drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send
among them,” Jer. xxv, 15, 16. The Jews, according to the custom of
their country, gave our Lord wine mingled with myrrh at his crucifixion.
See CROSS.

DREAMS. The easterns, in particular the Jews, greatly regarded dreams,
and applied for their interpretation to those who undertook to explain
them. The ancient Greeks and Romans had the same opinion of them, as
appears from their most eminent writers. We see the antiquity of this
attention to dreams in the history of Pharaoh’s butler and baker, Gen.
xl. Pharaoh himself, and Nebuchadnezzar, are instances. God expressly
condemned to death all who pretended to have prophetic dreams, and to
foretel futurities, even though what they foretold came to pass, if they
had any tendency to promote idolatry, Deut. xiii, 1–3. But the people
were not forbidden, when they thought they had a significative dream, to
address the prophets of the Lord, or the high priest in his ephod, to
have it explained. Saul, before the battle of Gilboa, consulted a woman
who had a familiar spirit, “because the Lord would not answer him by
dreams, nor by prophets,” 1 Sam. xxviii, 6, 7. The Lord himself
sometimes discovered his will in dreams, and enabled persons to explain
them. He informed Abimelech in a dream, that Sarah was the wife of
Abraham, Gen. xx, 3, 6. He showed Jacob the mysterious ladder in a
dream, Gen. xxviii, 12, 13; and in a dream an angel suggested to him a
means of multiplying his flocks, Genesis xxxi, 11, 12, &c. Joseph was
favoured very early with prophetic dreams, whose signification was
easily discovered by Jacob, Gen. xxxvii, 5. God said, that he spake to
other prophets in dreams, but to Moses face to face. The Midianites gave
credit to dreams, as appears from that which a Midianite related to his
companion; and from whose interpretation Gideon took a happy omen,
Judges vii, 13, 15. The Prophet Jeremiah exclaims against impostors who
pretended to have had dreams, and abused the credulity of the people:
“They prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.
The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my
word, let him tell it faithfully, saith the Lord,” Jer. xxiii, 25, 28,
29. The Prophet Joel promises from God, that in the reign of the
Messiah, the effusion of the Holy Spirit should be so copious, that the
old men should have prophetic dreams, and the young men should receive
visions, Joel ii, 28.

DRESS. See HABITS.

DROMEDARY. This name answers to two words in the original, בכר, and
feminine בכרה, Isa. lx, 6; Jer. ii, 24; and אחשתרנים, Esther viii, 10,
“young dromedaries;” probably the name in Persian. The dromedary is a
race of camels chiefly remarkable for its prodigious swiftness. The most
observable difference between it and the camel is, that it has but one
protuberance on the back; and instead of the slow solemn walk to which
that animal is accustomed, it will go as far in one day as the camel in
three. For this reason it is used to carry messengers where haste is
required. The animal is governed by a bridle, which, being usually
fastened to a ring fixed in the nose, may very well illustrate the
expression, 2 Kings xix, 28, of turning back Sennacherib by putting a
hook into his nose; and may farther indicate his swift retreat.

DUST, or ashes, cast on the head was a sign of mourning, Josh. vii, 6:
sitting in the dust, a sign of affliction, Lam. iii, 29; Isaiah xlvii,
1. The dust also denotes the grave, Gen. iii, 19; Job vii, 21; Psalm
xxii, 15. It is put for a great multitude, Gen. xiii, 16; Numbers xxiii,
10. It signifies a low or mean condition, 1 Sam. ii, 8; Nahum iii, 18.
To shake or wipe off the dust of a place from one’s feet, marks the
renouncing of all intercourse with it in future. God threatens the Jews
with rain of dust, &c; Deut. xxviii, 24. An extract from Sir T. Roe’s
embassy may cast light on this: “Sometimes, in India, the wind blows
very high in hot and dry seasons, raising up into the air a very great
height, thick clouds of dust and sand. These dry showers most grievously
annoy all those among whom they fall; enough to smite them all with
present blindness; filling their eyes, ears, nostrils, and mouths too,
if not well guarded; searching every place, as well within as without,
so that there is not a little key-hole of any trunk or cabinet, if it be
not covered, but receives this dust; add to this, that the fields,
brooks, and gardens, suffer extremely from these terrible showers.”

2. In almost every part of Asia, those who demand justice against a
criminal throw dust upon him, signifying that he deserves to lose his
life, and be cast into the grave; and that this is the true
interpretation of the action, is evident from an imprecation in common
use among the Turks and Persians, “Be covered with earth!” “Earth be
upon thy head.” We have two remarkable instances of casting dust
recorded in Scripture: the first is that of Shimei, who gave vent to his
secret hostility to David, when he fled before his rebellious son, by
throwing stones at him, and casting dust, 2 Sam. xvi, 13. It was an
ancient custom, in those warm and arid countries, to lay the dust before
a person of distinction, and particularly before kings and princes, by
sprinkling the ground with water. To throw dust into the air while a
person was passing, was therefore an act of great disrespect; to do so
before a sovereign prince, an indecent outrage. But it is clear that
Shimei meant more than disrespect and outrage to an afflicted king,
whose subject he was: he intended to signify by that action, that David
was unfit to live, and that the time was at last arrived to offer him a
sacrifice to the ambition and vengeance of the house of Saul. This view
of his conduct is confirmed by the behaviour of the Jews to the Apostle
Paul, when they seized him in the temple, and had nearly succeeded in
putting him to death: they cried out, “Away with such a fellow from the
earth, for it is not fit that he should live; and as they cried out and
cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, the chief captain
commanded him to be brought into the castle,” Acts xxii, 23. A great
similarity appears between the conduct of the Jews on this occasion, and
the behaviour of the peasants in Persia, when they go to court to
complain of the governors, whose oppressions they can no longer endure.
They carry their complaints against their governors by companies,
consisting of several hundreds, and sometimes of a thousand; they repair
to that gate of the palace nearest to which their prince is most likely
to be, where they set themselves to make the most horrid cries, tearing
their garments, and throwing dust into the air, and demanding justice.
The king, upon hearing these cries, sends to know the occasion of them:
the people deliver their complaints in writing, upon which he informs
them that he will commit the cognizance of the affair to such a one as
he names; and in consequence of this, justice is usually obtained.


EAGLE, נשר, Exod. xix, 4; Lev. xi, 13. The name is derived from a verb
which signifies to _lacerate_, or _tear in pieces_. The eagle has always
been considered as the king of birds, on account of its great strength,
rapidity and elevation of flight, natural ferocity, and the terror it
inspires into its fellows of the air. Its voracity is so great that a
large extent of territory is requisite for the supply of proper
sustenance; and providence has therefore constituted it a solitary
animal: two pair of eagles are never found in the same neighbourhood,
though the genus is dispersed through every quarter of the world. Its
sight is quick, strong, and piercing, to a proverb. In Job xxxix, 27,
the natural history of the eagle is finely drawn up:--

             Is it at thy voice that the eagle soars?
             And therefore maketh his nest on high?
             The rock is the place of his habitation.
             He abides on the crag, the place of strength.
             Thence he pounces upon his prey.
             His eyes discern afar off.
             Even his young ones drink down blood;
             And wherever is slaughter, there is he.

Alluding to the popular opinion that the eagle assists its feeble young
in their flight, by bearing them up on its own pinions, Moses represents
Jehovah as saying, “Ye have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I
bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself,” Exod. xix, 4.
Scheuchzer has quoted from an ancient poet, the following beautiful
paraphrase on this passage:--

          _Ac velut alituum princeps, fulvusque tonantis
          Armiger, implumes, et adhue sine robore natos
          Sollicita refovet cura, pinguisque ferinæ
          Indulget pastus: mox ut cum viribus alæ
          Vesticipes crevere, vocat se blandior aura,
          Expansa invitat pluma, dorsoque morantes
          Excipit, attollitque humeris, plausuque secundo
          Fertur in arva, timens oneri, et tamen impete presso
          Remigium tentans alarum, incurvaque pinnis
          Vela legens, humiles tranat sub nubibus oras.
          Hinc sensim supra alta petit, jam jamque sub astra
          Erigitur, cursusque leves citus urget in auras,
          Omnia pervolitans late loca, et agmine fœtus
          Fertque refertque suos vario, moremque volandi
          Addocet: illi autem, longa assuetudine docti,
          Paulatim incipiunt pennis se credere cælo
          Impavidi: tantum a teneris valet addere curam._

[And as the king of birds, and tawny armour-bearer of the Thunderer,
cherishes with anxious care his unfledged, and as yet feeble young, and
gratifies their appetite with rich prey: presently when their downy
wings have increased in strength, a milder air calls them forth, with
expanded plumage he invites them, and receives them hesitating on his
back, and sustains them on his shoulders, and with easy flight is borne
over the fields, fearing for his burden, and yet with a moderated effort
trying the rowing of their wings, and furling with his pinions his
curved sails, he glides through the low regions beneath the clouds.
Hence by degrees he soars aloft, and now he mounts to the starry heaven,
and swiftly urges his rapid flight through the air, sweeping widely over
space, and in his gyrations bearing his offspring to and fro, teaches
them the art of flying:--but they, taught by long practice, gradually
begin to trust themselves fearlessly on their wings: So much does it
avail to train the young with care.]

2. When Balaam delivered his predictions respecting the fate that
awaited the nations which he then particularized, he said of the
Kenites, “Strong is thy dwelling, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock,”
Num. xxiv, 21; alluding to that princely bird, the eagle, which not only
delights in soaring to the loftiest heights, but chooses the highest
rocks, and most elevated mountains, as desirable situations for erecting
its nest, Hab. ii, 9; Obad. 4. What Job says concerning the eagle, which
is to be understood in a literal sense, “Where the slain are, there is
he,” our Saviour turns into a fine parable: “Wheresoever the carcass is,
there will the eagles be gathered together,” Matt. xxiv, 28; that is,
Wherever the Jews are, who have corruptly fallen from God, there will be
the Romans, who bore the eagle as their standard, to execute vengeance
upon them, Luke xvii, 37.

3. The swiftness of the flight of the eagle is alluded to in several
passages of Scripture; as, “The Lord shall bring a nation against thee
from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth,”
Deut. xxviii, 49. In the affecting lamentation of David over Saul and
Jonathan, their impetuous and rapid career is described in forcible
terms: “They were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions,” 2
Sam. i, 23. Jeremiah when he beheld in vision the march of
Nebuchadnezzar, cried, “Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his
chariots shall be as a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles. Wo
unto us, for we are spoiled,” Jer. iv, 13. To the wide-expanded wings of
the eagle, and the rapidity of his flight, the same prophet beautifully
alludes in a subsequent chapter, where he describes the subversion of
Moab by the same ruthless conqueror: “Behold, he shall fly as an eagle,
and spread his wings over Moab,” Jer. xlviii, 40. In the same manner he
describes the sudden desolations of Ammon in the next chapter; but, when
he turns his eye to the ruins of his own country, he exclaims, in still
more energetic language, “Our persecutors are swifter than the eagles of
the heavens,” Lament. iv, 19. Under the same comparison the patriarch
Job describes the rapid flight of time: “My days are passed away, as the
eagle that hasteth to the prey,” Job ix, 26. The surprising rapidity
with which the blessings of common providence sometimes vanish from the
grasp of the possessor is thus described by Solomon: “Riches certainly
make themselves wings: they fly away as an eagle toward heaven,” Prov.
xxiii, 5. The flight of this bird is as sublime as it is rapid and
impetuous. None of the feathered race soar so high. In his daring
excursions he is said to leave the clouds of heaven, and regions of
thunder, and lightning, and tempest, far beneath him, and to approach
the very limits of ether. There is an allusion to this lofty soaring in
the prophecy of Obadiah, concerning the pride of Moab: “Though thou
exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the
stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord,” Obad. 4. The
prophet Jeremiah pronounces the doom of Edom in similar terms: “O thou
that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the
hill; though thou shouldest make thy nest high as the eagle, I will
bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord,” Jer. xlix, 16. The eagle
lives and retains its vigour to a great age; and, after moulting, renews
its vigour so surprisingly, as to be said, hyperbolically, to become
young again, Psalm ciii, 5, and Isaiah xl, 31. It is remarkable that
Cyrus, compared, in Isaiah xlvi, 11, to an eagle, (so the word
translated “ravenous bird” should be rendered,) had an eagle for his
ensign according to Xenophon, who uses, without knowing it, the
identical word of the prophet, with only a Greek termination to it: so
exact is the correspondence between the prophet and the historian, the
prediction and the event. Xenophon and other ancient historians inform
us that the golden eagle with extended wings was the ensign of the
Persian monarchs long before it was adopted by the Romans; and it is
very probable that the Persians borrowed the symbol from the ancient
Assyrians, in whose banners it waved, till imperial Babylon bowed her
head to the yoke of Cyrus. If this conjecture be well founded, it
discovers the reason why the sacred writers, in describing the
victorious march of the Assyrian armies, allude so frequently to the
expanded eagle. Referring to the Babylonian monarch, the prophet Hosea
proclaimed in the ears of all Israel, the measure of whose iniquities
was nearly full, “He shall come as an eagle against the house of the
Lord,” Hosea viii, 1. Jeremiah predicted a similar calamity: “Thus saith
the Lord, Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and spread his wings over
Moab,” Jer. xlviii, 40; and the same figure was employed to denote the
destruction that overtook the house of Esau: “Behold, he shall come up
and fly as the eagle, and spread his wings over Bozrah,” xlix, 22. The
words of these prophets received a full accomplishment in the
irresistible impetuosity and complete success with which the Babylonian
monarchs, and particularly Nebuchadnezzar, pursued their plans of
conquest. Ezekiel denominates him, with great propriety, “a great eagle
with great wings,” because he was the most powerful monarch of his time,
and led into the field more numerous and better appointed armies, (which
the prophet calls, by a beautiful figure, “his wings,” the wings of his
army,) than perhaps the world had ever seen. The Prophet Isaiah,
referring to the same monarch, predicted the subjugation of Judea in
these terms: “He shall pass through Judah. He shall overflow, and go
over. He shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his
wings” (the array of his army) “shall fill the breadth of thy land, O
Immanuel,” Isaiah viii, 8. The king of Egypt is also styled by Ezekiel,
“a great eagle, with great wings, and many feathers;” but he manifestly
gives the preference to the king of Babylon, by adding, that he had
“long wings, full of feathers, which had divers colours;” that is,
greater wealth, and a more numerous army.

EAR, the organ of hearing. The Scripture uses the term figuratively.
Uncircumcised ears are ears inattentive to the word of God. To signify
God’s regard to the prayers of his people, the Psalmist says, “His ears
are open to their cry,” Psalm xxxiv, 15. Among the Jews, the slave, who
renounced the privilege of being made free from servitude in the
sabbatical year, submitted to have his ear bored through with an awl;
which was done in the presence of some judge, or magistrate, that it
might appear a voluntary act. The ceremony took place at his master’s
door, and was the mark of servitude and bondage. The Psalmist says, in
the person of the Messiah, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not
desire; mine ears hast thou opened.” Heb. “Thou hast digged my ears.”
This either means, Thou hast opened them, removed impediments, and made
them attentive; or, thou hast pierced them, as those of such servants
were pierced, who chose to remain with their masters; and therefore
imports the _absolute_ and _voluntary_ submission of Messiah to the will
of the Father. “Make the ears of this people heavy,” Isaiah vi, 10; that
is, render their minds inattentive and disobedient; the prophets being
said often to do that of which they were the innocent occasion.

EAR-RINGS and nose-jewels were favourite ornaments among the eastern
females. Both are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Thus the Prophet
Ezekiel: “And I put a jewel on thy forehead,” or, as it should have been
rendered, on thy nose. This ornament was one of the presents which the
servant of Abraham gave to Rebecca, in the name of his master: “I put,”
said he, “the ear-ring upon her face;” more literally, I put the ring on
her nose. They wore ear-rings beside; for the household of Jacob, at his
request, when they were preparing to go up to Bethel, gave him all the
ear-rings which were in their ears, and he hid them under the oak which
was by Shechem. Sir John Chardin says, “It is the custom in almost all
the east for the women to wear rings in their noses, in the left
nostril, which is bored low down in the middle. These rings are of gold,
and have commonly two pearls and one ruby between them, placed in the
ring; I never saw a girl, or young woman in Arabia, or in all Persia,
who did not wear a ring after this manner in her nostril.” Some writers
contend, that by the nose-jewel, we are to understand rings, which women
attached to their forehead, and let them fall down upon their nose; but
Chardin, who certainly was a diligent observer of eastern customs, no
where saw this frontal ring in the east, but every where the ring in the
nose. His testimony is supported by Dr. Russel, who describes the women
in some of the villages about Aleppo, and all the Arabs and Chinganas,
(a sort of gipsies,) as wearing a large ring of silver or gold, through
the external cartilage of their right nostril. It is worn, by the
testimony of Egmont, in the same manner by the women of Egypt. Two words
are used in the Scriptures to denote these ornamental rings, נזם and
עגיל. Mr. Harmer seems to think they properly signified ear-rings; but
this is a mistake; the sacred writers use them promiscuously for the
rings both of the nose and of the ears. That writer, however, is
probably right in supposing that _nezem_ is the name of a much smaller
ring than _agil_. Chardin observed two sorts of rings in the east; one
so small and close to the ear, that there is no vacuity between them;
the other so large, as to admit the fore finger between it and the ear;
these last are adorned with a ruby and a pearl on each side, strung on
the ring. Some of these ear-rings had figures upon them, and strange
characters, which he believed were talismans or charms; but which were
probably the names and symbols of their false gods. We know from the
testimony of Pliny, that rings with the images of their gods were worn
by the Romans. The Indians say, they are preservatives against
enchantment; upon which Chardin hazards a very probable conjecture, that
the ear-rings of Jacob’s family were perhaps of this kind, which might
be the reason of his demanding them, that he might bury them under the
oak before they went up to Bethel.

EARTH is used for that gross element which sustains and nourishes us by
producing plants and fruits; for the continent as distinguished from the
sea, “God called the dry land earth,” Gen. i, 10; for the terraqueous
globe, and its contents, men, animals, plants, metals, waters, &c. “The
earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof”, Psalm xxiv, 1; for the
inhabitants of the earth, or continent, “The whole earth was of one
language,” Genesis xi, 1; for Judea, or the whole empire of Chaldea and
Assyria. Thus Cyrus says, Ezra i, 2, “The Lord God of heaven hath given
me all the kingdoms of the earth.” The restriction of the term “earth”
to Judea is more common in Scripture than is usually supposed; and this
acceptation of it has great effect on several passages, in which it
ought to be so understood.

Earth in a moral sense is opposed to heaven, and to what is spiritual.
“He that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth; he that
cometh from above is above all,” John iii, 31. “If ye then be risen with
Christ, set your affections on things above, not on things on the
earth,” Col. iii, 1, 2.

EARTHQUAKE. The Scripture speaks of several earthquakes. One happened in
the twenty-seventh year of Uzziah, king of Judah, in the year of the
world 3221. This is mentioned in Amos i, 1, and in Zechariah xiv, 5.
Josephus says that its violence divided a mountain, which lay west of
Jerusalem, and drove one part of it four furlongs. A very memorable
earthquake is that which happened at our Saviour’s death, Matt. xxvii,
51. Many have thought that this was perceived throughout the world.
Others are of opinion that it was felt only in Judea, or even in the
temple at Jerusalem. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, that the rocks upon
mount Calvary were shown in his time, which had been rent asunder by
this earthquake. Maundrell and Sandys testify the same, and say that
they examined the breaches in the rock, and were convinced that they
were the effects of an earthquake. It must have been terrible, since the
centurion and those with him were so affected by it, as to acknowledge
the innocence of our Saviour, Luke xxiii, 47. Phlegon, Adrian’s
freedman, relates that, together with the eclipse, which happened at
noon day, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, or
A. D. 33, a very great earthquake was also felt, principally in
Bythynia. The effects of God’s power, wrath, and vengeance are compared
to earthquakes, Psalm xviii, 7; xlvi, 2; cxiv, 4. An earthquake
signifies also, in prophetic language, the dissolution of governments
and the overthrow of states.

EAST, one of the four cardinal points of the world; namely, that
particular point of the horizon in which the sun is seen to rise. The
Hebrews express the east, west, north, and south by words which signify
before, behind, left, and right, according to the situation of a man who
has his face turned toward the east. By the east, they frequently
describe, not only Arabia Deserta, and the lands of Moab and Ammon,
which lay to the east of Palestine, but also Assyria, Mesopotamia,
Babylonia, and Chaldea, though they are situated rather to the north
than to the east of Judea. Balaam, Cyrus, and the wise men who visited
Bethlehem at the time Christ was born, are said to come from the east,
Num. xxiii, 7; Isaiah xlvi, 11; Matt. ii, 1.

EASTER, the day on which the Christian church commemorates our Saviour’s
resurrection. Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and imports a goddess of
the east. This goddess was Astarte, in honour of whom sacrifices were
annually offered about the passover time of the year, the spring; and
hence the Saxon name “æaster” became attached by association of ideas to
the Christian festival of the resurrection.

EATING. The ancient Hebrews did not eat indifferently with all persons:
they would have esteemed themselves polluted and dishonoured by eating
with people of another religion, or of an odious profession. In Joseph’s
day they neither ate with the Egyptians, nor the Egyptians with them,
Gen. xliii, 32; nor, in our Saviour’s time, with the Samaritans, John
iv, 9. The Jews were scandalized at Christ’s eating with publicans and
sinners, Matt. ix, 11. As there were several sorts of meats, the use of
which was prohibited, they could not conveniently eat with those who
partook of them, fearing to receive pollution by touching such food, or
if by accident any particles of it should fall on them. The ancient
Hebrews, at their meals, had each his separate table. Joseph,
entertaining his brethren in Egypt, seated them separately, each at his
particular table; and he himself sat down separately from the Egyptians,
who ate with him; but he sent to his brethren portions out of the
provisions which were before him, Gen. xliii, 31, &c. Elkanah, Samuel’s
father, who had two wives, distributed their portions to them
separately, 1 Sam. i, 4, 5. In Homer, each guest has his little table
apart; and the master of the feast distributes meat to each. We are
assured that this is still practised in China; and that many in India
never eat out of the same dish, nor on the same table, with another
person, believing that they cannot do so without sin; and this, not only
in their own country, but when travelling, and in foreign lands.

The ancient manners which we see in Homer we see likewise in Scripture,
with regard to eating, drinking, and entertainments: we find great
plenty, but little delicacy; and great respect and honour paid to the
guests by serving them plentifully. Joseph sent his brother Benjamin a
portion five times larger than those of his other brethren. Samuel set a
whole quarter of a calf before Saul. The women did not appear at table
in entertainments with the men: this would have been an indecency; as it
is at this day throughout the east. The present Jews, before they sit
down to table, carefully wash their hands: they speak of this ceremony
as essential and obligatory. After meals they wash them again. When they
sit down to table, the master of the house, or the chief person in the
company, taking bread, breaks it, but does not wholly separate it; then,
putting his hand on it, he recites this blessing: “Blessed be thou, O
Lord our God, the King of the world, who producest the bread of the
earth.” Those present answer, “Amen.” Having distributed the bread among
the guests, he takes the vessel of wine in his right hand, saying,
“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who hast produced
the fruit of the vine.” They then repeat the twenty-third Psalm.
Buxtorf, and Leo of Modena, who have given particular accounts of the
Jewish ceremonies, differ in some circumstances: the reason is, Buxtorf
wrote principally the ceremonies of the German Jews, and Leo, those of
the Italian Jews. They take care that, after meals, there shall be a
piece of bread remaining on the table; the master of the house orders a
glass to be washed, fills it with wine, and, elevating it, says, “Let us
bless Him of whose benefits we have been partaking:” the rest answer,
“Blessed be He who has heaped his favours on us, and by his goodness has
now fed us.” Then he recites a pretty long prayer, wherein he thanks God
for his many benefits vouchsafed to Israel; beseeches him to pity
Jerusalem and his temple, to restore the throne of David, to send Elias
and the Messiah, to deliver them out of their long captivity, &c. All
present answer, “Amen;” and then recite Psalm xxxiv, 9, 10. Then, giving
the glass with the little wine in it to be drunk round, he drinks what
is left, and the table is cleared. See BANQUETS.

Partaking of the benefits of Christ’s passion by faith is also called
eating, because this is the support of our spiritual life, John vi, 53,
56. Hosea reproaches the priests of his time with eating the sins of the
people, Hosea iv, 8; that is, feasting on their sin offerings, rather
than reforming their manners. John the Baptist is said to have come
“neither eating nor drinking,” Matt. xi, 18; that is, as other men did;
for he lived in the wilderness, on locusts, wild honey, and water, Matt.
iii, 4; Luke i, 15. This is expressed, in Luke vii, 33, by his neither
eating “bread,” nor drinking “wine.” On the other hand, the Son of Man
is said, in Matt. xi, 19, to have come “eating and drinking;” that is,
as others did; and that too with all sorts of persons, Pharisees,
publicans, and sinners.

EBAL, a celebrated mountain in the tribe of Ephraim, near Shechem, over
against Mount Gerizim. These two mountains are within two hundred paces
of each other, and separated by a deep valley, in which stood the town
of Shechem. The two mountains are much alike in magnitude and form,
being of a semi-circular figure, about half a league in length, and, on
the sides nearest Shechem, nearly perpendicular. One of them is barren;
the other, covered with a beautiful verdure. Moses commanded the
Israelites, as soon as they should have passed the river Jordan, to go
directly to Shechem, and divide the whole multitude into two bodies,
each composed of six tribes; one company to be placed on Ebal, and the
other on Gerizim. The six tribes that were on Gerizim were to pronounce
blessings on those who should faithfully observe the law of the Lord,
and the six others on Mount Ebal were to pronounce curses against those
who should violate it, Deut. xi, 29, &c; xxvii, and xxviii; Joshua viii,
30, 31.

This consecration of the Hebrew commonwealth is thought to have been
performed in the following manner: The heads of the first six tribes
went up to the top of Mount Gerizim, and the heads of the other six
tribes to the top of Mount Ebal. The priests, with the ark, and Joshua
at the head of the elders of Israel, took their station in the middle of
the valley which lies between the two mountains. The Levites ranged
themselves in a circle about the ark; and the elders, with the people,
placed themselves at the foot of the mountain, six tribes on a side.
When they were thus disposed in order, the priests turned toward Mount
Gerizim, on the top of which were the six heads of the six tribes who
were at the foot of the same mountain, and pronounced, for example,
these words:--“Blessed be the man that maketh not any graven images.”
The six princes who were upon the top of the mountain, and the six
tribes who were below at its foot, answered, “Amen.” Afterward, the
priests, turning toward Mount Ebal, upon which were the princes of the
other six tribes, cried, with a loud voice, “Cursed be the man that
maketh any graven image;” and were answered by the princes opposite to
them and their tribes, “Amen.” The Scripture, at first view, seems to
intimate that there were six tribes upon one mountain, and six on the
other; but beside that it is by no means probable that the tribes of the
Israelites, who were so numerous, should be able to stand on the summits
of these two mountains, it would not have been possible for them to have
seen the ceremony, nor to have heard the blessings and curses in order
to answer them. Moreover, the Hebrew particle, in the original,
signifies, _near_, _over against_, as well as _at the top_, Joshua viii,
33. Accordingly, we may say, that neither Joshua, nor the priests or
tribes, went up to the top of the mountains, but the heads only, who in
their persons might represent all the tribes.

EBENEZER, the name of that field wherein the Israelites were defeated by
the Philistines, when the ark of the Lord was taken, 1 Sam. iv, 1; also
a memorial stone set up by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the
Philistines. The word signifies _the stone of help_; and it was erected
by the prophet, saying, “Hitherto the Lord hath helped us.”

EBIONITES, a sect of the first two or three centuries; but it is not
certain whether they received their name from a leader of the name of
Ebion, (whom Dr. Lardner considers as a disciple of Cerinthus,) or from
the meaning of the Hebrew word _ebion_, which implies poverty; and if
the latter, whether they assumed the name, as affecting to be poor, like
the Founder of Christianity; or whether it was conferred on them by way
of reproach, as being of the lower orders. The use of the term, also,
according to Dr. Horsley, was various and indefinite. Sometimes it was
the peculiar name of those sects that denied both the divinity of our
Lord, and his miraculous conception. Then its meaning was extended, to
take in another party; who admitted the miraculous conception of Jesus,
but still denied his divinity, and questioned his previous existence. At
last, it seems, the Nazarites, whose error was rather a superstitious
severity in their practice, than any deficiency in their faith, were
included by Origen in the infamy of the appellation. Dr. Priestley,
claiming the Ebionites as Jewish Unitarians, considers the ancient
Nazarenes, that is, the first Jewish converts, as the true Ebionites;
these, he thinks, were called Nazarenes, from their attachment to Jesus
of Nazareth; and Ebionites, from their poor and mean condition, just as
some of the reformers were called Beghards, or beggars. The Doctor cites
the authorities of Origen and Epiphanius, to prove that both these
denominations related to the same people, differing only, like the
Socinians, in receiving or rejecting the fact of the miraculous
conception; and neither, as he assures us, were reckoned heretics by any
writers of the two first centuries. To this Dr. Horsley replies, that
both Jews and Heathens called the first Christians Nazarenes, in
allusion to the mean and obscure birthplace of their Master, Jesus of
Nazareth, Matthew ii, 23; Acts x, 38; but insists, and answers every
pretended proof to the contrary, that the term Nazarenes was never
applied to any distinct sect of Christians before the final destruction
of Jerusalem by Adrian. Dr. Semler, a German writer, gives the following
opinion: “Those who more rigidly maintained the Mosaic observances, and
who were numerous in Palestine, are usually called Ebionites and
Nasaræans. Some believe that they ought not to be reckoned heretics;
others think that they were united in doctrine, differing only in name;
others place them in the second century. It is of little consequence
whether we distinguish or not the Nazarenes, or Nazaræans from the
Ebionites. It is certain that both these classes were tenacious of the
Mosaic ceremonies, and more inclined to the Jews than to the Gentiles,
though they admitted the Messiahship of Jesus in a very low and
Judaizing manner. The Ebionites held in execration the doctrine of the
Apostle Paul.” Dr. J. Pye Smith, who quotes this passage from Dr.
Semler, adds, “Such, it is apprehended, on grounds of reasonable
probability, was the origin of Unitarianism; the child of Judaism
misunderstood, and of Christianity imperfectly received.”

2. On this controversy great light has, however, been since thrown by
Dr. Burton. It is well known to those who have studied the Unitarian
controversy, that it has been often asserted that the Cerinthians and
Ebionites were the teachers of genuine Christianity, and that the
doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and of universal redemption through his
blood, were the inventions of those who corrupted the preaching of the
Apostles. If this were so, we must convict all the fathers, not merely
of ignorance and mistake, but of deliberate and wilful falsehood. To
suppose that the fathers of the second century were ignorant of what was
genuine and what was false in Christianity, would be a bold hypothesis;
but if Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, asserted, as a matter of fact,
that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute the errors of Cerinthus, it is
idle, or something worse, to say that Irenæus did not know for certain
if the fact was really so. As far, then, as the testimony of the fathers
is concerned, the Cerinthians and Ebionites were decidedly heretics. The
Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that the Ebionites were the true
and genuine believers; and it is easy to see that the preference was
given to these teachers, because they held that Jesus was born of human
parents. Never, I conceive, was there a more unfortunate and fatal
alliance formed than that between the Ebionites and modern Unitarians.
We find the Ebionites referred to, as if they agreed in every point with
the Socinian or Unitarian creed; and yet it may almost be asserted, that
in not one single point do their sentiments exactly coincide. If a real
Ebionite will declare himself, we are not afraid to meet him. Let him
avow his faith; let him believe of Christ as Ebion or Cerinthus taught;
let him adopt the ravings of the Gnostics; we shall then know with whom
we have to combat; we may gird on the sword of Irenæus, and meet him in
the field. But let him not select a few ingredients only from the
poison; let him not take a part only of their infatuated system. If he
will lean on that broken reed, let him talk no more of Ebion or
Cerinthus only; but let him say boldly, either that the Gnostics agreed
with the Apostles, or that the Gnostics preached the true Gospel, while
the Apostles were in error.

3. We can hardly suppose the Unitarians to be ignorant that the
Ebionites and Cerinthians were a branch of the Gnostics. If the fact be
denied, the whole of this discussion might as well at once be closed. We
know nothing of Cerinthus and Ebion, but from the writings of the
fathers. If it had not been for them, we should never have known that
these persons believed Jesus to be born of human parents: the same
fathers unanimously add, that in this point they differed from the
preceding Gnostics, though agreeing with them on other points. If we are
to receive the testimony of the fathers in one particular, but to reject
it in every other, I need not say that argument is useless. But the fact
can never be denied nor evaded. The Cerinthians, to whom some Unitarians
have appealed, did not ascribe the creation of the world to God, but to
an inferior being. Like the rest of the Gnostics, who engrafted that
philosophy on Judaism, the Cerinthians and Ebionites retained some of
the Jewish ceremonies, though they rejected some of the Jewish
Scriptures. Many of them taught that the restraints of morality were
useless; and the Cerinthians, it is well known, promised to their
followers a millennium of sensual indulgence. With respect to their
notions concerning Christ, it is true that they believed Jesus to be
born of human parents; and this fact is referred to, as if it proved the
falsehood of what is called the miraculous conception of Jesus. But it
is plain that this tenet is mentioned by the fathers, as being opposed
to that of the other Gnostics, who held that the body of Jesus was an
illusive phantom. Such had hitherto been the belief of all the Gnostics.
But Cerinthus and Ebion, who were perhaps more rational in their
speculations, and who lived after the publication of the three first
Gospels, could not resist the evidence that Jesus was actually born, and
that he had a real, substantial body. This is the meaning of the
statement, that Cerinthus and Ebion believed Jesus to be born of human
parents. It shows that they were not _Docetæ_. But because there were
other Gnostics who were more irrational and visionary than themselves,
we are not immediately to infer that their own notion concerning the
birth of Christ was the true one. They believed, at least, many of them
believed, that Jesus was born in the ordinary way; that Joseph was his
parent as well as Mary. But they could hardly help believing so; for
they agreed with all the Gnostics in thinking (though it might seem as
if this point had been forgotten) that Jesus and Christ were separate
persons: they believed, as I have already stated, that Christ descended
upon Jesus at his baptism, and quitted him before his crucifixion. They
were therefore almost compelled to believe that Jesus, who was wholly
distinct from Christ, had nothing divine in his nature, and nothing
miraculous in his birth; in the same manner that they believed that the
death of Jesus, from whom Christ had then departed, was like the death
of any ordinary mortal, and that no atonement was made by it. But are we
on these grounds to reject the miraculous conception and the atonement
of Christ? Or are the Unitarians to quote these Gnostics as holding the
human nature of Jesus, and to forget that by Jesus they meant a person
wholly different from Christ?

4. We are told, indeed, that the first part of St. Matthew’s Gospel is
spurious, because the Ebionites rejected it. Undoubtedly they did. They
read in it that Jesus Christ was born, not Jesus only; and that he was
born of a virgin. They therefore rejected this part of St. Matthew’s
Gospel; or rather, by mutilating and altering the whole of it, they
composed a new gospel of their own to suit their purpose; and yet this
is the only authority which is quoted for rejecting the commencement of
St. Matthew’s Gospel. The fact, that some even of the Ebionites believed
the miraculous conception, speaks infinitely more in favour of the
genuineness of that part of the Gospel, and of the truth of the doctrine
itself, than can be inferred on the contrary side from those who denied
the doctrine, and mutilated the Gospel. Those other Ebionites appear in
this respect to have agreed with the first Socinians, and to have held
that Jesus was born of a virgin, though they did not believe in his
preëxistence or divinity. But the miraculous conception was so entirely
contrary to all preconceived opinions, and the more simple doctrine of
the other Ebionites and Cerinthians was so much more suited to the
Gnostic system, which separated Jesus from Christ, that the evidence
must have been almost irresistible, which led one part of the Ebionites
to embrace a doctrine contrary to all experience, contrary to the
sentiments of their brethren, and hardly reconcilable with other parts
of their own creed. The testimony, therefore, of these Ebionites, in
favour of the miraculous conception, is stronger, perhaps, than even
that of persons who received the whole of the Gospel, and departed in no
points from the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Apostles had preached,
according to the statement of the Unitarians, that Jesus Christ was a
mere human being, born in the ordinary way, what could possibly have led
the Gnostics to rank him immediately with their Æons, whom they believed
to have been produced by God, and to have dwelt with him from endless
ages in the pleroma? There literally was not one single heretic in the
first century, who did not believe that Christ came down from heaven:
they invented, it is true, various absurdities to account for his union
with the man Jesus; but the fair and legitimate inference from this fact
would be, that the Apostles preached that in some way or other the human
nature was united to the divine. So far from the Socinian or Unitarian
doctrine being supported by that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites, I
have no hesitation in saying, that not one single person is recorded in
the whole of the first century who ever imagined that Christ was a mere
man. It has been observed, that one branch of the Ebionites resembled
the first Socinians, that is, they believed in the miraculous conception
of Jesus, though they denied his preëxistence; but this was because they
held the common notion of the Gnostics, that Jesus and Christ were two
separate persons; and they believed in the preëxistence and divine
nature of Christ, which Socinus and his followers uniformly denied.

ECBATANA, a city of Media, which, according to Herodotus, was built by
Dejoces, king of the Medes. It was situated on a gentle declivity,
distant twelve stadia from Mount Orontes, and was in compass one hundred
and fifty stadia, and, next to Nineveh and Babylon, was one of the
strongest and most beautiful cities of the east. After the union of
Media with Persia, it was the summer residence of the Persian kings. Sir
R. K. Porter, in his Travels, says, “Having for a few moments gazed at
the venerable mountain, (Orontes, at the foot of which Ecbatana was
built,) and at the sad vacuum at its base; what had been Ecbatana, being
now shrunk to comparative nothingness; I turned my eye on the still busy
scene of life which occupied the adjacent country; the extensive plain
of Hamadan, and its widely extending hills. On our right, the receding
vale was varied, at short distances, with numberless castellated
villages rising from amidst groves of the noblest trees; while the great
plain itself stretched northward and eastward to such far remoteness,
that its mountain boundaries appeared like clouds upon the horizon. This
whole tract seemed one carpet of luxuriant verdure, studded with
hamlets, and watered by beautiful rivulets. On the south-west, Orontes,
or Elwund, (by whichever name we may designate this most towering
division of the mountain,) presents itself, in all the stupendous
grandeur of its fame and form. Near to its base, appear the dark
coloured dwellings of Hamadan, crowded thickly on each other; while the
gardens of the inhabitants with their connecting orchards and woods,
fringe the entire slope of that part of the mountain.” “The site of the
modern town, like that of the ancient, is on a gradual ascent,
terminating near the foot of the eastern side of the mountain; but there
all trace of its past appearance would cease, were it not for two or
three considerable elevations, and overgrown irregularities on and near
them, which may have been the walls of the royal fortress, with those of
the palaces, temples, and theatres, seen no more. I passed one of these
heights, standing to the south-west, as I entered the city, and observed
that it bore many vestiges of having been strongly fortified. The sides
and summit are covered with large remnants of ruined walls of a great
thickness, and also of towers, the materials of which were sun-dried
bricks. It has the name of the Inner Fortress, and certainly holds the
most commanding station near the plain.” Of the interior of the city,
the same author says, “The mud alleys, which now occupy the site of the
ancient streets or squares, are narrow, interrupted by large holes or
hollows in the way, and heaps of the fallen crumbled walls of deserted
dwellings. A miserable bazaar or two are passed through in traversing
the town; and large lonely spots are met with, marked by broken low
mounds over older ruins; with here and there a few poplars, or willow
trees, shadowing the border of a dirty stream, abandoned to the meanest
uses; which, probably, flowed pellucid and admired, when these places
were gardens, and the grass-grown heap some stately dwelling of
Ecbatana. In one or two spots I observed square platforms, composed of
large stones; the faces of many of which were chiselled all over into
the finest arabesque fretwork, while others had, in addition, long
inscriptions in the Arabic character. They had evidently been
tomb-stones of the inhabitants, during the caliph rule in Persia. But
when we compare relics of the seventh century, with the deep antiquity
of the ruins on which they lie, these monumental remains seem but the
register of yesterday.” Here is shown the tomb of Mordecai and Esther;
as well as that of Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian physician. The
sepulchre of the former stands near the centre of the city of Hamadan:
the tombs are covered by a dome, on which is the following inscription
in Hebrew: “This day, 15th of the month Adar, in the year 4474 from the
creation of the world, was finished the building of this temple over the
graves of Mordecai and Esther, by the hands of the good-hearted
brothers, Elias and Samuel, the sons of the deceased Ismael of Kashan.”
This inscription, the date of which proves the dome to have been built
eleven hundred years, was sent by Sir Gore Ouseley to Sir John Malcolm,
who has given it in his History of Persia; who also says that the tombs,
which are of a black coloured wood, are evidently of very great
antiquity, but in good preservation, as the wood has not perished, and
the inscriptions are still very legible. Sir R. K. Porter has given a
more particular description of this tomb. He says, “I accompanied the
priest through the town, over much ruin and rubbish, to an enclosed
piece of ground, rather more elevated than any in its immediate
vicinity. In the centre was the Jewish tomb; a square building of brick,
of a mosque-like form, with a rather elongated dome at the top. The
whole seems in a very decaying state, falling fast to the mouldering
condition of some wall fragments around, which, in former times, had
been connected with, and extended the consequence of, the sacred
enclosure. The door that admitted us into the tomb, is in the ancient
sepulchral fashion of the country, very small; consisting of a small
stone of great thickness, and turning on its own pivots from one side.
Its key is always in possession of the head of the Jews resident at
Hamadan.” “On passing through the little portal, which we did in an
almost doubled position, we entered a small arched chamber, in which are
seen the graves of several rabbies: probably, one may cover the remains
of the pious Ismael; and, not unlikely, the others may contain the
bodies of the first rebuilders after the sacrilegious destruction by
Timour. Having ‘trod lightly by their graves,’ a second door of such
very confined dimensions presented itself at the end of this vestibule,
we were constrained to enter it on our hands and knees, and then
standing up, we found ourselves in a larger chamber, to which
appertained the dome. Immediately under its concave, stand two
sarcophagi, made of a very dark wood, carved with great intricacy of
pattern, and richness of twisted ornament, with a line of inscription in
Hebrew running round the upper ledge of each. Many other inscriptions,
in the same language, are cut on the walls; while one of the oldest
antiquity, engraved on a slab of white marble, is let into the wall
itself.” This inscription is as follows: “Mordecai, beloved and honoured
by a king, was great and good. His garments were as those of a
sovereign. Ahasuerus covered him with this rich dress, and also placed a
golden chain around his neck. The city of Susa rejoiced at his honours,
and his high fortune became the glory of the Jews.” The inscription
which encompasses the sarcophagus of Mordecai, is to this effect: “It is
said by David, Preserve me, O God! I am now in thy presence. I have
cried at the gate of heaven, that thou art my God; and what goodness I
have received from thee, O Lord! Those whose bodies are now beneath in
this earth, when animated by thy mercy were great; and whatever
happiness was bestowed upon them in this world, came from thee, O God!
Their grief and sufferings were many, at the first; but they became
happy, because they always called upon thy holy name in their miseries.
Thou liftedst me up, and I became powerful. Thine enemies sought to
destroy me, in the early times of my life; but the shadow of thy hand
was upon me, and covered me, as a tent, from their wicked
purposes!--MORDECAI.” The following is the corresponding inscription on
the sarcophagus of Esther: “I praise thee, O God, that thou hast created
me! I know that my sins merit punishment, yet I hope for mercy at thy
hands; for whenever I call upon thee, thou art with me; thy holy
presence secures me from all evil. My heart is at ease, and my fear of
thee increases. My life became, through thy goodness, at the last, full
of peace. O God, do not shut my soul out from thy divine presence! Those
whom thou lovest, never feel the torments of hell. Lead me, O merciful
Father, to the life of life; that I may be filled with the heavenly
fruits of paradise!--ESTHER.” The Jews at Hamadan have no tradition of
the cause of Esther and Mordecai having been interred at that place; but
however that might be, there are sufficient reasons for believing the
validity of their interment in this spot. The strongest evidence we can
have of the truth of any historical fact, is, its commemoration by an
annual festival. It is well known, that several important events in
Jewish history are thus celebrated; and among the rest, the feast of
Purim is kept on the 13th and 14th of the month Adar, to commemorate the
deliverance obtained by the Jews, at the intercession of Esther, from
the general massacre ordered by Ahasuerus, and the slaughter they were
permitted to make of their enemies. Now on this same festival, in the
same day and month, Jewish pilgrims resort from all quarters to the
sepulchre of Mordecai and Esther; and have done so for centuries,--a
strong presumptive proof that the tradition of their burial in this
place rests on some authentic foundation.

ECCLESIASTES, a canonical book of the Old Testament, of which Solomon
was the author, as appears from the first sentence. The design of this
book is to show the vanity of all sublunary things; and from a review of
the whole, the author draws this pertinent conclusion, “Fear God, and
keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man;”--his whole wisdom,
interest, and happiness, as well as his whole duty. Ecclesiastes,
according to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety
disputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees. His
reason is, that there are passages in it which seem to contradict each
other, and could not, he thinks, proceed from the same person. But this
may be accounted for by supposing that it was Solomon’s method to
propose the objections of infidels and sensualists, and then to reply to
them.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, the rules by which churches are governed, as to
their spiritual concerns. The reformers having renounced the pope as
antichrist, and having laid it down as their fundamental principle, that
Scripture is the only rule of faith, and that it is the privilege of
every man to interpret it according to his own judgment, had to consider
in what manner the churches which they had formed were to be regulated;
and there soon arose among them upon this point diversity of sentiment.
Melancthon and the earliest reformers viewed with veneration the
hierarchy which had so long subsisted, as also many of the ceremonies
which for ages had been observed; and they expressed their readiness to
continue that distinction of pastors which their researches into the
history of the church had enabled them to trace back to the early ages
of Christianity. But while they declared in favour of this form of
ecclesiastical polity, they did so, not upon the ground that it was of
divine institution, or positively required by the author of Christianity
as inseparable from a church; but on the ground, that taking into
estimation every thing connected with it, it appeared to them eminently
adapted to carry into effect that renovation of piety, and that
religious influence, which they were so eager to promote. They thus made
ecclesiastical polity a matter of expediency, or of prudential
regulation; the one thing in their view, binding upon all Christians,
being to strengthen the practical power of religion. That this is a just
representation of the state of opinion among the first Protestants, will
be placed beyond a doubt by a few quotations from the confession of
Augsburg, and from the works of some of the most eminent divines who
then flourished. Speaking of this subject, the compilers of the
confession declare, “that they were most desirous to preserve the
ecclesiastical polity, and those degrees in the church which had been
introduced by human authority, knowing that, for wise and good purposes,
the discipline, as described in the canons, had been introduced by the
fathers.” “We wish,” they add, “to testify that we would willingly
preserve the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, if the bishops would
cease to act with cruelty against our churches.” And once again they
remark, that they had often declared that they venerated not only the
ecclesiastical power which was instituted in the Gospel, but that they
approved of the ecclesiastical polity which had subsisted, and wished,
as much as was in their power, to preserve it. It is quite plain from
these passages, that the framers of that confession, and those who
adhered to it as the standard of their faith, viewed ecclesiastical
polity as a matter of human appointment; and that, although they
venerated that form of it which had long existed, they looked upon
themselves as at liberty, under peculiar circumstances, to depart from
it. The truth, accordingly, is, that a great part of the Lutheran
churches, as we shall afterward find, did introduce many deviations from
that model for which their founders had expressed respect and
admiration; although episcopacy was in several places continued.

2. In consequence, however, of the exertions of Calvin, what were
denominated the reformed churches deemed it expedient wholly to change
this form of polity, and to introduce again the equality among pastors
which had existed in the primitive times. That celebrated theologian,
resting upon the undisputed fact, that in the Apostolic age no
distinction subsisted between bishops and presbyters, thought himself at
liberty to frame a system of polity upon this principle, persuaded that,
by doing so, he would most effectually guard against those abuses that
had given rise to the Papal tyranny which Protestants had abjured. He
accordingly introduced his scheme where he had influence to do so; and
he employed all the vigour of his talents in pressing upon distant
churches the propriety of regulating, in conformity with his sentiments,
their ecclesiastical government. But, while he was firmly persuaded that
an equality among pastors was agreeable to the Apostolic practice, he
has shown that he did not conceive this equality to be so absolutely
required by Scripture, that there could in no case be a departure from
it. He was, in fact, convinced that all the purposes of religion might
be accomplished under a form of polity in which it was not recognised:
“Wherever,” he says, “the preaching of the Gospel is heard with
reverence, and the sacraments are not neglected, there at that time
there is a church.” Speaking of faithful pastors, he describes them to
be “those who by the doctrine of Christ lead men to true piety, who
properly administer the sacred mysteries, and who preserve and exercise
right discipline.” In tracing the progress of the hierarchy, he
observes, that “those to whom the office of teaching was assigned were
denominated presbyters; that to avoid the dissensions often arising
among equals, they chose one of their number to preside, to whom the
title of bishop was exclusively given; and that the practice, as the
ancients admitted, was introduced by human consent, from the necessity
of the times.” That this exaltation of the bishop, and, of course, this
departure from parity, did not, in his estimation, render the church
unchristian, is apparent from what he says of it after the change was
introduced: “Such was the severity of these times, that all the
ministers were led to discharge their duty as the Lord required of
them.” Even after archbishops and patriarchs had arisen, he merely says,
in recording their introduction, “This arrangement was calculated to
preserve discipline.”

3. What Calvin thus taught in his “Institutes,” he confirmed in many of
the interesting letters which he wrote to various eminent persons. In
these letters he speaks with the highest respect of the church of
England, where the distinction of clerical orders was preserved. He
corresponds with the highest dignitaries of that church in a style which
he assuredly would not have adopted, had he considered them as upholding
an antichristian polity; and he repeatedly avows the principle, that, in
regulating the government of the church, attention must be paid to the
circumstances in which its members were placed. Beza, who was warmly
attached to presbytery, and who upon every occasion, strenuously
defended it, still admits that the human order of episcopacy was useful,
as long as the bishops were good; and he professes all reverence for
those modern bishops who strive to imitate the primitive ones in the
reformation of the church according to the word of God: adding that it
was a calumny against him, and those who entertained his sentiments, to
affirm, as some had done, that they wished to prescribe their form of
government to all other churches. In the excellent letter which he
addressed to Grindal, bishop of London, and in which he pleads the cause
of those ministers who scrupled to use the ceremonies which their
brethren approved, he bears his testimony to the conformity of the
church of England in doctrine with his church, expresses himself with
the highest respect of the prelate to whom he was writing, and concludes
by asking his prayers in his own behalf, and in that of the church of
Geneva; all of which is quite inconsistent with the tenet, that
presbytery is absolutely prescribed by divine authority.

4. The same general principle was avowed by the most eminent English
divines. Cranmer explicitly declared, that bishops and priests were of
the same order at the commencement of Christianity; and this was the
opinion of several of his distinguished contemporaries. Holding this
maxim, their support of episcopacy must have proceeded from views of
expediency, or, in some instances, from a conviction which prevailed
very generally at this early period, that it belonged to the supreme
civil magistrate to regulate the spiritual no less than the political
government; an idea involving in it that no one form of ecclesiastical
polity is of divine institution. At a later period, during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, we find the same conviction, that it was no violation
of Christianity to choose different modes of administering the church.
Archbishop Whitgift, who distinguished himself by the zeal with which he
supported the English hierarchy, frequently maintains, that the form of
discipline is not particularly, and by name, set down in Scripture; and
he also plainly asserts, “that no form of church government is, by the
Scriptures, prescribed or commanded to the church of God.” This
principle is admirably illustrated and confirmed by the venerable
Hooker, in the third book of his work on ecclesiastical polity; and
another divine of the English church, who lived about the same period,
has laid down what he conceives to be an unquestionable position, “that
all churches have not the same form of discipline; neither is it
necessary that they should, because it cannot be proved that any
particular form of church government is enjoined by the word of God.” We
have, indeed, a succession of testimonies from the introduction of the
reformation down through the reign of Elizabeth,--testimonies given by
the primates, and bishops, and theologians, who have been venerated as
the luminaries of the church of England, that the divine right or
institution of episcopacy constituted no part of their faith; and this
is confirmed by their correspondence with reformed divines, who did not
live under the episcopal model, but who, notwithstanding, were often
consulted as to the ecclesiastical arrangements which the convocation
should adopt. The same general sentiment is to be traced in those
churches which had reverted to the primitive equality among the
ministers of Christ. In the second Helvetic confession, which was
approved by many churches, it is taught, that bishops and presbyters in
the beginning governed the church with equal power, none exalting
himself above another; the inequality which soon was introduced
originating from the desire of preserving order. Various passages from
Cyprian and Jerom are quoted in confirmation of this; and the article
thus concludes: “Wherefore no one can be lawfully hindered from
returning to the ancient constitution of the church of God, and to adopt
it in preference to what custom has introduced.” Had the compilers
believed that this ancient constitution was of divine obligation, they
would have expressed themselves much more strongly with respect to it;
and instead of representing the return to it as what ought not to be
hindered, they would have enjoined it, as what it was a violation of the
law of God to neglect.

5. The reformation in Scotland, conducted by Knox, who had spent a
considerable part of his life at Geneva, and who had imbibed the
opinions of Calvin, proceeded upon those views of polity which that
reformer had adopted. Still, however, he authorized a modification of
these opinions, accommodated to the state of his native country; for
although the title of bishop was not used, superintendents, with powers
little inferior to those committed to prelates in England, were
sanctioned by the first Book of Discipline; and these superintendents
were classed, in the acts of different general assemblies, among the
necessary ministers of the church. The necessity must have arisen out of
the circumstances of the period when the book was framed; for the polity
which it prescribed was said to be only for a time; and the office of
superintendent, as has been strenuously urged by some of the most
zealous defenders of presbytery, was not intended to be permanent. The
Lutheran church, with the exception of those branches of it established
in Denmark and Sweden, has adopted a kind of intermediate constitution
between episcopacy and presbytery. While it holds that there is no
divine law creating a distinction among ministers, it yet contends that
such a distinction is on many accounts expedient; and accordingly a
diversity in point of rank and privileges has been universally
introduced, approaching in different places, more or less, to the
hierarchy which subsisted before the reformation. But, although it has
thus regulated its own practice, it unambiguously admits, that as the
Gospel is silent as to any particular form of polity, different forms
may be chosen, without any breach of Christian union.

6. It appears from the statement which has now been given, that all
Protestants immediately after the reformation, while they abjured the
papal supremacy, were united in holding that the mode of administering
the church might be varied, some of them being attached to episcopacy,
others to presbytery; but all founding this attachment upon the judgment
which they had formed as to the tendency or utility of either of these
modes of government. An idea soon was avowed by some of the reformers,
that the whole regulation of the church pertained to the magistrate;
this branch of power being vested in him no less than that of
administering the civil government; and to this opinion the name of
Erastianism, from Erastus, who first defended it, was given. Cranmer, in
an official reply which he made to certain questions that had been
submitted for his consideration, declared, “that the civil ministers
under the king’s majesty be those that shall please his highness for the
time to put in authority under him; as, for example, the lord
chancellor, lord great master, &c; the ministers of God’s word under his
majesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests as be
appointed by his highness to that ministration; as, for example, the
bishop of Canterbury, &c. All the said officers and ministers, as well
of the one sort as the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in
every place by the laws and orders of kings and princes.” By the great
majority of Protestants, however, the tenets of Erastus were condemned;
for they maintained that the Lord Jesus had conveyed to his church a
spiritual power quite distinct from the temporal; and that it belonged
to the ministers of religion to exercise it, for promoting the spiritual
welfare of the Christian community. But, while they disputed as to this
point, they agreed in admitting there was no model prescribed in the New
Testament for a Christian church, as there had been in the Mosaical
economy for the Jewish church; and that it was a branch of the liberty
of the disciples of Christ, or one of their privileges, to choose the
polity which seemed to them best adapted for extending the power and
influence of religion.

ECLECTICS, a sect of ancient philosophers, who professed to select
whatever was good and true from all the other philosophical sects. The
Eclectic philosophy was in a flourishing state at Alexandria when our
Saviour was upon earth. Its founders formed the design of selecting from
the doctrines of all former philosophers such opinions as seemed to
approach nearest the truth, and of combining them into one system. They
held Plato in the highest esteem; but did not scruple to join with his
doctrines whatever they thought conformable to reason in the tenets of
other philosophers. Potamon, a Platonist, appears to have been the
projector of this plan. The Eclectic system was brought to perfection by
Ammonius Saccas, who blended Christianity with his philosophy, and
founded the sect of the Ammonians, or New Platonists, in the second
century. The moral doctrine of the Alexandrian school was as
follows:--The mind of man, originally a portion of the Divine Being,
having fallen into a state of darkness and defilement, by its union with
the body, is to be gradually emancipated from the chains of matter, and
rise by contemplation to the knowledge and vision of God. The end of
philosophy, therefore, is the liberation of the soul from its corporeal
imprisonment. For this purpose, the Eclectic philosophy recommends
abstinence, with other voluntary mortifications, and religious
exercises. In the infancy of the Alexandrian school, not a few of the
professors of Christianity were led, by the pretensions of the Eclectic
sect, to imagine that a coalition might, with great advantage, be formed
between its system and that of Christianity. This union appeared the
more desirable, when several philosophers of this sect became converts
to the Christian faith. The consequence was, that Pagan ideas and
opinions were by degrees mixed with the pure and simple doctrines of the
Gospel. See PLATONISM.

ECLIPSE. The word _eclipse_, ἔκλειψις, signifies _failure_, namely, of
light. An eclipse of the sun is caused by the intervention of the moon,
at new, or in conjunction with the sun, intercepting his light from the
earth, either totally or partially. An eclipse of the moon is caused by
the intervention of the earth, intercepting the sun’s light from the
moon, when full, or in opposition to the sun, either totally or
partially. The reason why the sun is not eclipsed every new moon, nor
the moon at every full, is owing to the inclination of the moon’s orbit
to the plane of the ecliptic, or earth’s orbit, in an angle of about
five degrees and a half; in consequence of which, the moon is generally
too much elevated above the plane of the ecliptic, or too much depressed
below it, for her disk to touch the earth’s shadow at full, or for her
shadow, or her penumbra, to touch the earth’s disk at new. An eclipse,
therefore, of either luminary can only take place when they are within
their proper limits, or distances, from the nodes or intersections of
both orbits. And because the limits of solar eclipses are wider than
those of lunar, in general there will be more eclipses of the sun than
of the moon. In any year, the number of eclipses of both luminaries
cannot be less than two, and these will both be of the sun, nor more
than seven: the usual number is four; and it is very rare to have more
than six. But though solar eclipses happen oftener, lunar are more
frequently observed in any particular place. For an eclipse of the moon
is visible to the inhabitants of half the globe at the same instant;
whereas, an eclipse of the sun is visible only within that part of the
earth’s surface, traversed by the moon’s total shadow, and by her
penumbra, or partial shadow. But her total shadow, when she is nearest
to the earth, cannot cover a space of more than a hundred and
fifty-eight geographical miles in diameter, nor at her mean distance
more than seventy-nine, and at her greatest distance may not touch the
earth at all. In the two former cases, the sun will be eclipsed in the
places covered by the shadow totally, or by the penumbra partially: in
the last it may be annular, but not total. Without the reach of the
shadow, and within the limits of the penumbra, which cannot cover more
than four thousand five hundred and fifty-two miles of the earth’s
surface, there will be a partial eclipse of the sun, and without these
limits no eclipse at all. Hence lunar eclipses are more frequently
noticed by historians than solar; and Diogenes Laertius may be credited
when he relates, that, during the period in which the Egyptians had
observed eight hundred and thirty-two eclipses of the moon, they had
only observed three hundred and seventy-three of the sun. In the midst
of a total lunar eclipse, the moon’s disk is frequently visible, and of
a deep red or copperish colour. This, in the poetic language of sacred
prophecy, is expressed by “the moon’s being turned into blood,” Joel ii,
31. This remarkable phenomenon is caused by the sun’s lateral rays in
their passage through the dense atmosphere of the earth, being inflected
into the shadow by refraction, and falling pretty copiously upon the
moon’s disk, are reflected from thence to the eye of the spectator. If
the earth had no atmosphere, the moon’s disk would then be as black as
in a solar eclipse. A total eclipse of the moon may occasion a privation
of her light for an hour and a half, during her total immersion in the
shadow; whereas, a total eclipse of the sun can never last in any
particular place above four minutes, when the moon is nearest to the
earth, and her shadow thickest. Hence it appears, that the darkness
which “overspread the whole land of Judea,” at the time of our Lord’s
crucifixion, was preternatural, “from the sixth until the ninth hour,”
or from noon till three in the afternoon, in its duration, and also in
its time, about full moon, when the moon could not possibly eclipse the
sun. It was accompanied by an earthquake, which altogether struck the
spectators, and among them the centurion and Roman guard, with great
fear, and a conviction, that Jesus was the Son of God, Matt, xxvii,
51–54.

Eclipses, says Dr. Hales, are justly reckoned among the surest and most
unerring characters of chronology; for they can be calculated with great
exactness backward as well as forward; and there is such a variety of
distinct circumstances of the time when, and the place where, they were
seen; of the duration, or beginning, middle, or end of every eclipse,
and of the quantity, or number of digits eclipsed; that there is no
danger of confounding any two eclipses together, when the circumstances
attending each are noticed with any tolerable degree of precision. Thus,
to an eclipse of the moon incidentally noticed by the great Jewish
chronologer, Josephus, shortly before the death of Herod the Great, we
owe the determination of the true year of our Saviour’s nativity. During
Herod’s last illness, and not many days before his death, there happened
an eclipse of the moon on the very night that he burned alive Matthias,
and the ringleaders of a sedition, in which the golden eagle, which he
had consecrated and set up over the gate of the temple, was pulled down
and broken to pieces by these zealots. This eclipse happened, by
calculation, March 13, U. C. 750, B. C. 4. But it is certain from
Scripture, that Christ was born during Herod’s reign; and from the visit
of the magi to Jerusalem “from the east,” ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, from the
Parthian empire, to inquire for the true “born King of the Jews,” whose
star they had seen “at its rising,” ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, and also from the age
of the infants massacred at Bethlehem, “from two years old and under,”
Matt, ii, 1–16. It is no less certain, that Jesus could not have been
born later than B. C. 5, which is the year assigned to the nativity by
Chrysostom, Petavius and Prideaux.

EDEN, _Garden of_, the residence of our first parents in their state of
purity and blessedness. The word _Eden_ in the Hebrew denotes “pleasure”
or “delight:” whence the name has been given to several places which,
from their situation, were pleasant or delightful. Thus the Prophet
Amos, i, 5, speaks of an Eden in Syria, which is generally considered to
have been in the valley of Damascus, where a town called Eden is
mentioned by Pliny and Ptolemy, and where the tomb of Abel is pretended
to be shown. This has in consequence been selected by some as the site
of the garden of Eden. By others, the garden has been placed on the
eastern side of mount Libanus; and by others again, in Arabia Felix,
where traces of the word _Eden_ are found. But the opinion which has
been most generally received on this subject is that which places the
garden on the Lower Euphrates; between the junction of that river with
the Tigris and the gulf of Persia. This is Dr. Well’s opinion; in which
he is supported by Huetius, Grotius, Marinus, and Bochart. To this it is
replied, that, according to this scheme, the garden was intersected by a
great branch of the Euphrates, in the lower and broadest part of its
course; which will give it an extent absolutely irreconcilable with the
idea of Adam’s “dressing” it by his own manual labour, or even of
overlooking it: beside that all communication would be cut off between
its different parts by a stream half a mile in width. Its local
features, too, if in this situation, must have been of the most
uninteresting kind; the whole of that region, as far as the sight can
reach, being a dead, monotonous, sandy, or marshy flat, without a single
undulation to relieve the eye, or give any of the beauties which the
imagination involuntarily paints to itself as attendant on a spot
finished by the hand of God as the residence of his creatures in a state
of innocence; whose minds may be supposed to be tuned to the full
enjoyment of the grand and beautiful in nature. How different will be
the aspect and arrangement of this favoured spot, if it be placed where
only, according to the words of Moses, it can be placed; namely, at the
heads or fountains of the rivers described, instead of their mouths.

The country of Eden, therefore, according to others, was some where in
Media, Armenia, or the north of Mesopotamia; all mountainous tracts, and
affording, instead of the sickening plains of Babylonia, some of the
grandest, as well as the richest scenery in the world. A river or stream
rising in some part of this country, entered the garden; where it was
parted into four others, in all probability, by first falling into a
basin or lake, from which the other streams issued at different points,
taking different directions, and growing into mighty rivers; although at
their sources in the garden, they would be like all other rivers, mere
brooks, and forming no barrier to a free communication between the parts
of the garden. Dr. Wells, in order to support his hypothesis of the
situation of Eden on the lower parts of the Euphrates and Tigris, after
giving these rivers a distribution which has now no existence, makes the
Pison and Gihon to be parts of the Tigris and Euphrates themselves: an
arrangement at perfect disagreement with the particular description of
Moses; beside, that the Gihon thus called, instead of compassing the
whole land of Cush, can only be said to skirt an extreme corner of it.
It appears, indeed, that in the time of Alexander, the Euphrates pursued
a separate course to the sea; or, at least, that a navigable branch of
it was carried in that direction: in the mouth of which, at Diridotis,
Nearchus anchored with his fleet. But what reliance can be placed on the
ever shifting channels of a river flowing through an alluvial soil, and
over a perfect level divertible at the pleasure of the people inhabiting
its banks? Or, what theory can be founded on their distribution, which
will not be as unstable as the streams themselves? This very channel, so
essential to the hypothesis which places Eden in this situation, was
annihilated by the Orcheni, a neighbouring people; who directed the
stream to water their own land, and thus gave it a shorter course into
the Tigris, which it has ever since preserved. But it is only the lower
parts of the Euphrates and Tigris, as they creep through the plains of
Babylonia, which are thus inconstant: higher up in their courses, they
flow over more solid strata, and in deeper valleys, unchanged by time.
It is here that their conformity with the Mosaic account is to be
sought; and it is here that they may be found, in the exact condition in
which they were left by the deluge, and, indeed, according to Moses, in
which they existed before that event. It is true, that the heads of the
four rivers, above described, cannot now be found sufficiently near, to
recognise thence the exact situation of paradise; but they all arise
from the same mountainous region; and the springs of the Euphrates and
Tigris, as already mentioned, are even now nearly interwoven. Mr. Faber
supposes the lake Arsissa to cover the site of Eden; and that the change
which carried the heads of the rivers to a greater distance from it, was
occasioned by the deluge. But it is far more probable that this change,
if we may infer from the account given by Moses that the courses of all
the streams remained unaltered by the flood, may have taken place at
man’s expulsion from the garden: when God might choose to obliterate
this fair portion of his works, unfitted for any thing but the residence
of innocence; and to blot at once from the face of the earth, like the
guilty cities of the plain, both the site and the memorial of man’s
transgression,--an awful event, which would add tenfold horrors to the
punishment.

EDOM, a province of Arabia, which derives its name from Edom, or Esau,
who there settled in the mountains of Seir, in the land of the Horites,
south-east of the Dead Sea. His descendants afterward extended
themselves throughout Arabia Petrea, and south of Palestine, between the
Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. During the Babylonish captivity, and
when Judea was almost deserted, they seized the south of Judah, and
advanced to Hebron. Hence that tract of Judea, which they inhabited,
retained the name of Idumea in the time of our Saviour, Mark iii, 8.
Under Moses and Joshua, and even under the kings of Judah, the Idumeans
were confined to the east and south of the Dead Sea, in the land of
Seir; but afterward they extended their territories more to the south of
Judah. The capital of east Edom was Bozrah; and that of south Edom,
Petra, or Jectael. The Edomites, or Idumeans, the posterity of Esau, had
kings long before the Jews. They were first governed by dukes or
princes, and afterward by kings, Gen. xxxvi, 31. They continued
independent till the time of David, who subdued them, in completion of
Isaac’s prophecy, that Jacob should rule Esau, Gen. xxvii, 29, 30. The
Idumeans bore this subjection with great impatience; and at the end of
Solomon’s reign, Hadad, the Edomite, who had been carried into Egypt
during his childhood, returned into his own country, where he procured
himself to be acknowledged king, 1 Kings xi, 22. It is probable,
however, that he reigned only in east Edom; for Edom south of Judea
continued subject to the kings of Judah, till the reign of Jehoram, son
of Jehoshaphat, against whom it rebelled, 2 Chron. xxi, 8. Jehoram
attacked Edom, but did not subdue it. Amaziah king of Judah, took Petra,
killed a thousand men, and compelled ten thousand more to leap from the
rock, upon which stood the city of Petra, 2 Chron. xxv, 11, 12. But
these conquests were not permanent. Uzziah took Elath on the Red Sea, 2
Kings xiv, 22; but Rezin, king of Syria, retook it. Some think that
Esarhaddon, king of Syria, ravaged this country, Isaiah xxi, 11–17;
xxxiv, 6. Holofernes subdued it, as well as other nations around Judea,
Judith iii, 14. When Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, the Idumeans
joined him, and encouraged him to rase the very foundations of that
city. This cruelty did not long continue unpunished. Five years after
the taking of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar humbled all the states around
Judea, and in particular Idumea. John Hyrcanus entirely conquered the
Idumeans, whom he obliged to receive circumcision and the law. They
continued subject to the later kings of Judea till the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans. They even came to assist that city when
besieged, and entered it in order to defend it. However, they did not
continue there till it was taken, but returned into Idumea loaded with
booty. The prophecies respecting Edom are numerous and striking; and the
present state of the country as described by modern travellers has given
so remarkable an attestation to the accuracy of their fulfilment, that a
few extracts from Mr. Keith’s work, in which this is pointed out, may be
fitly introduced:--

2. There are numerous prophecies respecting Idumea, that bear a literal
interpretation, however hyperbolical they may appear. “My sword shall
come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste, none shall pass
through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall
possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall
stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.
They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom; but none shall be
there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in
her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof; and it
shall be a habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. Seek ye out of
the book of the Lord and read; no one of these shall fail, none shall
want her mate; for my mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath
gathered them. And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath
divided it unto them by line; they shall possess it for ever, from
generation to generation shall they dwell therein,” Isa. xxxiv, 5,
10–17. “I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah” (the strong
or fortified city) “shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and
a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes. Lo, I
will make thee small among the Heathen, and despised among men. Thy
terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart, O thou
that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the
hill: though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle, I will
bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord. Also Edom shall be a
desolation; every one that goeth by shall be astonished, and shall hiss
at all the plagues thereof. As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah,
and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the Lord, no man shall abide
there, neither shall a son of man dwell in it,” Jer. xlix, 13–18. “Thus
saith the Lord God, I will stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cut
off man and beast from it, and I will make it desolate from Teman.” “I
laid the mountains of Esau and his heritage waste for the dragons of the
wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return
and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall
build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of
wickedness,” Malachi i, 3, 4.

Is there any country once inhabited and opulent, so utterly desolate?
There is, and that land is Idumea. The territory of the descendants of
Esau affords as miraculous a demonstration of the inspiration of the
Scriptures as the fate of the children of Israel. A single extract from
the Travels of Volney will be found to be equally illustrative of the
prophecy and of the fact: “This country has not been visited by any
traveller, but it well merits such an attention; for, from the report of
the Arabs of Bakir, and the inhabitants of Gaza, who frequently go to
Maan and Karak, on the road of the pilgrims, there are, to the
south-east of the lake Asphaltites, (Dead Sea,) within three days’
journey, upward of thirty ruined towns absolutely deserted. Several of
them have large edifices, with columns that may have belonged to the
ancient temples, or at least to Greek churches. The Arabs sometimes make
use of them to fold their cattle in; but in general avoid them on
account of the enormous scorpions with which they swarm. We cannot be
surprised at these traces of ancient population, when we recollect that
this was the country of the Nabatheans, the most powerful of the Arabs,
and of the Idumeans, who, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem,
were almost as numerous as the Jews, as appears from Josephus, who
informs us, that on the first rumour of the march of Titus against
Jerusalem, thirty thousand Idumeans instantly assembled, and threw
themselves into that city for its defence. It appears that, beside the
advantages of being under a tolerably good government, these districts
enjoyed a considerable share of the commerce of Arabia and India, which
increased their industry and population. We know that as far back as the
time of Solomon, the cities of Astioum Gaber (Ezion Geber) and Ailah
(Eloth) were highly frequented marts. These towns were situated on the
adjacent gulf of the Red Sea, where we still find the latter yet
retaining its name, and perhaps the former in that of El Akaba, or ‘the
end of the sea.’ These two places are in the hands of the Bedouins, who,
being destitute of a navy and commerce, do not inhabit them. But the
pilgrims report that there is at El Akaba a wretched fort. The Idumeans,
from whom the Jews only took their ports at intervals, must have found
in them a great source of wealth and population. It even appears that
the Idumeans rivalled the Tyrians, who also possessed a town, the name
of which is unknown, on the coast of Hedjaz, in the desert of Tih, and
the city of Faran, and, without doubt, El-Tor, which served it by way of
port. From this place the caravans might reach Palestine and Judea,
(through Idumea,) in eight or ten days. This route, which is longer than
that from Suez to Cairo, is infinitely shorter than that from Aleppo to
Bassorah.” Evidence, which must have been undesigned, which cannot be
suspected of partiality, and which no illustration can strengthen, and
no ingenuity pervert, is thus borne to the truth of the most wonderful
prophecies. That the Idumeans were a populous and powerful nation long
posterior to the delivery of the prophecies; that they possessed a
tolerably good government, even in the estimation of Volney; that Idumea
contained many cities; that these cities are now absolutely deserted;
and that their ruins swarm with enormous scorpions; that it was a
commercial nation, and possessed highly frequented marts; that it forms
a shorter route than the ordinary one to India; and yet that it had not
been visited by any traveller; are facts all recorded, and proved by
this able but unconscious commentator.

3. A greater contrast cannot be imagined than the ancient and present
state of Idumea. It was a kingdom previous to Israel, having been
governed first by dukes or princes, afterward by eight successive kings,
and again by dukes, before there reigned any king over the children of
Israel, Gen. xxxvi, 31, &c. Its fertility and early cultivation are
implied not only in the blessings of Esau, whose dwelling was to be the
fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; but also in
the condition proposed by Moses to the Edomites, when he solicited a
passage for the Israelites through their borders, that “they would not
pass through the fields nor through the vineyards;” and also in the
great wealth, especially in the multitudes of flocks and herds, recorded
as possessed by an individual inhabitant of that country, at a period,
in all probability even more remote, Gen. xxvii, 39; Num. xx, 17; Job
xlii, 12. The Idumeans were, without doubt, both an opulent and a
powerful people. They often contended with the Israelites, and entered
into a league with their other enemies against them. In the reign of
David they were indeed subdued and greatly oppressed, and many of them
even dispersed throughout the neighbouring countries, particularly
Phenicia and Egypt. But during the decline of the kingdom of Judah, and
for many years previous to its extinction, they encroached upon the
territories of the Jews, and extended their dominion over the
south-western part of Judea.

4. There is a prediction which, being peculiarly remarkable as
applicable to Idumea, and bearing reference to a circumstance
explanatory of the difficulty of access to any knowledge respecting it,
is entitled, in the first instance, to notice: “None shall pass through
it for ever and ever. I will cut off from Mount Seir him that passeth
out, and him that returneth,” Isa. xxxiv, 10; Ezek. xxxv, 7. The ancient
greatness of Idumea must, in no small degree, have resulted from its
commerce. Bordering with Arabia on the east, and Egypt on the southwest,
and forming from north to south the most direct and most commodious
channel of communication between Jerusalem and her dependencies on the
Red Sea, as well as between Syria and India, through the continuous
valleys of El Ghor, and El Araba, which terminated on the one extremity
at the borders of Judea, and on the other at Elath and Ezion Geber on
the Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea, Idumea may be said to have formed the
emporium of the commerce of the east. A Roman road passed directly
through Idumea, from Jerusalem to Akaba, and another from Akaba to Moab;
and when these roads were made, at a time long posterior to the date of
the predictions, the conception could not have been formed, or held
credible by man, that the period would ever arrive when none would pass
through it. Above seven hundred years after the date of the prophecy,
Strabo relates that many Romans and other foreigners were found at Petra
by his friend Athenodorus, the philosopher, who visited it. The
prediction is yet more surprising when viewed in conjunction with
another, which implies that travellers would “pass by” Idumea: “Every
one that goeth by shall be astonished.” And the Hadj routes (routes of
the pilgrims) from Damascus and from Cairo to Mecca, the one on the east
and the other toward the south of Idumea, along the whole of its extent,
go by it, or touch partially on its borders, without passing through it.
The truth of the prophecy, though hemmed in thus by apparent
impossibilities and contradictions, and with extreme probability of its
fallacy in every view that could have been visible to man, may yet be
tried.

5. “Edom shall be a desolation. From generation to generation it shall
lie waste,” &c. Judea, Ammon, and Moab, exhibit so abundantly the
remains and the means of an exuberant fertility, that the wonder arises
in the reflecting mind, how the barbarity of man could have so
effectually counteracted for so many generations the prodigality of
nature. But such is Edom’s desolation, that the first sentiment of
astonishment on the contemplation of it is, how a wide extended region,
now diversified by the strongest features of desert wildness, could ever
have been adorned with cities, or tenanted for ages by a powerful and
opulent people. Its present aspect would belie its ancient history, were
not that history corroborated by “the many vestiges of former
cultivation,” by the remains of walls and paved roads, and by the ruins
of cities still existing in this ruined country. The total cessation of
its commerce; the artificial irrigation of its valleys wholly neglected;
the destruction of all the cities, and the continued spoliation of the
country by the Arabs, while aught remained that they could destroy; the
permanent exposure, for ages, of the soil unsheltered by its ancient
groves, and unprotected by any covering from the scorching rays of the
sun; the unobstructed encroachments of the desert, and of the drifted
sands from the borders of the Red Sea; the consequent absorption of the
water of the springs and streamlets during summer,--are causes which
have all combined their baneful operation in rendering Edom “most
desolate, the desolation of desolations.” Volney’s account is
sufficiently descriptive of the desolation which now reigns over Idumea;
and the information which Seetzen derived at Jerusalem respecting it is
of similar import. He was told, that at the distance of two days’
journey and a half from Hebron, he would find considerable ruins of the
ancient city of Abde, and that for all the rest of the journey he would
see no place of habitation; he would meet only with a few tribes of
wandering Arabs. From the borders of Edom, Captains Irby and Mangles
beheld a boundless extent of desert view, which they had hardly ever
seen equalled for singularity and grandeur. And the following extract,
descriptive of what Burckhardt actually witnessed in the different parts
of Edom, cannot be more graphically abbreviated than in the words of the
prophet. Of its eastern boundary, and of the adjoining part of Arabia
Petrea, strictly so called, Burckhardt writes: “It might, with truth, be
called Petrea, not only on account of its rocky mountains, but also of
the elevated plain already described, which is so much covered with
stones, especially flints, that it may with great propriety be called a
stony desert, although susceptible of culture; in many places it is
overgrown with wild herbs, and must once have been thickly inhabited;
for the traces of many towns and villages are met with on both sides of
the Hadj road between Maan and Akaba, as well as between Maan and the
plains of the Hauran, in which direction are also many springs. At
present all this country is a desert, and Maan (Teman) is the only
inhabited place in it: ‘I will stretch out my hand against thee, O Mount
Seir, and will make thee most desolate. I will stretch out my hand upon
Edom, and will make it desolate from Teman.’” In the interior of Idumea,
where the ruins of some of its ancient cities are still visible, and in
the extensive valley which reaches from the Red to the Dead Sea, the
appearance of which must now be totally and sadly changed from what it
was, “the whole plain presented to the view an expanse of shifting
sands, whose surface was broken by innumerable undulations and low
hills. The sand appears to have been brought from the shores of the Red
Sea, by the southern winds; and the Arabs told me that the valleys
continue to present the same appearance beyond the latitude of Wady
Mousa. In some parts of the valley the sand is very deep, and there is
not the slightest appearance of a road, or of any work of human art. A
few trees grow among the sand hills, but the depth of sand precludes all
vegetation of herbage.” “If grape gatherers come to thee, would not they
leave some gleaning grapes? If thieves by night, they will destroy till
they have enough; but I have made Esau bare. Edom shall be a desolate
wilderness.” “On ascending the western plain,” continues Mr. Burckhardt,
“on a higher level than that of Arabia, we had before us an immense
expanse of dreary country, entirely covered with black flints, with here
and there some hilly chain rising from the plain.” “I will stretch out
upon Idumea the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.” Such is
the present desolate aspect of one of the most fertile countries of
ancient times! So visibly even now does the withering curse of an
offended God rest upon it!

EGG, ביצים, Deut. xxii, 6; Job xxxix, 14; Isaiah x, 14; lix, 5; ὠὸν,
Luke xi, 12. Eggs are considered as a very great delicacy in the east,
and are served up with fish and honey at their entertainments. As a
desirable article of food, the egg is mentioned, Luke xi, 12: “If a son
ask for an egg, will his father offer him a scorpion?” It has been
remarked that the body of the scorpion is very like an egg, as its head
can scarcely be distinguished, especially if it be of the white kind,
which is the first species mentioned by Ælian, Avicenna, and others.
Bochart has produced testimonies to prove that the scorpions in Judea
were about the bigness of an egg. So the similitude is preserved between
the thing asked, and the thing given.

EGLON, a king of Moab, who oppressed the Israelites, and was slain by
Ehud, Judges iii, 14, 21. It is thought to have been a common name of
the kings of Moab, as Abimelech was of the Philistines.

EGYPT, a country of Africa, called also in the Hebrew Scriptures the
land of Mizraim, and the land of Ham; by the Turks and Arabs, Masr and
Misr; and by the native Egyptians, Chemi, or the land of Ham. Mr. Faber
derives the name from Ai-Capht, or the land of the Caphtorim; from
which, also, the modern Egyptians derive their name of Cophts. Egypt was
first peopled after the deluge by Mizraim, or Mizr, the son of Ham, who
is supposed to be the same with Menes, recorded in Egyptian history as
the first king. Every thing relating to the subsequent history and
condition of this country, for many ages, is involved in fable. Nor have
we any clear information from Heathen writers, until the time of Cyrus,
and his son Cambyses, when the line of Egyptian princes ceased in
agreement with prophecies to that effect. Manetho, the Egyptian
historian, has given a list of thirty dynasties, which, if successive,
make a period of five thousand three hundred years to the time of
Alexander, or three thousand two hundred and eighty-two years more than
the real time, according to the Mosaic chronology. But this is a
manifest forgery, which has, nevertheless, been appealed to by infidel
writers, as authority against the veracity of the Mosaic history. The
truth is, that this pretended succession of princes, if all of them can
be supposed to have existed at all, constituted several distinct
dynasties, ruling in different cities at the same time: thus these were
the kingdoms of Thebes, Thin, Memphis, and Tanis. See WRITING.

2. In the time of Moses we find Egypt renowned for learning; for he was
instructed “in all its wisdom;” and it is one of the commendations of
Solomon, at a later period, that he excelled in knowledge “all the
wisdom of the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of
Egypt.” Astronomy, which probably, like that of the Chaldeans,
comprehended also judicial astrology, physics, agriculture,
jurisprudence, medicine, architecture, painting, and sculpture, were the
principal sciences and arts; to which were added, and that by their
wisest men, the study of divination, magic, and enchantments. They had
also their consulters with familiar spirits, and necromancers, those who
had, or pretended to have, intercourse with the infernal deities, and
the spirits of the dead, and delivered responses to inquirers. Of all
this knowledge, good and evil, and of a monstrous system of idolatry,
Egypt was the polluted fountain to the surrounding nations; but in that
country itself it appears to have degenerated into the most absurd and
debased forms. Among nations who are not blessed by divine revelation,
the luminaries of heaven are the first objects of worship. Diodorus
Siculus, mentioning the Egyptians, informs us, that “the first men,
looking up to the world above them, and, struck with admiration at the
nature of the universe, supposed the sun and moon to be the principal
and eternal gods.” This, which may be called the natural superstition of
mankind, we can trace in the annals of the west, as well as of the east;
among the inhabitants of the new world, as well as of the old. The sun
and moon, under the names of Isis and Osiris, were the chief objects of
adoration among the Egyptians. But the earliest times had a purer faith.
The following inscription, engraven in hieroglyphics in the temple of
Neith, the Egyptian Minerva, conveys the most sublime idea of the Deity
which unenlightened reason could form: “I am that which is, was, and
shall be: no mortal hath lifted up my veil: the offspring of my power is
the sun.” A similar inscription still remains at Capua, on the temple of
Isis: “Thou art one, and from thee all things proceed.” Plutarch also
informs us, that the inhabitants of Thebais worshipped only the immortal
and supreme God, whom they called Eneph. According to the Egyptian
cosmogony, all things sprung from _athor_, or night, by which they
denoted the darkness of chaos before the creation. Sanchoniathon
relates, that, “from the breath of gods and the void were mortals
created.” This theology differs little from that of Moses, who says,
“The earth was without form, and void; darkness was upon the face of the
deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

3. A superstitious reverence for certain animals, as propitious or
hurtful to the human race, was not peculiar to the Egyptians. The cow
has been venerated in India from the most remote antiquity. The serpent
has been the object of religious respect to one half of the nations of
the known world. The Romans had sacred animals, which they kept in their
temples, and distinguished with peculiar honours. We need not therefore
be surprised that a nation so superstitious as the Egyptians should
honour, with peculiar marks of respect, the ichneumon, the ibis, the
dog, the falcon, the wolf, and the crocodile. These they entertained at
great expense, and with much magnificence. Lands were set apart for
their maintenance; persons of the highest rank were employed in feeding
and attending them; rich carpets were spread in their apartments; and
the pomp at their funerals corresponded to the profusion and luxury
which attended them while alive. What chiefly tended to favour the
progress of animal worship in Egypt, was the language of hieroglyphics.
In the hieroglyphic inscriptions on their temples, and public edifices,
animals, and even vegetables, were the symbols of the gods whom they
worshipped. In the midst of innumerable superstitions, the theology of
Egypt contained the two great principles of religion, the existence of a
supreme Being, and the immortality of the soul. The first is proved by
the inscription on the temple of Minerva; the second, by the care with
which dead bodies were embalmed, and the prayer recited at the hour of
death, by an Egyptian, expressing his desire to be received to the
presence of the deities.

4. The opulence of Egypt was for ages increased by the large share it
had in the commerce with the east; by its own favourable position,
making it the connecting link of intercourse between the eastern and
western nations; and especially by its own remarkable fertility,
particularly in corn, so that it was, in times of scarcity, the granary
of the world. Its extraordinary fertility was owing to the periodical
inundation of the Nile; and sufficient proofs of the ancient accounts
which we have of its productiveness are afforded to this day. The Rev.
Mr. Jowett has given a striking example of the extraordinary fertility
of the soil of Egypt, which is alluded to in Genesis xli, 47: “The earth
brought forth by handfuls.” “I picked up at random,” says Mr. Jowett, “a
few stalks out of the thick corn fields. We counted the number of stalks
which sprouted from single grains of seed; carefully pulling to pieces
each root, in order to see that it was but one plant. The first had
seven stalks, the next three, the next nine, then eighteen, then
fourteen. Each stalk would have been an ear.”

5. The architecture of the early Egyptians, at least that of their
cities and dwellings, was rude and simple: they could indeed boast of
little in either external elegance or internal comfort, since Herodotus
informs us that men and beasts lived together. The materials of their
structure were bricks of clay, bound together with chopped straw, and
baked in the sun. Such were the bricks which the Israelites were
employed in making, and of which the cities of Pithom and Rameses were
built. Their composition was necessarily perishable, and explains why it
is that no remains of the ancient cities of Egypt are to be found. They
would indeed last longer in the dry climate of this country than in any
other; but even here they must gradually decay and crumble to dust, and
the cities so constructed become heaps. Of precisely the same materials
are the villages of Egypt built at this day. “Village after village,”
says Mr. Jowett, speaking of Tentyra, “built of unburnt brick, crumbling
into ruins, and giving place to new habitations, have raised the earth,
in some parts, nearly to the level of the summit of the temple. In every
part of Egypt, we find the towns built in this manner, upon the ruins,
or rather the rubbish, of the former habitations. The expression in
Jeremiah xxx, 18, literally applies to Egypt, in the meanest sense: ‘The
city shall be builded upon her own heap.’ And the expression in Job xv,
28, might be illustrated by many of these deserted hovels: ‘He dwelleth
in desolate cities, and in houses which no man inhabiteth, which are
ready to become heaps.’ Still more touching is the allusion, in Job iv,
19, where the perishing generations of men are fitly compared to
habitations of the frailest materials, built upon the heap of similar
dwelling-places, now reduced to rubbish: ‘How much less in them that
dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust!’”

6. The splendid temples of Egypt were not built, in all probability,
till after the time of Solomon; for the recent progress made in the
decyphering of hieroglyphics has disappointed the antiquaries as to the
antiquity of these stupendous fabrics. It is well observed by Dr.
Shuckford, that temples made no great figure in Homer’s time. If they
had, he would not have lost such an opportunity of exerting his genius
on so grand a subject, as Virgil has done in his description of the
temple built by Dido at Carthage. The first Heathen temples were
probably nothing more than mean buildings, which served merely as a
shelter from the weather: of which kind was, probably, the house of the
Philistine god Dagon. But when the fame of Solomon’s temple had reached
other countries, it excited them to imitate its splendour; and nation
vied with nation in the structures erected to their several deities. All
were, however, outdone, at least in massiveness and durability, by the
Egyptians; the architectural design of whose temples, as well as that of
the Grecian edifices, was borrowed from the stems and branches of the
grove temples.

7. It appears to be an unfounded notion, that the pyramids were built by
the Israelites: they were, probably, Mr. Faber thinks, the work of the
“Shepherds,” or Cushite invaders, who, at an early period, held
possession of Egypt for two hundred and sixty years, and reduced the
Egyptians to bondage, so that “a shepherd was an abomination to the
Egyptians” in Joseph’s time. The Israelites laboured in making bricks,
not in forming stones such as the pyramids are constructed with; and a
passage in Mr. Jowett’s “Researches,” before referred to, will throw
light upon this part of their history. Mr. Jowett saw at one place the
people making bricks, with straw cut into small pieces, and mingled with
the clay, to bind it. Hence it is, that when villages built of these
bricks fall into rubbish, which is often the case, the roads are full of
small particles of straws, extremely offensive to the eyes in a high
wind. They were, in fact, engaged exactly as the Israelites used to be,
making bricks with straw; and for a similar purpose, to build extensive
granaries for the bashaw; “treasure-cities for Pharaoh.” The same
intelligent missionary also observes: “The mollems transact business
between the bashaw and the peasants. He punishes them if the peasants
prove that they oppress; and yet he requires from them that the work of
those who are under them shall be fulfilled. They strikingly illustrate
the case of the officers placed by the Egyptian task-masters over the
children of Israel; and, like theirs, the mollems often find their case
is evil, Exodus v.”

8. It is not necessary to go over those parts of the Egyptian history
which occur in the Old Testament. The prophecies respecting this haughty
and idolatrous kingdom, uttered by Jeremiah and Ezekiel when it was in
the height of its splendour and prosperity, were fulfilled in the
terrible invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Cambyses, and the Persian
monarchs. It comes, however, again into an interesting connection with
the Jewish history under Alexander the Great, who invaded it as a
Persian dependence. So great, indeed, was the hatred of the Egyptians
toward their oppressors, that they hailed the approach of the
Macedonians, and threw open their cities to receive them. Alexander,
merciless as he was to those who opposed his progress or authority, knew
how to requite those who were devoted to his interests; and the
Egyptians, for many centuries afterward, had reason to recollect with
gratitude his protection and foresight. It was he who discerned the
local advantages of the spot on which the city bearing his name
afterward stood, who projected the plan of the town, superintended its
erection, endowed it with many privileges, and peopled it with colonies
drawn from other places for the purpose, chiefly Greeks. But, together
with these, and the most favoured of all, were the Jews, who enjoyed the
free exercise of their religion, and the same civil rights and liberties
as the Macedonians themselves. Kindness shown to the people of Israel
has never, in the providence of God, brought evil on any country; and
there can be no doubt but that the encouragement given to this
enterprising and commercial people, assisted very much to promote the
interests of the new city, which soon became the capital of the kingdom,
the centre of commerce, of science, and the arts, and one of the most
flourishing and considerable cities in the world. Egypt, indeed, was
about to see better days; and, during the reigns of the Ptolemies,
enjoyed again, for nearly three hundred years, something of its former
renown for learning and power. It formed, during this period, and before
the rapid extension of the Roman empire toward the termination of these
years, one of the only two ancient kingdoms which had survived the
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian empires: the other was the
Syrian, where the Seleucidæ, another family of one of the successors of
Alexander, reigned; who, having subdued Macedonia and Thrace, annexed
them to the kingdom of Syria, and there remained out of the four
kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided these two only;
distinguished, in the prophetic writings of Daniel, by the titles of the
kings or kingdoms of the north and the south.

9. Under the reign of the three first Ptolemies, the state of the Jews
was exceedingly prosperous. They were in high favour, and continued to
enjoy all the advantages conferred upon them by Alexander. Judea was, in
fact, at this time, a privileged province of Egypt; the Jews being
governed by their own high priest, on paying a tribute to the kings of
Egypt. But in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, the fifth of the race, it
was taken by Antiochus, king of Syria; which was the beginning of fresh
sufferings and persecutions; for although this Antiochus, who was the
one surnamed the Great, was a mild and generous prince, and behaved
favourably toward them, their troubles began at his death; his
successor, Seleucus, oppressing them with taxes; and the next was the
monster, Antiochus Epiphanes, whose impieties and cruelties are recorded
in the two books of Maccabees. But still, in Egypt, the Jews continued
in the enjoyment of their privileges, so late as the reign of the sixth
Ptolemy, called Philometor, who committed the charge of his affairs to
two Jews, Onias and Dositheus; the former of whom obtained permission to
build a temple at Heliopolis. The introduction of Christianity into
Egypt is mentioned under the article ALEXANDRIA.

10. The prophecies respecting Egypt in the Old Testament have had a
wonderful fulfilment. The knowledge of all its greatness and glory
deterred not the Jewish prophets from declaring, that Egypt would become
“a base kingdom, and never exalt itself any more among the nations.” And
the literal fulfilment of every prophecy affords as clear a
demonstration as can possibly be given, that each and all of them are
the dictates of inspiration. Egypt was the theme of many prophecies,
which were fulfilled in ancient times; and it bears to the present day,
as it has borne throughout many ages, every mark with which prophecy had
stamped its destiny: “They shall be a base kingdom. It shall be the
basest of kingdoms. Neither shall it exalt itself any more among the
nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the
nations. The pride of her power shall come down; and they shall be
desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and her cities
shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted. I will make the
land of Egypt desolate, and the country shall be desolate of that
whereof it was full. I will sell the land into the hand of the wicked. I
will make the land waste and all that is therein, by the hand of
strangers. I the Lord have spoken it. And there shall be no more a
prince of the land of Egypt,” Ezek. xxx, 5, 7, 12, 13. “The sceptre of
Egypt shall depart away,” Zech. x, 11.

11. Egypt became entirely subject to the Persians about three hundred
and fifty years previous to the Christian æra. It was afterward subdued
by the Macedonians, and was governed by the Ptolemies for the space of
two hundred and ninety-four years; until, about B. C. 30, it became a
province of the Roman empire. It continued long in subjection to the
Romans,--tributary first to Rome, and afterward to Constantinople. It
was transferred, A. D. 641, to the dominion of the Saracens. In 1250 the
Mamelukes deposed their rulers, and usurped the command of Egypt. A mode
of government, the most singular and surprising that ever existed on
earth, was established and maintained. Each successive ruler was raised
to supreme authority, from being a stranger and a slave. No son of the
former ruler, no native of Egypt, succeeded to the sovereignty; but a
chief was chosen from among a new race of imported slaves. When Egypt
became tributary to the Turks in 1517, the Mamelukes retained much of
their power; and every pasha was an oppressor and a stranger. During all
these ages, every attempt to emancipate the country, or to create a
prince of the land of Egypt, has proved abortive, and has often been
fatal to the aspirant. Though the facts relative to Egypt form too
prominent a feature in the history of the world to admit of
contradiction or doubt, yet the description of the fate of that country,
and of the form of its government, may be left, says Keith, to the
testimony of those whose authority no infidel will question, and whom no
man can accuse of adapting their descriptions to the predictions of the
event. Volney and Gibbon are our witnesses of the facts: “Such is the
state of Egypt. Deprived, twenty-three centuries ago, of her natural
proprietors, she has seen her fertile fields successively a prey to the
Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the
Georgians, and, at length, the race of Tartars distinguished by the name
of Ottoman Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased as slaves, and introduced as
soldiers, soon usurped the power and elected a leader. If their first
establishment was a singular event, their continuance is not less
extraordinary. They are replaced by slaves brought from their original
country. The system of oppression is methodical. Every thing the
traveller sees or hears reminds him he is in the country of slavery and
tyranny.” “A more unjust and absurd constitution cannot be devised than
that which condemns the natives of a country to perpetual servitude,
under the arbitrary dominion of strangers and slaves. Yet such has been
the state of Egypt above five hundred years. The most illustrious
sultans of the Baharite and Borgite dynasties were themselves promoted
from the Tartar and Circassian bands; and the four-and-twenty beys, or
military chiefs, have ever been succeeded, not by their sons, but by
their servants.” These are the words of Volney and of Gibbon; and what
did the ancient prophets foretel?--“I will lay the land waste, and all
that is therein, by the hands of _strangers_. I the Lord have spoken it.
And there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt. The sceptre of
Egypt shall depart away.” The prophecy adds: “They shall be a base
kingdom: it shall be the basest of kingdoms.” After the lapse of two
thousand and four hundred years from the date of this prophecy, a
scoffer at religion, but an eye witness of the facts, thus describes the
self-same spot: “In Egypt,” says Volney, “there is no middle class,
neither nobility, clergy, merchants, landholders. A universal air of
misery, manifest in all the traveller meets, points out to him the
rapacity of oppression, and the distrust attendant upon slavery. The
profound ignorance of the inhabitants equally prevents them from
perceiving the causes of their evils, or applying the necessary
remedies. Ignorance, diffused through every class, extends its effects
to every species of moral and physical knowledge. Nothing is talked of
but intestine troubles, the public misery, pecuniary extortions,
bastinadoes, and murders. Justice herself puts to death without
formality.” Other travellers describe the most execrable vices as
common, and represent the moral character of the people as corrupted to
the core. As a token of the desolation of the country, mud-walled
cottages are now the only habitations where the ruins of temples and
palaces abound. Egypt is surrounded by the dominions of the Turks and of
the Arabs; and the prophecy is literally true which marked it in the
midst of desolation: “They shall be desolate in the midst of the
countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the
cities that are wasted.” The systematic oppression, extortion, and
plunder, which have so long prevailed, and the price paid for his
authority and power by every Turkish pasha, have rendered the country
“desolate of that whereof it was full,” and still show both how it has
been “wasted by the hands of strangers,” and how it has been “sold into
the hand of the wicked.”

12. Egypt has, indeed, lately somewhat risen, under its present spirited
but despotic pasha, to a degree of importance and commerce. But this
pasha is still a _stranger_, and the dominion is foreign. Nor is there
any thing like a general advancement of the people to order,
intelligence and happiness. Yet this fact, instead of militating against
the truth of prophecy, may, possibly at no distant period, serve to
illustrate other predictions. “The Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall
smite and heal it; and they shall return to the Lord, and he shall be
entreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall Israel be the
third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the
land,” &c, Isaiah xix, 22–25.

ELAM, the eldest son of Shem, who settled in a country to which he gave
his name, Gen. x, 22. It is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as lying
to the south-east of Shinar. Susiana, in later times, seems to have been
a part of this country, Daniel viii, 2; and before the captivity the
Jews seem always to have intended Persia by the name of Elam. Stephanus
takes it to be a part of Assyria, but Pliny and Josephus, more properly,
of Persia, whose inhabitants, this latter tells us, sprung from the
Elamites.

ELATH, or ELOTH, a part of Idumea, situate upon the Red Sea, the
emporium of Syria in Asia. It was taken by David, 2 Sam. viii, 14, who
there established an extensive trade. There Solomon built ships, 2
Chron. viii, 17, 18. The Israelites held possession of Elath one hundred
and fifty years, when the Edomites, in the reign of Joram, recovered it,
2 Kings viii, 20. It was again taken from them by Azariah, and by him
left to his son, 2 Kings xiv, 22. The king of Syria took it from his
grandson, 2 Kings xvi, 6. In process of time it fell to the Ptolemies,
and lastly to the Romans. The branch of the Red Sea on which this city
stood, obtained among Heathen writers the name of _Sinus Elaniticus_ or
Elanitic Gulf, from a town built on its site called Elana, and
subsequently Ala; which, as we are informed by Eusebius and Jerom, was
used as a port in their time. The modern Arabian town of Akaba stands
upon or near the site either of Elath or Ezion-Geber; which of the two
it is impossible to determine, as both ports, standing at the head of
the gulf, were probably separated from each other by a creek or small
bay only.

ELDAD and Medad were appointed by Moses among the seventy elders of
Israel who were to assist in the government. Though not present in the
general assembly, they were, notwithstanding, filled with the Spirit of
God, equally with those who were in that assembly, and they began to
prophesy in the camp. Joshua would have had Moses forbid them, but Moses
replied, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people
were prophets, and that God would pour forth his Spirit upon them!”
Numbers xi, 24–29.

ELDERS, a name given to certain laymen in the Presbyterian discipline,
who are ecclesiastical officers, and in conjunction with the ministers
and deacons compose the kirk sessions in Scotland. The number of elders
is proportioned to the extent and population of the parish, and is
seldom less than two or three, but sometimes exceeds fifty. They are
laymen in this respect, that they have no right to teach, or to dispense
the sacraments; and on this account they form an office in the
Presbyterian church inferior in rank and power to that of pastors. They
generally discharge the office which originally belonged to the deacons,
of attending to the interests of the poor. But their peculiar business
is expressed by the name ruling elders; for in every jurisdiction within
the parish they are the spiritual court, of which the minister is
officially moderator; and in the presbytery, of which the pastors of all
the parishes within its bounds are officially members, lay elders sit as
the representatives of the several sessions or consistories.

ELDERS OF ISRAEL. By this name we understand the heads of tribes, or
rather of the great families in Israel, who, before the settlement of
the Hebrew commonwealth, had a government and authority over their own
families, and the people. When Moses was sent into Egypt to deliver
Israel, he assembled the elders of Israel, and told them that the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had appeared to him, Exod. iii, 15; iv, 29,
&c. Moses and Aaron treat the elders of Israel as the representatives of
the nation. When God gave the law to Moses, he said, “Take Aaron, Nadab,
and Abihu, his sons, and the seventy elders of Israel, and worship ye
afar off,” Exod. xxiv, 1, 9, 10. They advanced only to the foot of the
mountain. On all occasions afterward, we find this number of seventy
elders. But it is credible, that as there were twelve tribes, there were
seventy-two elders, six from each tribe, and that seventy is set down,
instead of seventy-two; or rather, that Moses and Aaron should be added
to the number seventy, and that, exclusive of them, there were but four
elders from the tribe of Levi. After Jethro’s arrival in the camp of
Israel, Moses made a considerable change in the governors of the people.
He established over Israel heads of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and
tens, that justice might be readily administered to applicants; only
difficult cases were referred to himself, Exod. xviii, 24, 25, &c. But
this constitution did not continue long; for on the murmuring of the
people at the encampment called the Graves of Lust, Num. xi, 24–35,
Moses appointed seventy elders of Israel, to whom God communicated part
of that legislator’s spirit; they began to prophesy, and ceased not
afterward. This, according to the generality of interpreters, was the
beginning of the sanhedrim; but, to support this opinion, many things
must be supposed, whereby to infer, that this court of justice was
constantly in being during the Scripture history. It seems that the
establishment of the seventy elders by Moses continued, not only during
his life, but under Joshua likewise, and under the judges. The elders of
the people and Joshua swore to the treaty with the Gibeonites, Josh, ix,
15. A little before his death, Joshua renewed the covenant with the
Lord, in company with the elders, the princes, the heads, and officers
of Israel, Joshua xxiii; xxiv, 1, 28. After the death of Joshua, and the
elders who survived him, the people were several times brought into
bondage, and were delivered by their judges. We do not see distinctly
what authority the elders had during this time, and still less under the
kings who succeeded the judges.

ELEAZAR, the third son of Aaron, and his successor in the dignity of
high priest, Exod. vi, 23. He entered into the land of Canaan with
Joshua, and is supposed to have lived there upward of twenty years. The
high priesthood continued in his family till the time of Eli. He was
buried in a hill that belonged to the son of Phineas, Joshua xxiv.

2. ELEAZAR, the son of Aminadab, to whose care the ark was committed
when it was sent back by the Philistines, 1 Samuel vii. He is thought to
have been a priest, or at least a Levite, though he is not mentioned in
the catalogue of the sons of Levi.

ELECTION. Of a divine election, a choosing and separating from others,
we have three kinds mentioned in the Scriptures. The first is the
election of _individuals_ to perform some particular and special
service. Cyrus was “elected” to rebuild the temple; the twelve Apostles
were “chosen,” elected, to their office by Christ; St. Paul was a
“chosen,” or elected “vessel,” to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The
second kind of election which we find in Scripture, is the election of
_nations, or bodies of people_, to eminent religious privileges, and in
order to accomplish, by their superior illumination, the merciful
purposes of God, in benefiting other nations or bodies of people. Thus
the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were _chosen_ to receive special
revelations of truth; and to be “the people of God,” that is, his
visible church, publicly to observe and uphold his worship. “The Lord
thy God hath _chosen_ thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above
all people that are upon the face of the earth.” “The Lord had a delight
in thy fathers to love them, and he _chose_ their seed after them, even
you, above all people.” It was especially on account of the application
of the terms _elect_, _chosen_, and _peculiar_, to the Jewish people,
that they were so familiarly used by the Apostles in their epistles
addressed to the believing Jews and Gentiles, then constituting the
church of Christ in various places. For Christians were the subjects,
also, of this second kind of election; the election of bodies of men to
be the visible people and church of God in the world, and to be endowed
with peculiar privileges. Thus they became, though in a more special and
exalted sense, the chosen people, the elect of God. We say “in a more
special sense,” because as the entrance into the Jewish church was by
natural birth, and the entrance into the Christian church, properly so
called, is by faith and a spiritual birth, these terms, although many
became Christians by mere profession, and enjoyed various privileges in
consequence of their people or nation being chosen to receive the
Gospel, have generally respect, in the New Testament, to bodies of true
believers, or to the whole body of true believers as such. They are not,
therefore, to be interpreted according to the scheme of Dr. Taylor of
Norwich, by the constitution of the Jewish, but by the constitution of
the Christian, church.

2. To understand the nature of this “election,” as applied sometimes to
particular bodies of Christians, as when St. Peter says, “The church
which is at Babylon, _elected together_ with you,” and sometimes to the
whole body of believers every where; and also the reason of the frequent
use of the term _election_, and of the occurrence of allusions to the
fact; it is to be remembered, that a great religious revolution, so to
speak, had occurred in the age of the Apostles; with the full import of
which we cannot, without calling in the aid of a little reflection, be
adequately impressed. This change was no other than the abrogation of
the _church state_ of the Jews, which had continued for so many ages.
They had been the only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the
nations of the earth; for whatever pious people might have existed in
other nations, they were not, in the sight of men, and collectively,
acknowledged as “the people of Jehovah.” They had no written
revelations, no appointed ministry, no forms of authorized initiation
into his church and covenant, no appointed holy days, or sanctioned
ritual. All these were peculiar to the Jews, who were, therefore, an
elected and peculiar people. This distinguished honour they were about
to lose. They might have retained it as Christians, had they been
willing to admit the believing Gentiles of all nations to share it with
them; but the great reason of their peculiarity and election, _as a
nation_, was terminated by the coming of the Messiah, who was to be “a
light to lighten the Gentiles,” as well as “the glory of his people
Israel.” Their pride and consequent unbelief resented this, which will
explain their enmity to the believing part of the Gentiles, who, when
that which St. Paul calls “the fellowship of the mystery” was fully
explained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that Apostle himself,
were called into that church relation and visible acknowledgment as the
people of God, which the Jews had formerly enjoyed, and that with even a
higher degree of glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality of
the new dispensation. It was this doctrine which excited that strong
irritation in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially
Christianized ones, to which so many references are made in the New
Testament. They were “provoked,” were made “jealous;” and were often
roused to the madness of persecuting opposition by it. There was then a
_new election_ of a _new people_ of God, to be composed of Jews, not by
virtue of their _natural descent_, but through their faith in Christ,
and of Gentiles of all nations, also believing, and put as believers, on
an equal ground with the believing Jews: and there was also a
_rejection_, a reprobation, but not an absolute one; for _the election_
was offered to the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the
Gospel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the elect people of God,
on the new ground of faith, instead of the old one of natural descent;
and therefore the Apostle, Rom. xi, 7, calls the believing part of the
Jews, “the _election_,” in opposition to those who opposed this
“election of grace,” and still clung to their former and now repealed
election as Jews and the descendants of Abraham: “But the election hath
obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” The offer had been made to the
whole nation; all might have joined the one body of believing Jews and
believing Gentiles; but the major part of them refused: they would not
“come into the supper;” they made “light of it;” light of an election
founded on faith, and which placed the relation of “the people of God”
upon spiritual attainments, and offered to them only spiritual
blessings. They were, therefore, deprived of election and church
relationship of every kind: their temple was burned; their political
state abolished; their genealogies confounded; their worship annihilated
and all visible acknowledgment of them; by God as a church withdrawn,
and transferred to a church henceforward to be composed chiefly of
Gentiles: and thus, says St. Paul, “were fulfilled the words of Moses, I
will provoke you to jealousy by them that are _no people_, and by a
foolish,” ignorant and idolatrous, “people I will anger you.” It is
easy, therefore, to see what is the import of the “calling” and
“election” of the Christian church, as spoken of in the New Testament.
It was not the calling and the electing of one nation in particular to
succeed the Jews; but it was the calling and the electing of believers
in all nations, wherever the Gospel should be preached, to be in reality
what the Jews typically, and therefore in an inferior degree, had
been,--the visible church of God, “his people,” under Christ “the Head;”
with an authenticated revelation; with an appointed ministry, never to
be lost; with authorized worship; with holy days and festivals; with
instituted forms of initiation; and with special protection and favour.

3. The _third_ kind of election is personal election; or the election of
individuals to be the children of God, and the heirs of eternal life.
This is not a choosing to particular offices and service, which is the
first kind of election we have mentioned; nor is it that collective
election to religious privileges and a visible church state, of which we
have spoken. For although “the elect” have an individual interest in
such an election as parts of the collective body, thus placed in
possession of the ordinances of Christianity; yet many others have the
same advantages, who still remain under the guilt and condemnation of
sin and practical unbelief. The individuals properly called “the elect,”
are they who have been made partakers of the grace and saving efficacy
of the Gospel. “Many,” says our Lord, “are _called_, but few _chosen_.”
What true personal election is, we shall find explained in two clear
passages of Scripture. It is explained by our Lord, where he says to his
disciples, “I have chosen you out of the world:” and by St. Peter, when
he addresses his First Epistle to the “elect according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.” To be elected,
therefore, is to be separated from “the world,” and to be sanctified by
the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ. It follows, then, not only that
election is an act of God done in _time_, but also that it is subsequent
to the administration of the means of salvation. The “calling” goes
before the “election;” the publication of the doctrine of “the Spirit,”
and the atonement, called by Peter “the sprinkling of the blood of
Christ,” before that “sanctification” through which they become “the
elect” of God. In a word, “the elect” are the body of true believers;
and personal election into the family of God is through personal faith.
All who truly believe are elected; and all to whom the Gospel is sent
have, through the grace that accompanies it, the power to believe placed
within their reach; and all such might, therefore, attain to the grace
of personal election.

ELEMENTS, ϛοιχεῖα, the elements or first principles of any art, whence
the subsequent parts proceed. The elements or first principles of the
Christian doctrine, Heb, v, 12. St. Paul calls the ceremonial ordinances
of the Mosaic law, “worldly elements,” Gal. iv, 3; Col. ii, 8, 20; “weak
and beggarly elements,” Gal. iv, 9. Elements, as containing the
rudiments of the knowledge of Christ, to which knowledge the law, as a
pedagogue, Gal. iii, 24, was intended, by means of those ordinances, to
bring the Jews; worldly, as consisting in outward worldly institutions,
Heb. ix, 1; weak and beggarly, when considered in themselves, and set up
in opposition to the great realities to which they were designed to
lead. But, in Col. ii, 8, the elements or rudiments of the world are so
closely connected with philosophy and vain deceit, or an empty and
deceitful philosophy, that they must be understood there to include the
dogmas of Pagan philosophy; to which, no doubt, many of the Colossians
were in their unconverted state attached, and of which the Judaizing
teachers, who also were probably themselves infected with them, took
advantage to withdraw the Colossian converts from the purity of the
Gospel, and from Christ their living head. And from the general tenor of
this chapter, and particularly from verses 18–23, it appears, that these
philosophical dogmas, against which the Apostle cautioned his converts,
were partly Platonic, and partly Pythagorean; the former teaching the
worship of angels, or demons, as mediators between God and man; the
latter enjoining such abstinence from particular kinds of meats and
drinks, and such severe mortifications of the body, as God had not
commanded.

ELI, a high priest of the Hebrews, of the race of Ithamar, who succeeded
Abdon, and governed the Hebrews, both as priest and judge, during forty
years. How Eli came to the high priesthood, and how this dignity was
transferred from Eleazar’s family to that of Ithamar, who was Aaron’s
youngest son, we know not. This much, however, is certain, that it was
not done without an express declaration of God’s will, 1 Sam. ii, 27,
&c. In the reign of Solomon, the predictions in relation to Eli’s family
were fulfilled; for the high priesthood was taken from Abiathar, a
descendant of Eli, and given to Zadok, who was of the race of Eleazar, 1
Kings ii, 26. Eli appears to have been a pious, but indolent man,
blinded by paternal affection, who suffered his sons to gain the
ascendancy over him; and for want either of personal courage, or zeal
for the glory of God sufficient to restrain their licentious conduct, he
permitted them to go on to their own and his ruin. Thus he carried his
indulgence to cruelty; while a more dignified and austere conduct on his
part might have rendered them wise and virtuous, and thereby have
preserved himself and family. A striking lesson for parents! God
admonished him by Samuel, then a child; and Eli received those awful
admonitions with a mind fully resigned to the divine will. “It is the
Lord,” said he, “let him do what seemeth him good.” God deferred the
execution of his vengeance many years. At length, however, Hophni and
Phineas, the sons of Eli, were slain by the Philistines, the ark of the
Lord was taken, and Eli himself, hearing this melancholy news, fell
backward from his chair and broke his neck, in the ninety-eighth year of
his age, 1 Sam. iv, 12, 18.

ELIEZER, a native of Damascus, and the steward of Abraham’s house. It
seems that Abraham, before the birth of Isaac, intended to make him his
heir:--“One born in my house,” a domestic slave, “is mine heir,” Gen.
xv, 1–3. He was afterward sent into Mesopotamia, to procure a wife for
Isaac, Gen. xxiv, 2, 3, &c; which business he accomplished with fidelity
and expedition. “It is still the custom in India,” says Forbes,
“especially among the Mohammedans, that in default of children, and
sometimes where there are lineal descendants, the master of a family
adopts a slave, frequently a Haffshee Abyssinian, of the darkest hue,
for his heir. He educates him agreeably to his wishes, and marries him
to one of his daughters. As the reward of superior merit, or to suit the
caprice of an arbitrary despot, this honour is also conferred on a slave
recently purchased, or already grown up in the family; and to him he
bequeaths his wealth, in preference to his nephews, or any collateral
branches. This is a custom of great antiquity in the east, and prevalent
among the most refined and civilized nations. In the earliest period of
the patriarchal history, we find Abraham complaining for want of
children; and declaring that either Eliezer of Damascus, or probably one
born from him in his house, was his heir, to the exclusion of Lot, his
favourite nephew, and all the other collateral branches of his family.”

ELIHU, one of Job’s friends, a descendant of Nahor, Job xxxii, 2. See
JOB.

ELIJAH. Elijah or Elias, a prophet, was a native of Tishbe beyond Jordan
in Gilead. Some think that he was a priest descended from Aaron, and say
that one Sabaca was his father; but this has no authority. He was raised
up by God, to be set like a wall of brass, in opposition to idolatry,
and particularly to the worship of Baal, which Jezebel and Ahab
supported in Israel. The Scripture introduces Elijah saying to Ahab, 1
Kings xvii, 1, 2, A. M. 3092, “As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before
whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according
to my word.” It is remarkable, that the number of years is not here
specified; but in the New Testament we are informed that it was three
years and six months. By the prohibition of dew as well as rain, the
whole vegetable kingdom was deprived of that moisture, without which
neither the more hardy, nor more delicate kinds of plants could shoot
into herbage, or bring that herbage to maturity. The Lord commanded
Elijah to conceal himself beyond Jordan, near the brook Cherith. He
obeyed, and God sent ravens to him morning and evening, which brought
him flesh and bread. Scheuzer observes, that he cannot think that the
_orebim_ of the Hebrew, rendered “ravens,” means, as some have thought,
the inhabitants of a town called _Oreb_, nor a troop of Arabs called
_orbhim_; and contends that the bird called the raven, or one of the
same genus is intended. Suppose that Elijah was concealed from Ahab in
some rocky or mountainous spot, where travellers never came; and that
here a number of voracious birds had built their nests upon the trees
which grew around it, or upon a projecting rock, &c. These flying every
day to procure food for their young, the prophet availed himself of a
part of what they brought; and while they, obeying the dictates of
nature, designed only to provide for their offspring, Divine providence
directed them to provide at the same time for the wants of Elijah. What,
therefore, he collected, whether from their nests, from what they
dropped, or under a supernatural influence, brought to him, or
occasionally from all these means, was enough for his daily support.
“And the _orebim_ furnished him bread or flesh in the morning, and bread
or flesh in the evening.” But as there were probably several of them,
some might furnish bread and others flesh, as it happened; so that a
little from each formed his solitary but satisfactory meal. To such
straits was the exiled prophet driven! perhaps these _orebim_ were not
strictly ravens, but rooks. The word rendered _raven_, includes the
whole genus, among which are some less impure than the raven, as the
rook. Rooks living in numerous societies are supposed by some to be the
kind of birds employed on this occasion rather than ravens, which fly
only in pairs. But upon all these explanations we may observe, that when
an event is evidently miraculous, it is quite superfluous, and often
absurd, to invent hypotheses to make it appear more easy. After a time
the brook dried up, and God sent Elijah to Zarephath, a city of the
Sidonians. At the city gate he met with a widow woman gathering sticks,
from whom he desired a little water, adding, “Bring me, I pray thee,
also a morsel of bread.” She answered, “As the Lord liveth, I have no
bread, but only a handful of meal, and a little oil in a cruse; and I am
gathering some sticks, that I may dress it for me and my son, that we
may eat it, and die.” Elijah said, “Make first a little cake, and bring
it me, and afterward make for thee and thy son: for thus saith the Lord,
the barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail,
until the day the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.” His prediction was
fully accomplished, and he dwelt at the house of this widow. Some time
after, the son of this woman fell sick, and died. The mother,
overwhelmed with grief, intreated the assistance and interposition of
Elijah, who taking the child in his arms laid him on his own bed, and
cried to the Lord for the restoration of the child’s life. The Lord
heard the prophet’s petition, and restored the child.

2. After three years of drought the Lord commanded Elijah to show
himself to Ahab. The famine being great in Samaria, Ahab sent the people
throughout the country, to inquire after places where they might find
forage for the cattle. Obadiah, an officer of the king’s household,
being thus employed, Elijah presented himself, and directed him to tell
Ahab, “Behold, Elijah is here!” Ahab came to meet the prophet, and
reproached him as the cause of the famine. Elijah retorted the charge
upon the king, and his iniquities, and challenged Ahab to gather the
people together, and the prophets of Baal, that it might be determined
by a sign from heaven, the falling of fire upon the sacrifice, who was
the true God. In this the prophet obeyed the impulse of the Spirit of
God; and Ahab, either under an influence of which he was not conscious,
or blindly confident in the cause of idolatry, followed Elijah’s
direction, and convened the people of Israel, and four hundred prophets
of Baal. The prophets of Baal prepared their altar, sacrificed their
bullock, placed it on the altar, and called upon their gods. They leaped
upon the altar, and cut themselves after their manner, crying with all
their might. Elijah ridiculed them, and said, “Cry aloud, for he is god;
either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.” When midday was past,
Elijah repaired the altar of the Lord; and with twelve stones, in
allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel, he built a new altar. He then
laid his bullock upon the wood, poured a great quantity of water three
times upon the sacrifice and the wood, so that the water filled the
trench which was dug round the altar. After this he prayed, and, in
answer to his prayer, the Lord sent fire from heaven, and consumed the
wood, the burnt sacrifice, the stones, and dust of the place, and even
dried up the water in the trench. Upon this, all the people fell on
their faces, and exclaimed, “The Lord, he is the God.” Elijah then,
having excited the people to slay the false prophets of Baal, said to
Ahab, “Go home, eat and drink, for I hear the sound of abundance of
rain;” which long-expected blessing descended from heaven according to
his prediction, and gave additional proof to the truth of his mission
from the only living and true God.

3. Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, threatened Elijah for having slain her
prophets. He therefore fled to Beersheba, in the south of Judah, and
thence into Arabia Petrea. In the evening, being exhausted with fatigue,
he laid himself down under a juniper tree, and prayed God to take him
out of the world. An angel touched him, and he arose, and saw a cake
baked on the coals, and a cruse of water; and he ate and drank, and
slept again. The angel again awakened him, and said, “Rise and eat, for
the journey is too great for thee;” and he ate and drank, and went in
the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights, unto Horeb, the
mount of God. Here he had visions of the glory and majesty of God, and
conversed with him; and was commanded to return to the wilderness of
Damascus, to anoint Hazael king over Syria, and Jehu king over Israel,
and to appoint Elisha his successor in the prophetic office. Some years
after, Ahab having seized Naboth’s vineyard, the Lord commanded Elijah
to reprove Ahab for the crime he had committed. Elijah met him going to
Naboth’s vineyard to take possession of it, and said, “In the place
where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall they lick thy blood, even
thine. And the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.” Both of
which predictions were fulfilled in the presence of the people. Ahaziah,
king of Israel, being hurt by a fall from the platform of his house,
sent to consult Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, whether he should recover.
Elijah met the messengers, and said to them, “Is it because there is no
God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron? Now,
therefore, saith the Lord, Thou shalt surely die.” The messengers of
Ahaziah returned, and informed the king, that a stranger had told them
he should certainly die; and Ahaziah knew that this was the Prophet
Elijah. The king, therefore, sent a captain with his company of fifty
men, to apprehend him; and when the officer was come to Elijah, who was
sitting upon a hill, he said, “Thou man of God, the king commands thee
to come down.” Elijah answered, “If I be a man of God, let fire come
down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty.” The prophet’s words
were followed with the effect predicted. The king sent another captain,
who was also consumed; but a third captain going to Elijah intreated him
to save him and his people’s lives, and Elijah accompanied him to the
king. By these fearful miracles he was accredited to this successor of
Ahab as a prophet of the true God, and the destruction of these
companies of armed men was a demonstration of God’s anger against the
people at large. Elijah could not in this case act from any other
impulse than that of the Spirit of God.

4. Elijah, understanding by revelation that God would soon translate him
out of this world, was desirous of concealing this fact from Elisha, his
inseparable companion. He therefore said to Elisha, “Tarry thou here,
for the Lord hath sent me to Bethel.” But Elisha answered, “I will not
leave thee.” At Bethel, Elijah said, “Tarry thou here, the Lord hath
sent me to Jericho;” but Elisha replied, he would not forsake him. At
Jericho Elijah desired him to stay; but Elisha would not leave him. They
went therefore together to Jordan, and fifty of the sons of the prophets
followed them at a distance. When they were come to the Jordan, Elijah
took his mantle, and with it struck the waters, which divided, and they
went over on dry ground. Elijah then said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall
do for thee before I be taken away from thee.” “I pray thee,” said
Elisha, “let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me;” that is, obtain
the gift of prophecy from God for me, in the same measure that thou
possessest it. Double may signify like; or the gift of prophecy, and of
miracles, in a degree double to what thou dost possess, or to what I now
possess. Elijah answered, “Thou hast asked me a very hard thing; yet, if
thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if
not, it shall not be so.” As they journeyed, a fiery chariot, with
horses of fire, suddenly separated them, and Elijah was carried in a
whirlwind to heaven; while Elisha exclaimed, “My father, my father, the
chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!”

5. Elijah was one of the most eminent of that illustrious and singular
race of men, the Jewish prophets. Every part of his character is marked
by a moral grandeur, which is heightened by the obscurity thrown around
his connections, and his private history. He often wears the air of a
supernatural messenger suddenly issuing from another world, to declare
the commands of heaven, and to awe the proudest mortals by the menace of
fearful judgments. His boldness in reproof; his lofty zeal for the
honour of God; his superiority to softness, ease, and suffering, are the
characters of a man filled with the Holy Spirit; and he was admitted to
great intimacy with God, and enabled to work miracles of a very
extraordinary and unequivocal character. These were called for by the
stupid idolatry of the age, and were in some instances equally
calculated to demonstrate the being and power of Jehovah, and to punish
those who had forsaken him for idols. The author of Ecclesiasticus has
an encomium to his memory, and justly describes him as a prophet “who
stood up as fire, and whose word burned as a lamp.” In the sternness and
power of his reproofs he was a striking type of John the Baptist, and
the latter is therefore prophesied of, under his name. Malachi, iv, 5,
6, has this passage: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Our Saviour also
declares that Elijah had already come in spirit, in the person of John
the Baptist. At the transfiguration of our Saviour, Elijah and Moses
both appeared and conversed with him respecting his future passion,
Matt. xvii, 3, 4; Mark ix, 4; Luke ix, 30. Many of the Jews in our
Lord’s time believed him to be Elijah, or that the soul of Elijah had
passed into his body, Matt. xvi, 14; Mark vi, 15; Luke ix, 8. In
conclusion, we may observe, that to assure the world of the future
existence of good men in a state of glory and felicity, and that in
bodies changed from mortality to immortality, each of the three grand
dispensations of religion had its instance of translation into heaven;
the patriarchal in the person of ENOCH, the Jewish in the person of
ELIJAH, and the Christian in the person of CHRIST.

ELISHA, the son of Shaphat, Elijah’s disciple and successor in the
prophetic office, was of the city of Abelmeholah, 1 Kings xix, 16, &c.
Elijah having received God’s command to anoint Elisha as a prophet, came
to Abelmeholah; and finding him ploughing with oxen, he threw his mantle
over the shoulders of Elisha, who left the oxen, and accompanied him.
Under the article _Elijah_, it has been observed that Elisha was
following his master, when he was taken up to heaven; and that he
inherited Elijah’s mantle, with a double portion of his spirit. Elisha
smote the waters of Jordan, and divided them; and he rendered wholesome
the waters of a rivulet near Jericho. The kings of Israel, Judah, and
Edom, having taken the field against the king of Moab, who had revolted
from Israel, were in danger of perishing for want of water. Elisha was
at that time in the camp; and seeing Jehoram, the king of Israel, he
said, “What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy
father, and to the prophets of thy mother. As the Lord liveth, were it
not out of respect to Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, who is here
present, I would not so much as look on thee. But now send for a
minstrel; and while this man played, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon
Elisha, and he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make several ditches along
this valley; for ye shall see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley
shall be filled with water, and you and your cattle shall drink of it.”
The widow of one of the prophets having told Elisha, that her husband’s
creditor was determined to take her two sons and sell them for slaves,
Elisha multiplied the oil in the widow’s house, in such quantity that
she was enabled to sell it and to discharge the debt. Elisha went
frequently to Shunem, a city of Manasseh, on this side Jordan, and was
entertained by a certain matron at her house. As she had no children,
Elisha promised her a son; and his prediction was accomplished. Some
years after, the child died. Elisha, who was then at Mount Carmel, was
solicited by the mother to come to her house. The prophet went, and
restored the child. At Gilgal, during a great famine, one of the sons of
the prophets gathered wild gourds, which he put into the pot, and they
were served up to Elisha and the other prophets. It was soon found that
they were mortal poison; but Elisha ordering meal to be thrown into the
pot, corrected the quality of the pottage. Naaman, general of the king
of Syria’s forces, having a leprosy, was advised to visit Elisha in
order to be cured. Elisha appointed him to wash himself seven times in
the Jordan; and by this means Naaman was perfectly healed. He returned
to Elisha, and offered him large presents, which the man of God
resolutely refused. But Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, did not imitate the
disinterestedness of his master. He ran after Naaman, and in Elisha’s
name begged a talent of silver, and two changes of garments. Naaman gave
him two talents. Elisha, to whom God had discovered Gehazi’s action,
reproached him with it, and declared, that the leprosy of Naaman should
cleave to him and his family for ever. This is a striking instance of
the disinterestedness of the Jewish prophets. Elisha, like his master
Elijah, had learned to contemn the world. The king of Syria being at war
with the king of Israel, could not imagine how all his designs were
discovered by the enemy. He was told, that Elisha revealed them to the
king of Israel. He therefore sent troops to seize the prophet at Dothan;
but Elisha struck them with blindness, and led them in that condition
into Samaria. When they were in the city, he prayed to God to open their
eyes; and after he had made them eat and drink, he sent them back unhurt
to their master. Some time after, Benhadad, king of Syria, having
besieged Samaria, the famine became so extreme, that a certain woman ate
her own child. Jehoram, king of Israel, imputing to Elisha these
calamities, sent a messenger to cut off his head. Elisha, who was
informed of this design against his life, ordered the door to be shut.
The messenger was scarcely arrived, when the king himself followed, and
made great complaints of the condition to which the town was reduced.
Elisha answered, “To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine
flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in
the gate of Samaria.” Upon this, one of the king’s officers said, “Were
the Lord to open windows in heaven, might this thing be.” This unbelief
was punished; for the prophet answered, “Thou shalt see it with thine
eyes, but shalt not eat thereof,” which happened according to Elisha’s
prediction, for he was trodden to death by the crowd in the gate. At the
end of the seven years’ famine, which the prophet had foretold, he went
to Damascus, to execute the command which God had given to Elijah many
years before, of declaring Hazael king of Syria. Benhadad being at that
time indisposed, and hearing that Elisha was come into his territories,
sent Hazael, one of his principal officers, to the prophet to consult
him, and inquire of him whether it were possible for him to recover. The
prophet told Hazael, that he might recover, but that he was very well
assured that he should not; and then looking steadfastly upon him, he
broke out into tears upon the prospect, as he told him, of the many
barbarous calamities which he would bring upon Israel, when once he was
advanced to power, as he would soon be, because he was assured by divine
revelation that he was to be king of Syria. Hazael, though offended at
the time at being thought capable of such atrocities, did but too
clearly verify these predictions; for at his return, having murdered
Benhadad, and procured himself to be declared king, he inflicted the
greatest miseries upon the Israelites.

2. Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to anoint Jehu, the son
of Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, to be king, in pursuance of an
order given to Elijah some years before; and Jehu having received the
royal unction, executed every thing that had been foretold by Elijah
against Ahab’s family, and against Jezebel. Elisha falling sick, Joash,
king of Israel, came to visit him, and said, “O my father, my father,
the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.” Elisha desired the
king to bring him a bow and arrows. Joash having brought them, Elisha
requested him to put his hands on the bow, and at the same time the
prophet put his own hand upon the king’s, and said, Open the window
which looks east, and let fly an arrow. The king having done this,
Elisha said, This is the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance: thou shalt be
successful against Syria at Aphek. Elisha desired him again to shoot,
which he did three times, and then stopped. But Elisha with vehemence
said, “If thou hadst smitten five or six times, then thou hadst smitten
Syria until thou hadst consumed it; whereas now thou shalt smite Syria
only thrice.” This is the last prediction of Elisha of which we read in
Scripture, for soon after he died; but it was not his last miracle: for,
some time after his interment, a company of Israelites, as they were
going to bury a dead person, perceiving a band of Moabites making toward
them, put the corpse for haste into Elisha’s tomb, and, as soon as it
had touched the prophet’s body, it immediately revived; so that the man
stood upon his feet: a striking emblem of the life-giving effect of the
labours of the servants of God, after they themselves are gathered to
their fathers.

ELUL, the sixth month of the Hebrew ecclesiastical year, and the twelfth
of the civil year, answering to our August and part of September,
containing twenty-nine days.

EMBALMING, the art of preserving dead bodies from putrefaction. It was
much practised by the Egyptians of ancient times, and from them seems to
have been borrowed by the Hebrews. It consisted in opening the body,
taking out the intestines, and filling the place with odoriferous drugs
and spices of a desiccative quality. Joseph gave orders for the
embalming of the body of his father Jacob, Gen. l, 1, 2; and Moses
informs us that the process took up forty days. Joseph himself also was
embalmed, Gen. l, 26. Asa, king of Israel, seems to have been embalmed,
2 Chron. xvi, 13, 14. See BURIAL.

EMERALD, נפך, Exod. xxviii, 19; Ezek. xxvii, 16; xxviii, 13; σμάραγδος,
Rev. xxi, 19; Eccles. xxxii, 6; Tobit xiii, 16; Judith x, 21. This is
generally supposed to be the same with the ancient _smaragdus_. It is
one of the most beautiful of all the gems, and is of a bright green
colour, without the admixture of any other. Pliny thus speaks of it:
“The sight of no colour is more pleasant than green; for we love to view
green fields and green leaves; and are still more fond of looking at the
emerald, because all other greens are dull in comparison with this.
Beside, these stones seem larger at a distance, by tinging the
circumambient air. Their lustre is not changed by the sun, by the shade,
nor by the light of lamps; but they have always a sensible moderate
brilliancy.” From the passage in Ezekiel we learn that the Tyrians
traded in these jewels in the marts of Syria. They probably had them
from India, or the south of Persia. The true oriental emerald is very
scarce, and is only found at present in the kingdom of Cambay.

EMERODS. The disease of the Philistines, which is mentioned in 1 Sam. v,
6, 12; vi, 17, is denominated, in the Hebrew, עפלים. This word occurs,
likewise, in Deut. xxviii, 27; and it is worthy of remark, that it is
every where explained in the _keri_, or marginal readings, by the
Aramæan word, טחרים; an expression which, in the Syriac dialect, where
it occurs under the forms, טהרא and טהורא, means _the fundament_, and
likewise the effort which is made in an evacuation of the system. The
authors, therefore, of the reading in the _keri_ appear to have assented
to the opinion of Josephus, and to have understood by this word the
dysentery. The corresponding Arabic words mean a swelling, answering
somewhat in its nature to the hernia in men: a disease, consequently,
very different from the hemorrhoids, which some persons understand to be
meant by the word עפלים. Among other objections, it may also be
observed, that the mice, which are mentioned, not only in the Hebrew
text, 1 Sam. vi, 5, 12; xvi, 18, but also in the Alexandrine and Vulgate
versions, 1 Sam. v, 6; vi, 5, 11, 18, are an objection to understanding
the hemorrhoids by the word under consideration, since if that were in
fact the disease, we see no reason why mice should have been presented
as an offering to avert the anger of the God of Israel. Lichtenstein has
given this solution: The word, עכפרים, which is rendered _mice_, he
supposes to mean _venomous solpugas_, which belong to the spider class,
and yet are so large, and so similar in their form to mice, as to admit
of their being denominated by the same word. These venomous animals
destroy and live upon scorpions. They also bite men, whenever they can
have an opportunity, particularly in the fundament and the verenda.
Their bite causes swellings, which are fatal in their consequences,
called, in Hebrew, עפלים. The probable supposition, then, is, that
solpugas were at this time multiplied among the Philistines by the
special providence of God; and that, being very venomous, they were the
means of destroying many individuals.

EMIMS, ancient inhabitants of the land of Canaan, beyond Jordan, who
were defeated by Chedorlaomer and his allies, Gen. xiv, 5. Moses tells
us that they were beaten at Shaveh-Kirjathaim, which was in the country
of Sihon, conquered from the Moabites, Josh. xiii, 19–21. The Emims were
a warlike people, of a gigantic stature, great and numerous, tall as the
Anakims, and were accounted giants as well as they, Deut. ii, 10, 11.

EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL, “God with us.” It answers both in the LXX, and
Matt. i, 23, to the Hebrew עמנואל, from עם, _with_, נו, _us_, and אל,
_God_, Isa. vii, 14; viii, 8.

EMMAUS, a village about eight miles north-west of Jerusalem; on the road
to which, two of the disciples were travelling in sorrow and
disappointment after the resurrection, when our Lord appeared to them,
and held that memorable conversation with them which is recorded by St.
Luke, xxiv.

ENDOR, a city in the tribe of Manasseh, where the witch resided whom
Saul consulted a little before the battle of Gilboa, Joshua xvii, 11; 1
Sam. xxviii, 13. Mr. Bryant derives Endor from En-Ador, signifying _fons
pythonis_, “the fountain of light,” or oracle of the god Ador: which
oracle was probably founded by the Canaanites, and had never been
totally suppressed. The ancient world had many such oracles: the most
famous of which were that of Jupiter-Ammon in Lybia, and that of Delphi
in Greece: and in all of them, the answers to those who consulted them
were given from the mouth of a female; who, from the priestess of Apollo
at Delphi, has generally received the name of Pythia. That many such
oracles existed in Canaan, is evident from the number which Saul himself
is said to have suppressed; and such a one, with its Pythia, was this at
Endor. At these shrines, either as mock oracles, contrived by a crafty
and avaricious priesthood, to impose on the credulity and superstition
of its followers; or, otherwise, as is more generally supposed, as the
real instruments of infernal power, mankind, having altogether departed
from the true God, were permitted to be deluded. That, in this case, the
real Samuel appeared is plain both from the affright of the woman
herself, and from the fulfilment of his prophecy. It was an instance of
God’s overruling the wickedness of men, to manifest his own supremacy
and justice.

ENGEDI. It is also called Hazazon-Tamar, or _city of palm trees_, 2
Chron. xx, 2, because there was a great quantity of palm trees in the
territory belonging to it. It abounded with Cyprus vines, and trees that
produced balm. Solomon speaks of the “vineyards of Engedi,” Cant. i, 14.
This city, according to Josephus, stood near the lake of Sodom, three
hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, not far from Jericho, and the mouth of
the river Jordan, through which it discharged itself into the Dead Sea.
There is frequent mention of Engedi in the Scriptures. It was in the
cave of Engedi that David had it in his power to kill Saul, 1 Sam. xxiv.
The spot where this transaction took place, was a cavern in the rock,
sufficiently large to contain in its recesses the whole of David’s men,
six hundred in number, unperceived by Saul when he entered. Many similar
caves existed in the Holy Land. Such were those at Adullam and Makkedah,
and that in which Lot and his daughters dwelt after the destruction of
Sodom. Such also is that described by Mr. Maundrell, near Sidon, which
contained two hundred smaller caverns. Many of these were natural
cavities in the limestone rock, similar to those in Yorkshire and
Derbyshire, and in the Mendip hills in Somersetshire; and others,
excavations made by the primeval inhabitants, for defence, or for
shelter from the sun; and which subsequently served as retreats for
robbers, as they are at this day. Josephus has given an interesting
account of these caves, and the manner in which the robbers were taken
by Herod. And Dr. E. D. Clarke has described similar retreats in the
rocks near Bethlehem; others, between Jerusalem and Jericho, are
mentioned by Mr. Wilson. Into such caves the Israelites frequently
retired for shelter from their enemies, Judg. vi, 2; 1 Sam. xiii, 6;
xiv, 11; a circumstance which has afforded some striking and terrific
images to the prophets, Isaiah ii, 19; Hosea x, 8; Rev. vi, 15, 16.

ENOCH, the son of Cain, Gen. iv, 17, in honour of whom the first city
noticed in Scripture was called Enoch, by his father Cain, who was the
builder. It was situated on the east of the province of Eden.

2. ENOCH, the son of Jared, and father of Methuselah. He was born A. M.
622, and being contemporary with Adam, he had every opportunity of
learning from him the story of the creation, the circumstance of the
fall, the terms of the promise, and other important truths. An ancient
author affirms, that he was the father of astronomy; and Eusebius hence
infers, that he is the same with the Atlas of the Grecian mythology.
Enoch’s fame rests upon a better basis than his skill in science. The
encomium of Enoch is, that he “walked with God.” While mankind were
living in open rebellion against Heaven, and provoking the divine
vengeance daily by their ungodly deeds, he obtained the exalted
testimony, “that he pleased God.” This he did, not only by the exemplary
tenor of his life, and by the attention which he paid to the outward
duties of religion, but by the soundness of his faith, and the purity of
his heart and life: see Heb. xi, 5, 6. The intent of the Apostle, in the
discourse containing this passage, is, to show that there has been but
one way of obtaining the divine favour ever since the fall, and that is,
by faith, or a firm persuasion and confidence in the atonement to be
made for human transgressions by the obedience, sufferings, death, and
resurrection of the promised Messiah. The cloud of witnesses which the
Apostle has produced of Old Testament worthies, all bore, in their
respective generations, their testimony to this great doctrine, in
opposition to the atheism or theism, and gross idolatry, which prevailed
around them. All the patriarchs are celebrated for their faith in this
great truth, and for preserving this principle of religion in the midst
of a corrupt generation. Enoch, therefore, is said, by another
evangelical writer, to have spoken of the coming of Christ to judgment
unto the antediluvian sinners. See Jude 14, 15. This prophecy is a
clear, and it is also an awful, description of the day of judgment, when
the Messiah shall sit upon his throne of justice, to determine the final
condition of mankind, according to their works; and it indicates that
the different offices of Messiah both to save and to judge, or as
Prophet, Priest, and King, were known to the holy patriarchs. On what
the Apostle founded this prediction has been matter of much speculation
and inquiry. Some, indeed, have produced a treatise, called “The Book of
Enoch,” which, as they pretend, contains the cited passage; but its
authority is not proved, and internal evidence sufficiently marks its
spurious origin. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the
prophecy cited by St. Jude was either traditionally handed down, or had
been specially communicated to that Apostle. In the departure of Enoch
from this world of sin and sorrow, the Almighty altered the ordinary
course of things, and gave him a dismissal as glorious to himself, as it
was instructive to mankind. To convince them how acceptable holiness is
to him, and to show that he had prepared for those that love him a
heavenly inheritance, he caused Enoch to be taken from the earth without
passing through death. See ELIJAH.

ENOS, or ENOSH, the son of Seth, and father of Cainan. He was born A. M.
235. Moses tells us that then “men began to call upon the name of the
Lord,” Gen iv, 26; that is, such as abhorred the impiety and immorality
which prevailed among the progeny of Cain, began to worship God in
public, and to assemble together at stated times for that purpose. Good
men, to distinguish themselves from the wicked, began to take the name
of sons or servants of God; for which reason Moses, Gen. vi, 1, 2, says
that “the sons of God,” or the descendants of Enos, “seeing the
daughters of men,” &c. The eastern people make the following additions
to his history:--that Seth, his father, declared him sovereign prince
and high priest of mankind, next after himself; that Enos was the first
who ordained public alms for the poor, established public tribunals for
the administration of justice, and planted, or rather cultivated, the
palm tree.

EPHAH, the eldest son of Midian, who gave his name to a city and small
extent of land in the country of Midian, situated on the eastern shore
of the Dead Sea, Genesis xxv, 4. This country abounded with camels and
dromedaries, Isaiah lx, 6, &c.

2. EPHAH, a measure both for things dry and liquid, in use among the
Hebrews. The ephah for the former contained three pecks and three pints.
In liquid measure it was of the same capacity as the bath.

EPHESUS, a much celebrated city of Ionia, in Asia Minor, situated upon
the river Cayster, and on the side of a hill. It was the metropolis of
the Proconsular Asia, and formerly in great renown among Heathen authors
on account of its famous temple of Diana. This temple was seven times
set on fire: one of the principal conflagrations happened on the very
day that Socrates was poisoned, four hundred years before Christ; the
other, on the same night in which Alexander the Great was born, when a
person of the name of Erostratus set it on fire, according to his own
confession, to get himself a name! It was, however, rebuilt and
beautified by the Ephesians, toward which the female inhabitants of the
city contributed liberally. In the times of the Apostles it retained
much of its former grandeur; but, so addicted were the inhabitants of
the city to idolatry and the arts of magic, that the prince of darkness
would seem to have, at that time, fixed his throne in it. Ephesus is
supposed to have first invented those obscure mystical spells and charms
by means of which the people pretended to heal diseases and drive away
evil spirits; whence originated the Ἐφέσια γράμματα, or _Ephesian
letters_, so often mentioned by the ancients.

2. The Apostle Paul first visited this city, A. D. 54; but being then on
his way to Jerusalem, he abode there only a few weeks, Acts xviii,
19–21. During his short stay, he found a synagogue of the Jews, into
which he went, and reasoned with them upon the interesting topics of his
ministry, with which they were so pleased that they wished him to
prolong his visit. He however declined that, for he had determined, God
willing, to be at Jerusalem at an approaching festival; but he promised
to return, which he did a few months afterward, and continued there
three years, Acts xix, 10; xx, 31. While the Apostle abode in Ephesus
and its neighbourhood, he gathered a numerous Christian church, to
which, at a subsequent period, he wrote that epistle, which forms so
important a part of the Apostolic writings. He was then a prisoner at
Rome, and the year in which he wrote it must have been 60 or 61 of the
Christian æra. It appears to have been transmitted to them by the hands
of Tychicus, one of his companions in travel, Ephesians vi, 21. The
critics have remarked that the style of the Epistle to the Ephesians is
exceedingly elevated; and that it corresponds to the state of the
Apostle’s mind at the time of writing. Overjoyed with the account which
their messenger brought him of the steadfastness of their faith, and the
ardency of their love to all the saints, Eph. i, 15; and, transported
with the consideration of the unsearchable wisdom of God displayed in
the work of man’s redemption, and of his amazing love toward the
Gentiles, in introducing them, as fellow-heirs with the Jews, into the
kingdom of Christ, he soars into the most exalted contemplation of those
sublime topics, and gives utterance to his thoughts in language at once
rich and varied. The epistle, says Macknight, is written as it were in a
rapture. Grotius remarks that it expresses the sublime matters contained
in it in terms more sublime than are to be found in any human language;
to which Macknight subjoins this singular but striking observation, that
no real Christian can read the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, without being impressed and roused by it, as by the sound of
a trumpet.

3. Ephesus was one of the seven churches to which special messages were
addressed in the book of Revelation. After a commendation of their first
works, to which they were commanded to return, they were accused of
having left their first love, and threatened with the removal of their
candlestick out of its place, except they should repent, Rev. ii, 5. The
contrast which its present state presents to its former glory, is a
striking fulfilment of this prophecy. Ephesus was the metropolis of
Lydia, a great and opulent city, and, according to Strabo, the greatest
emporium of Asia Minor. Its temple of Diana, “whom all Asia worshipped,”
was adorned with one hundred and twenty-seven columns of Parian marble,
each of a single shaft, and sixty feet high, and which formed one of the
seven wonders of the world. The remains of its magnificent theatre, in
which it is said that twenty thousand people could easily have been
seated, are yet to be seen. But a few heaps of stones, and some
miserable mud cottages, occasionally tenanted by Turks, without one
Christian residing there, are all the remains of ancient Ephesus. It is,
as described by different travellers, a solemn and most forlorn spot.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is read throughout the world; but there is
none in Ephesus to read it now. They left their first love, they
returned not to their first works. Their “candlestick has been removed
out of its place;” and the great city of Ephesus is no more. Dr.
Chandler says, “The inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in
extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives
of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness;
some, in the substructions of the glorious edifices which they raised;
some, beneath the vaults of the stadium, once the crowded scene of their
diversions; and some, by the abrupt precipice, in the sepulchres which
received their ashes. Its streets are obscured and overgrown. A herd of
goats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon; and a noisy
flight of crows from the quarries seemed to insult its silence. We heard
the partridge call in the area of the theatre and the stadium. The
glorious pomp of its Heathen worship is no longer remembered; and
Christianity, which was here nursed by Apostles, and fostered by general
councils, until it increased to fulness of stature, barely lingers on in
an existence hardly visible.” “I was at Ephesus,” says Mr. Arundell, “in
January, 1824; the desolation was then complete: a Turk, whose shed we
occupied, his Arab servant, and a single Greek, composed the entire
population; some Turcomans excepted, whose black tents were pitched
among the ruins. The Greek revolution, and the predatory excursions of
the Samiotes, in great measure accounted for this total desertion. There
is still, however, a village near, probably the same which Chishull and
Van Egmont mention, having four hundred Greek houses.”

St. John passed the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and
principally at Ephesus, where he died.

EPHOD, אפוד. This article of dress was worn by laymen as well as by the
high priest. The sacred ephod, the one made for the high priest,
differed from the others, in being fabricated of cotton, which was
coloured with crimson, purple, and blue, and in being ornamented with
gold. In the time of Josephus, it was a cubit of the larger size in
length, and was furnished with sleeves. The high priest’s ephod had a
very rich button upon each shoulder, made of a large onyx stone set in
gold. This stone was so large, that the names of the twelve tribes of
Israel were engraven, six on each stone, Exod. xxviii, 9–12. The word
_shoham_, which we render onyx, is translated, by the Septuagint
_smaragdos_, an emerald; but as we have no certain knowledge either of
this, or of any of the twelve stones of the breastplate, we may as well
be satisfied with our translation as with any other. To the ephod
belonged a curious girdle, of the same rich fabric as the ephod itself.
This girdle is said to be upon the ephod, Exod. xxviii, 8; that is,
woven with the ephod, as Maimonides understands; and, coming out from
the ephod on each side, it was brought under the arms like a sash, and
tied upon the breast. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a
linen ephod, 1 Sam. ii, 18. And David, in the ceremony of removing the
ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen
ephod, 2 Sam. vi, 14. The Levites were not generally allowed to wear the
ephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little
before the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, they obtained of that
prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests.
Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to
wear the ephod, because David, coming to Ziklag, and finding that the
Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s
wives, ordered Abiathar, the high priest, to bring him the ephod, which
being done, David inquired of the Lord, saying, “Shall I pursue after
this troop?” 1 Sam. xxx, 8. Whence they infer, that David consulted God
by urim and thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. But it is
probable the text only means that he ordered the priest to do what he is
himself said to have done. The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having
become the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites, Judges
viii, 27. What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the
learned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called,
was an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of the signal
victory obtained by Gideon, and that the Israelites paid a kind of
divine worship to it; so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their
idolatry, in like manner as Moses had been in making the brazen serpent,
which was afterward worshipped.

EPHRAIM was the name of Joseph’s second son, by Asenath, Potiphar’s
daughter. He was born in Egypt, A. M. 2294. Ephraim, with his brother
Manasseh, was presented by his father Joseph to Jacob on his death bed,
Gen. xlviii, 8, &c. Jacob laid his right hand on Ephraim the younger,
and his left on Manasseh the elder. Joseph was desirous to change his
hands, but Jacob answered, “I know it, my son; Manasseh shall be
multiplied, but Ephraim shall be greater.” The sons of Ephraim having
made an inroad into Palestine, the inhabitants of Gath killed them.
Ephraim their father mourned many days for them, and his brethren came
to comfort him, 1 Chron. vii, 20, 21. Afterward, he had a son named
Beriah, and a daughter Sherah. He had also other sons, Rephah, Resheph,
Tela, &c. His posterity multiplied in Egypt to the number of forty
thousand five hundred men capable of bearing arms. In the land of
promise, Joshua, who was of this tribe, gave them their portion between
the Mediterranean west, and the river Jordan east. The ark and
tabernacle remained long in this tribe at Shiloh; and after the
separation of the ten tribes, the seat of the kingdom was in Ephraim,
and hence Ephraim is frequently used to denote the whole kingdom. The
district belonging to this tribe is called Ephratah, Psalm cxxxii, 6.
Ephraim was led captive beyond the Euphrates, with all Israel, by
Salmaneser, king of Assyria, A. M. 3283.

2. EPHRAIM was also the name of a city, into which Christ retired with
his disciples a little before his passion, John xi, 54. It was situated
in the tribe of Ephraim near the river Jordan. There was also the wood
or forest of Ephraim, situated on the other side Jordan, in which
Absalom’s army was routed and himself killed, 2 Sam. xviii, 6.

EPHRATH, Caleb’s second wife, who was the mother of Hur, 1 Chron. ii,
19. From her, it is believed that the city of Ephratah, otherwise called
Bethlehem, where our Lord was born, had its name; and this city is more
than once known in Scripture by the name of Ephrath, Gen. xxxv, 16.

EPICUREANS, a sect of philosophers in Greece and Rome. Epicurus was
their founder, who lived about B. C. 300. The physical doctrine of
Epicurus was as follows: Nothing can ever spring from nothing, nor can
any thing ever return to nothing. The universe always existed, and will
always remain; for there is nothing into which it can be changed. There
is nothing in nature, nor can any thing be conceived, beside body and
space. Body is that which possesses the properties of bulk, figure,
resistance, and gravity; it is this alone which can touch and be
touched. Space, or vacuum, destitute of the properties of body,
incapable of action or passion, is the region which is or may be
occupied by body, and which affords it an opportunity of moving freely.
The existence of bodies is attested by the senses. Space must also
exist, in order to allow bodies place in which to move and exist; and of
their existence and motion we have the certain proof of perception.
Beside body and space, no third nature can be conceived. But the
existence of qualities is not precluded, because these have no
subsistence except in the body to which they belong. The universe,
consisting of body and space, is infinite. Bodies are infinite in
multitude; space is infinite in magnitude. The universe is immovable,
because there is no place beyond it into which it can move. It is also
eternal and immutable, since it is liable to neither increase nor
decrease, to production nor decay. Nevertheless, the parts of the
universe are in motion, and are subject to change. All bodies consist of
parts which are either themselves simple principles, or may be resolved
into such. These first principles, or simple atoms, are divisible by no
force, and therefore must be immutable.

2. The formation of the world he conceived to have happened in the
following manner: A finite number of that infinite multitude of atoms,
which, with infinite space, constitute the universe, falling
fortuitously into the region of the world, were, in consequence of their
innate motion, collected into one rude and indigested mass. In this
chaos, the heaviest and largest atoms, or collections of atoms, first
subsided, while the smaller, and those which from their form would move
most freely, were driven upwards. These latter, after several
reverberations, rose into the outer region of the world, and formed the
heavens. Those atoms which, by their size and figure, were suited to
form fiery bodies, collected themselves into stars; those which were not
capable of rising so high in the sphere of the world, being disturbed by
the fiery particles, formed themselves into air. At length, from those
which subsided, was produced the earth. By the action of air, agitated
by heat from the heavenly bodies, upon the mixed mass of the earth, its
smoother and lighter particles were separated from the rest, and water
was produced, which naturally flowed into the lowest places. In the
first combination of atoms, which formed the chaos, various seeds arose,
which, being preserved and nourished by moisture and heat, afterward
sprung forth in organized bodies of different kinds. The soul is a
subtle corporeal substance, composed of the finest atoms, which, by the
extreme tenuity of its particles, is able to penetrate the whole body,
and to adhere to all its parts. It is composed of four distinct parts:
fire, which causes animal heat; an ethereal principle which is moist
vapour; air; and a fourth principle, which is the cause of sensation.
These four parts are so perfectly combined as to form one subtle
substance, which, while it remains in the body, is the cause of all its
faculties, motions, and passions, and which cannot be separated from it,
without producing the entire dissolution of the animal system.

3. In the universe there are, according to Epicurus, without
contradiction, divine natures; because nature itself has impressed the
idea of divinity upon the minds of men. The notion is universal; nor is
it established by custom, law, or any human institution; but it is the
effect of an innate principle, producing universal consent, and
therefore it must be true. This universal notion has probably arisen
from images of the gods, which have casually made their way into the
minds of men in sleep, and have afterward been recollected. But it is
inconsistent with our natural notions of the gods, as happy and immortal
beings, to suppose that they encumber themselves with the management of
the world, or are subject to the cares and passions which must attend so
great a charge. Hence it is inferred, that the gods have no intercourse
with mankind, nor any concern with the affairs of the world.
Nevertheless, on account of their excellent nature, they are objects of
reverence and worship. In their external shape the gods resemble men;
and though the place of their residence is unknown to mortals; it is
without doubt the mansion of perfect purity, tranquillity, and
happiness. Thus he attempted to account for all the appearances of
nature, even those which respect animated and intelligent beings, upon
the simple principles of matter and motion, without introducing the
agency of a supreme intelligence, or admitting any other idea of fate,
than that of blind necessity inherent in every atom, by which it moves
in a certain direction.

4. The ethics of Epicurus are much less exceptionable than his physics;
of which we may judge from the following summary: The end of living, or
the ultimate good, which is to be sought for its own sake, according to
the universal opinion of mankind, is happiness; which men generally fail
of attaining, because they form wrong notions of the nature of
happiness, or do not use proper means for attaining it. The happiness
which belongs to man, is that state in which he enjoys as many of the
good things, and suffers as few of the evils incident to human nature as
possible, passing his days in a smooth course of permanent tranquillity.
Perfect happiness cannot possibly be possessed without the pleasure that
attends freedom from pain, and the enjoyment of the good things of life.
Pleasure is in its nature good, and ought to be pursued; and pain is in
its nature evil, and should be avoided. Beside, pleasure or pain is the
measure of what is good or evil in every object of desire or aversion.
However, pleasure ought not in every instance to be pursued, nor pain to
be avoided; but reason is to distinguish and compare the nature and
degrees of each, that the result may be a wise choice of that which
shall appear to be, upon the whole, good. That pleasure is the first
good, appears from the inclination which every animal, from its first
birth, discovers to pursue pleasure and avoid pain; and is confirmed by
the universal experience of mankind, who are incited to action by no
other principle, than the desire of avoiding pain, or obtaining
pleasure. Of pleasures there are two kinds; one consisting in a state of
rest, in which both body and mind are free from pain; the other arising
from an agreeable agitation of the senses, producing a correspondent
emotion in the soul. Upon the former of these, the enjoyment of life
chiefly depends. Happiness may, therefore, be said to consist in bodily
ease and mental tranquillity. It is the office of reason to confine the
pursuit of pleasure within the limits of nature, so as to attain this
happy state; which neither resembles a rapid torrent, nor a standing
pool, but is like a gentle stream, that glides smoothly and silently
along. This happy state can only be attained by a prudent care of the
body, and a steady government of the mind. The diseases of the body are
to be prevented by temperance, or cured by medicine, or endured
tolerably by patience. Against the diseases of the mind philosophy
provides sufficient antidotes; the virtues are its instruments for this
purpose; the radical spring of which is prudence, or wisdom, and this
instructs men to free their understanding from the clouds of prejudice;
to exercise temperance and fortitude in the government of themselves;
and to practise justice toward all others. In a happy life, pleasure can
never be separated from virtue. The followers of Epicurus, however,
degenerated into mere sensualists,--an effect which could only result
from a system which denied a supreme God, and excluded from all concern
with the affairs of men even those divine natures which it allowed to
exist. This sect is mentioned Acts xvii, 18.

EPISCOPACY, DIOCESAN. The number of Christians in most of the primitive
churches was at first small: they could easily, when not prevented by
persecution, assemble together; and they thus formed one church or
congregation; for, in Scripture, the term _church_ is never used in the
more modern acceptation of the word, but is employed to denote either
the whole church of Christ, or a number of disciples meeting for the
celebration of divine worship. The converts, however, rapidly increased;
and when they could no longer meet in one place, other places would be
prepared for them. But, connected as they still were with the parent
church, they would choose from its presbyters their own pastors, and
view themselves as under the inspection of the president and the
presbytery, by whom the affairs of the church had been previously
conducted. The pastors would thus remain members of the presbytery, as
they had formerly been, and would look up to that one of their number
who had been accustomed to preside among them. They were, in fact, for a
considerable time, considered as one with the original church: the
bishop sent to them the elements of the Lord’s Supper as the pledge of
unity; and we find it asserted by ancient writers, that there was one
altar and one bishop. There were in this way gradually established,
first in the towns or cities in which the Apostles had called men to the
truth, and then in the contiguous district of country, several
congregations: in these pastors officiated, who were authorized by the
bishop and presbytery, whose superintendence was extended, so that
parochial episcopacy was insensibly but naturally changed into diocesan
episcopacy; many of the presbyters sent out by the bishop residing at
their churches, but nevertheless composing part of his council, and
being summoned to meet with him upon important occasions. This
enlargement of the field of inspection rendered the particular
superintendence of the bishop more requisite; and was the means both of
adding to his influence, and of his being regarded as permanently raised
above his brethren.

2. The ministers who were sent to the recently erected churches had
probably different powers, according to the numbers to whom they were to
officiate, the situation of the churches in respect of the original
church, and the tranquillity or persecution which was their lot. In the
immediate neighbourhood of the bishop, and where one person was
sufficient, he would merely perform the duties that had been assigned to
him previous to his mission; but the same reasons that led the Apostles
to plant several presbyters in the churches which they founded might
render it expedient that more than one, sometimes that a considerable
number, should be attached to the newly-formed congregations; more
particularly when the number attending was large, and when there was the
prospect of their still farther increasing. In such cases, it appears
that the bishop gave to one of the presbyters sent, and did so for the
same reasons that had at first created inequality among the pastors,
more extensive powers than were entrusted to the rest, and made him his
representative authorizing him to preside over the others, and to
discharge those parts of the ministerial office which, in his own
church, he reserved for himself. When this happened, the person so
distinguished was termed _choro-episcopus_: he was more than a
presbyter, but he was inferior to the bishop, acted by his directions,
and could be controlled by him in the exercise of the privileges which
had been granted. Such subordinate bishops continued for a considerable
time; but it might, from the beginning, have been foreseen that they
would soon aspire to an equality with the original bishops; and they
were at length suppressed, under the pretence that, by multiplying the
higher order in places of little consequence, the church would detract
from the respectability of that order, and lessen the reverence with
which it should be regarded.

3. The different congregations or churches which were established in
various cities and the adjoining districts were in so far independent of
each other, that the bishops and presbyters of each had the rule of
their particular church, and of the churches which had sprung from it,
and were entitled, by their own authority, to make such regulations as
appeared to them to be requisite; and this species of independence
continued for a considerable time, every bishop presiding in his
congregation, and afterward in his diocess. There was, however, always a
common tie by which they were united. Neighbouring churches, actuated by
ardent zeal for the interests of divine truth, consulted together upon
the best mode of promoting it. We know that the Apostolic churches were
enjoined to communicate to other bodies the epistles which they had
received; and while persecution continued, it was natural for all who
were exposed to it to consider by what means its fury could be avoided.

4. After the bishops were established as superior to presbyters, when
any meeting was held respecting religion, or the administration of the
church, it was chiefly composed of this higher order, and the president
of the synod or council was elected from their number. These meetings
were generally assembled in the metropolis, or principal city of the
district; and hence the bishop of this city, being frequently called to
preside, came, at length, to be regarded as entitled to do so: thus
acquiring a superiority over the other bishops, just as they had
acquired superiority over the inferior clergy. He was, in consequence,
distinguished by a particular name, being denominated, from the city in
which he presided, a metropolitan.

EPISCOPALIANS, those who maintain that bishops, presbyters, or priests,
and deacons, are three distinct orders in the church; and that the
bishops have a superiority over both the others. The episcopal form of
church government professes to find in the days of the Apostles the
model upon which it is framed. While our Lord remained upon earth, he
acted as the immediate governor of his church. Having himself called the
Apostles, he kept them constantly about his person, except at one time,
when he sent them forth upon a short progress through the cities of
Judea, and gave them particular directions how they should conduct
themselves. The seventy disciples, whom he sent forth at another time,
are never mentioned again in the New Testament. But the Apostles
received from him many intimations that their office was to continue
after his departure; and as one great object of his ministry was to
qualify them for the execution of this office, so, in the interval
between his resurrection and his ascension, he explained to them the
duties of it, and he invested them with the authority which the
discharge of those duties implied. “Go,” said he, “make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them, teaching them; and lo, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world. As my Father hath sent me, even so send
I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; John xx, 21,
22. Soon after the ascension of Jesus, his Apostles received those
extraordinary gifts of which his promise had given them assurance; and
immediately they began to execute their commission, not only as the
witnesses of his resurrection, and the teachers of his religion, but as
the rulers of that society which was gathered by their preaching. In
Acts vi, we find the Apostles ordering the Christians at Jerusalem to
“look out seven men of honest report,” who might take charge of the
daily ministrations to the poor, and to bring the men so chosen to them,
that “we,” said the Apostles, “may appoint them over this business.” The
men accordingly were “set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed,
they laid their hands on them.” Here are the Apostles ordaining deacons.
Afterward, we find St. Paul, in his progress through Asia Minor,
ordaining in every church elders, ϖρεσϐυτέρȣς; the name properly
expressive of age being transferred, after the practice of the Jews, as
a mark of respect, to ecclesiastical rulers, Acts xiv, 23. The men thus
ordained by St. Paul appear, from the book of Acts and the Epistles, to
have been teachers, pastors, overseers, of the flock of Christ; and to
Timothy, who was a minister of the word, the Apostle speaks of “the gift
which is in thee by the putting on of my hands,” 2 Tim. i, 6. Over the
persons to whom he thus conveyed the office of teaching, he exercised
jurisdiction; for he sent to Ephesus, to the elders of the church to
meet him at Miletus; and there, in a long discourse, gave them a solemn
charge, Acts xx, 17–35; and to Timothy and Titus he writes epistles in
the style of a superior.

2. As St. Paul unquestionably conceived that there belonged to him, as
an Apostle, an authority over other office-bearers of the church, so his
epistles contain two examples of a delegation of that authority. He not
only directs Timothy, whom he had besought to abide at Ephesus, how to
behave himself in the house of God as a minister, but he sets him over
other ministers. He empowers him to ordain men to the work of the
ministry: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others
also,” 2 Tim. ii, 2. He gives him directions about the ordination of
bishops and deacons; he places both these kinds of office-bearers in
Ephesus under his inspection, instructing him in what manner to receive
an accusation against an elder who laboured in word and doctrine; and he
commands him to charge some that they teach no other doctrine but the
form of sound words. In like manner he says to Titus, “For this cause
left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that
are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee,”
Titus i, 5. He describes to Titus the qualifications of a bishop or
elder, making him the judge how far any person in Crete was possessed of
these qualifications; he gives him authority over all orders of
Christians there; and he empowers him to reject heretics. Here, then, is
that Apostle, with whose actions we are best acquainted, seemingly aware
that there would be continual occasion in the Christian church for the
exercise of that authority over pastors and teachers, which the Apostles
had derived from the Lord Jesus; and by these two examples of a
delegation, given during his life time, preparing the world for
beholding that authority exercised by the successors of the Apostles in
all ages. Accordingly, the earliest Christian writers tell us that the
Apostles, to prevent contention, appointed bishops and deacons; giving
orders, too, that, upon their death, other approved men should succeed
in their ministry. We are told that the other Apostles constituted their
first-fruits, that is, their first disciples, after they had proved them
by the Spirit, bishops and deacons of those who were to believe; and
that the Apostle John, who survived the rest, after returning from
Patmos, the place of his banishment, went about the neighbouring
nations, ordaining bishops, establishing whole churches, and setting
apart particular persons for the ministry, as they were pointed out to
him by the Spirit.

3. As bishops are mentioned in the earliest times, so ecclesiastical
history records the succession of bishops through many ages; and even
during the first three centuries, before Christianity was incorporated
with the state, every city, where the multitude of Christians required a
number of pastors to perform the stated offices, presents to us, as far
as we can gather from contemporary writers, an appearance very much the
same with that of the church of Jerusalem in the days of the Apostles.
The Apostle James seems to have resided in that city. But there is also
mention of the elders of the church, who, according to the Scripture
representation of elders, must have discharged the ministerial office,
but over whom the Apostle James presided. So, in Carthage, where Cyprian
was bishop, and in every other Christian city of which we have
particular accounts, there was a college of presbyters; and there was
one person who had not only presidency, but jurisdiction and authority,
over the rest. They were his council in matters relating to the church,
and they were qualified to preach, to baptize, and to administer the
Lord’s Supper; but they could do nothing without his permission and
authority. It is a principle in Christian antiquity, εἶς ἐπίσκοπος, μία
ἐκκλησία, “one bishop, and one church.” The one bishop had the care of
all the Christians, who, although they met in separate congregations,
constituted one church; and he had the inspection of the pastors, who,
having received ordination from the bishop, officiated in the separate
congregations, performed the several parts of duty which he prescribed
to them, and were accountable to him for their conduct. In continuation
of this primitive institution, we find episcopacy in all corners of the
church of Christ. Until the time of the reformation, there were, in
every Christian state, persons with the name, the rank, and the
authority of bishops; and the existence of such persons was not
considered as an innovation, but as an establishment, which, by means of
catalogues preserved in ecclesiastical writers, may be traced back to
the days of the Apostles.

4. Upon the principles which have now been stated, it is understood,
according to the episcopal form of government, that there is in the
church a superior order of office-bearers, the successors of the
Apostles, who possess in their own persons the right of ordination and
jurisdiction, and who are called ἐπισκόποι, as being the overseers not
only of the people, but also of the clergy; and an inferior order of
ministers, called presbyters, the literal translation of the word
ϖρεσϐυτέροι, which is rendered in our English Bibles _elders_, persons
who receive, from the ordination of the bishop, power to preach and to
administer the sacraments, who are set over the people, but are
themselves under the government of the bishop, and have no right to
convey to others the sacred office, which he gives them authority to
exercise under him. According to a phrase used by Charles I, who was by
no means an unlearned defender of that form of government to which he
was a martyr, the presbyters are _episcopi gregis_; [bishops of the
flock;] but the bishops are _episcopi gregis et pastorum_, [bishops of
the flock and of the pastors.]

5. The liberal writers on that side, however, do not contend that this
form of government is made so binding in the church as not to be
departed from, and varied according to circumstances. It cannot be
proved, says Dr. Paley, that any form of church government was laid down
in the Christian, as it had been in the Jewish, Scriptures, with a view
of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages. The truth seems to have
been, that such offices were at first erected in the Christian church as
the good order, the instruction, and the exigencies of the society at
that time required; without any intention, at least without any declared
design, of regulating the appointment, authority, or the distinction, of
Christian ministers under future circumstances. To the same effect,
also, Bishop Tomline says, “It is not contended that the bishops,
priests, and deacons of England are at present precisely the same that
bishops, presbyters, and deacons were in Asia Minor, seventeen hundred
years ago. We only maintain that there have always been bishops,
priests, and deacons, in the Christian church, since the days of the
Apostles, with different powers and functions, it is allowed, in
different countries and at different periods; but the general principles
and duties which have respectively characterized these clerical orders
have been essentially the same at all times, and in all places; and the
variations which they have undergone have only been such as have ever
belonged to all persons in public situations, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, and which are indeed inseparable from every thing in
which mankind are concerned in this transitory and fluctuating world. I
have thought it right to take this general view of the ministerial
office, and to make these observations upon the clerical orders
subsisting in this kingdom, for the purpose of pointing out the
foundation and principles of church authority, and of showing that our
ecclesiastical establishment is as nearly conformable, as change of
circumstances will permit, to the practice of the primitive church. But,
though I flatter myself that I have proved episcopacy to be an
Apostolical institution, yet I readily acknowledge that there is no
precept in the New Testament which commands that every church should be
governed by bishops. No church can exist without some government; but
though there must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the
offices of public worship, though there must be fixed regulations
concerning the appointment of ministers, and though a subordination
among them is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not follow
that all these things must be precisely the same in every Christian
country; they may vary with the other varying circumstances of human
society, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants,
the nature of its civil government, and many other peculiarities which
might be specified. As it has not pleased our almighty Father to
prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of
temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he
prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely
necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. But he has, in the
most explicit terms, enjoined obedience to all governors, whether civil
or ecclesiastical, and whatever may be their denomination, as essential
to the character of a true Christian. Thus the Gospel only lays down
general principles, and leaves the application of them to men as free
agents.” Bishop Tomline, however, and the high Episcopalians of the
church of England, contend for an original distinction in the office and
order of bishops and presbyters; which notion is controverted by the
Presbyterians, and is, indeed, contradicted by one who may be truly
called the founder of the church of England, Archbishop Cranmer, who
says, “The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two
things; but both one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.” The
more rigid Episcopalians admit of no ordination as valid in the church
but by the hands of bishops, and those derived in a right line from the
Apostles. See PRESBYTERIANS.

6. The churches of Rome and of England are the principal Episcopalian
churches in the west of Europe; and those of the Greeks and Arminians in
the east; but, beside these, there are Episcopalians in Scotland, and in
other countries, where, Presbyterianism being the establishment, they
are, of course, Dissenters. Thus a Presbyterian is a Dissenter in
England, and an Episcopalian a Dissenter in Scotland. There is also an
Episcopalian church in the United States of America; but there being no
established religion, there are, of course, no Dissenters. The Episcopal
church in America is organized very differently from that in England.
The following particulars are from the best authorities:--The general
convention was formed in 1789, by a delegation from the different
states, and meets triennially. They have eleven dioceses, two of which
are without bishops, and are at liberty to form more in other states.
The above convention consists of an upper and lower house; the former
consisting of bishops, in which the senior bishop presides: they have no
archbishop: and the lower, of the other clergy, and laymen mingled with
them. There are also diocesan conventions annually, in which the bishop
presides. The bishops have no salaries as such, but are allowed to hold
parishes as other ministers; but it has lately been found more
convenient in many states to raise a fund for the support of the bishop,
that his time may be more at liberty for visiting the clergy. They have
neither patronage nor palaces, and some of their incomes are extremely
small. The English Common Prayer Book is adopted, with the omission of
the Athanasian Creed, and some other slight alterations. Subscription to
the articles is not required by candidates for holy orders. The
Methodists in America, also, form an episcopal church; but founded upon
the primitive principle that bishops and presbyters are of the same
_order_, although the _oversight_ of presbyters may be committed to
those who are, by virtue of their office, also called _bishops_.

[The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in December, 1784. The
fundamental principle on which the episcopacy of this church rests, is
here correctly stated. It is proper to add to Mr. Watson’s enumeration,
that the Roman and Moravian churches in the United States are also
episcopal; and that the statement that the bishops of the Protestant
Episcopal Church receive no salaries as bishops, is not at present
(1832) without exception. Their incomes, too, though doubtless extremely
small compared with those of the bishops of the establishment in
England, are not so, compared with those of other ministers generally in
the United States.

EPISTLES, which occur under the same Hebrew word with books, namely,
ספר, are mentioned the more rarely, the farther we go back into
antiquity. An epistle is first mentioned, 2 Sam. xi, 14, &c. Afterward,
there is more frequent mention of them; and sometimes an epistle is
meant, when literally a messenger is spoken of, as in Ezra iv, 15–17. In
the east, letters are commonly sent unsealed. In case, however, they are
sent to persons of distinction, they are placed in a valuable purse,
which is tied, closed over with wax or clay, and then stamped with a
signet, Isaiah xxix, 11; Job xxxviii, 14. The most ancient epistles
begin and end without either salutation or farewell; but under the
Persian monarchy the salutation was very prolix. It is given in an
abridged form in Ezra iv, 7–10; v, 7. The Apostles, in their epistles,
used the salutation customary among the Greeks; but they omitted the
usual farewell at the close, namely, χαίρειν, and adopted a benediction
more conformable to the spirit of the Christian religion. St. Paul, when
he dictated his letters, wrote the benediction at the close with his own
hand, 2 Thess. iii, 17. He was more accustomed to dictate his letters
than to write them himself.

The name _Epistles_ is given, by way of eminence, to the letters written
by the Apostles, or first preachers of Christianity, to particular
churches or persons, on particular occasions or subjects. Of these the
Apostle Paul wrote fourteen. St. James wrote one general epistle; St.
Peter two; St. John three; and St. Jude one.

An epistle has its Hebrew name from its being rolled or folded together.
The modern Arabs roll up their letters, and then flatten them to the
breadth of an inch, and paste up the end of them, instead of sealing
them. The Persians make up their letters in a roll about six inches
long, and a bit of paper is fastened round it with gum, and sealed with
an impression of ink, which resembles our printers’ ink, but is not so
thick. Letters, as stated above, were generally sent to persons of
distinction in a bag or purse; but to inferiors, or those who were held
in contempt, they were sent open, that is, unenclosed. Lady M. W.
Montagu says, the _bassa_ of Belgrade’s answer to the English ambassador
going to Constantinople was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin.
But, in the case of Nehemiah, an insult was designed to be offered to
him by Sanballat, in refusing him the mark of respect usually paid to
persons of his station, and treating him contemptuously, by sending the
letter open, that is, without the customary appendages when presented to
persons of respectability. “Futty Sihng,” says Mr. Forbes, “sent a
_chopdar_ to me at Dhuboy, with a letter of invitation to the wedding,
then celebrating at Brodera at a great expense, and of long continuance.
The letter, as usual, from oriental princes, was written on silver
paper, flowered with gold, with an additional sprinkling of saffron,
enclosed under a cover of gold brocade. The letter was accompanied with
a bag of crimson and gold _keem-caub_, filled with sweet-scented seeds,
as a mark of favour and good omen.”

EPOCH, a term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time, from which
the succeeding years are numbered. Scaliger says it means “a stop,”
because “in epochs stop and terminate the measures of times.” It now
usually denotes a remarkable date; as, the epoch of the destruction of
Troy, B. C. 1183, &c. The first epoch is the creation of the world,
which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the
year 710 of the Julian period, and 4004 years before Jesus Christ. The
second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in
the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in
sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel, which was, according
to Dr. Hales, B. C. 2554; the calling of Abraham, B. C. 2153; the
departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, B. C. 1648; the dedication of
the temple, B. C. 1027; the end of the Babylonish captivity, B. C. 536;
and the birth of Jesus Christ, A. D. 1. In profane history are reckoned
five epochs: the founding of the Assyrian empire, B. C. 1267; the era of
Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus, B. C. 747; the reign of Cyrus at
Babylon, B. C. 556; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians,
B. C. 330; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our
Saviour was born, B. C. 44.

ERA. The term _era_ (not _æra_, as incorrectly written) is Spanish,
signifying time, as in the phrase, _de era en era_, “from time to time.”
It was first used in the _Era Hispanica_, instituted B. C. 38, in honour
of Augustus, when Spain was allotted to him in the distribution of the
provinces among the second triumvirate, Augustus, Anthony, and Lepidus.
It now usually denotes an indefinite series of years, beginning from
some known epoch; and so differs from a period which is a definite
series: as the era of the foundation of Rome, the era of the Olympiads,
the era of Nabonassar, &c. See EPOCH.

ESAR-HADDON, son of Sennacherib, and his successor in the kingdom of
Assyria: called Sargon, or Saragon, Isa. xx, 1. He reigned twenty-nine
years. He made war with the Philistines, and took Azoth, by Tartan, his
general: he attacked Egypt, Cush, and Edom, Isa. xx, xxxiv; designing,
probably, to avenge the affront Sennacherib his father had received from
Tirhakah, king of Cush, and the king of Egypt, who had been Hezekiah’s
confederates. He sent priests to the Cuthæans, whom Salmaneser, king of
Assyria, had planted in Samaria, instead of the Israelites: he took
Jerusalem, and carried King Manasseh to Babylon, of which he had become
master, perhaps, because there was no heir to Belesis, king of Bayblon.
He is said to have reigned twenty-nine or thirty years at Nineveh, and
thirteen years at Babylon; in all forty-two years. He died A. M. 3336.

ESAU, son of Isaac and Rebekah, born A. M. 2168, B. C. 1836. When the
time of Rebekah’s delivery came, she had twins, Gen. xxv, 24–26: the
first-born was hairy, therefore called Esau; that is, a man full grown
or of perfect age; but some derive Esau from the Arabic _gescha_ or
_gencheva_, which signifies a hair cloth. Esau delighted in hunting, and
his father Isaac had a particular affection for him. On one occasion,
Esau, returning from the fields greatly fatigued, desired Jacob to give
him some red pottage, which he was then preparing. Jacob consented,
provided Esau would sell him his birthright. Esau complied, and by oath
resigned it to him, Gen. xxv, 29–34. Esau, when aged forty, married two
Canaanitish women, Judith, daughter of Beeri, the Hittite; and
Bashemath, daughter of Elon, Gen. xxvi, 34. These marriages were very
displeasing to Isaac and Rebekah, because they intermingled the blood of
Abraham with that of Canaanite aliens. Isaac being old, and his sight
decayed, directed Esau to procure him delicate venison by hunting, that
he might give him his chief blessing, Gen. xxvii. The artifice of his
mother, however, counteracted his purpose; and she contrived to impose
upon Isaac, and to obtain the father’s principal blessing for her son
Jacob. Esau was indignant on account of this treachery and determined to
kill Jacob as soon as their father should die. Rebekah again interposed,
and sent Jacob away to her brother Laban, with whom he might be secure.
During the period of separation, which lasted several years, Esau
married a wife of the family of Ishmael; and, removing to Mount Seir,
acquired great power and wealth. When Jacob returned, after long
absence, to his father’s country, with a numerous family, and large
flocks and herds, he dreaded his brother’s displeasure; but they had an
amicable and affectionate interview. After their father’s death, they
lived in peace and amity; but, as their possessions enlarged, and there
was not sufficient room for them in the land in which they were
strangers, Esau returned to Mount Seir, where his posterity multiplied
under the denomination of Edomites. (See EDOM.) The time of his death is
not mentioned; but Bishop Cumberland thinks it probable that he died
about the same time with his brother Jacob, at the age of about one
hundred and forty-seven years, Gen. xxv-xxxvi.

2. On the most important part of this history, the selling of the
birthright, we may observe, (1.) That although it was always the design
of God that the blessing connected with primogeniture in the family of
Abraham should be enjoyed by Jacob, and to exercise his sovereignty in
changing the succession in which the promises of the Abrahamic covenant
might descend; yet the conduct of Rebekah and Jacob was reprehensible in
endeavouring to bring about the divine design by the unworthy means of
contrivance and deceit; and they were punished for their presumption by
their sufferings. (2.) That the conduct of Esau in selling his
birthright was both wanton and profane. It was wanton, because he,
though faint, could be in no danger of not obtaining a supply of food in
his father’s house; and was therefore wholly influenced by his appetite,
excited by the delicacy of Jacob’s pottage. It was profane, because the
blessings of the birthright were spiritual as well as civil. The church
of God was to be established in the line of the first-born; and in that
line the Messiah was to appear. These high privileges were despised by
Esau, who is therefore made by St. Paul a type of all apostates from
Christ, who, like him, profanely despise their birthright as the sons of
God. See BIRTHRIGHT.

ESDRAELON, PLAIN OF, in the tribe of Issachar, extends east and west
from Scythopolis to Mount Carmel; called, likewise, the Great Plain, the
Valley of Jezreel, the Plain of Esdrela. Dr. E. D. Clarke observes, it
is by far the largest plain in the Holy Land; extending quite across the
country from Mount Carmel and the Mediterranean Sea to the southern
extremity of the Sea of Galilee; about thirty miles in length, and
twenty in breadth. It is also a very fertile district, abounding in
pasture; on which account it has been selected for the purposes of
encampment by almost every army that has traversed the Holy Land. Here
Barak, descending with his ten thousand men from Mount Tabor, which
rises like a cone in the centre of the plain, defeated Sisera, with his
“nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him,
gathered from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon; and
pursued after the chariots and after the host unto Harosheth of the
Gentiles; and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword;
and there was not a man left,” Judges iv. Here Josiah, king of Judah,
fell, fighting against Necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings xxiii, 29. And here
the Midianites and the Amalekites, who were “like grasshoppers for
multitude, and their camels without number as the sand of the sea,”
encamped, when they were defeated by Gideon, Judges vi. This plain has
likewise been used for the same purpose by the armies of every conqueror
or invader, from Nabuchodonosor, king of Assyria, to his imitator,
Napoleon Buonaparte, who, in the spring of 1799, with a small body of
French, defeated an army of several thousand Turks and Mamelukes. Jews,
Gentiles, Saracens, Christians, crusaders, and antichristian Frenchmen,
Egyptians, Persians, Druses, Turks, and Arabs, warriors out of every
nation which is under heaven, have pitched their tents in the Plain of
Esdraelon; and have beheld the various banners of their nations wet with
the dews of Tabor and of Hermon. And it is to this day generally found
to be the place of encampment of large parties of Arabs.

ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books which were always excluded the
Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the
Papists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in
Greek by some Hellenistical Jews; though some imagine that they were
first written in Chaldee, and afterward translated into Greek. It is
uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that
the author wrote before Josephus.

ESHBAAL, or ISHBOSHETH, the fourth son of Saul. The Hebrews, to avoid
pronouncing the word _baal_, “lord,” used _bosheth_, “confusion.”
Instead of Mephi-baal, they said Mephi-bosheth; and, instead of
Esh-baal, they said Ish-bosheth, 2 Sam. ii, 8.

ESHCOL, one of Abraham’s allies, who dwelt with him in the valley of
Mamre, and accompanied him in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the other
confederated kings, who pillaged Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried away
Lot, Abraham’s nephew, Gen. xiv, 24. Also the valley or brook of Eshcol
was that in which the Hebrew messengers, who went to spy the land of
Canaan, cut a bunch of grapes so large that it was as much as two men
could carry. It was situated in the south part of Judah, Num. xiii, 24;
xxxii, 9.

ESSENES, or ESSENIANS, one of the three ancient sects of the Jews. They
appear to have been an enthusiastic sect, never numerous, and but little
known; directly opposite to the Pharisees with respect to their reliance
upon tradition, and their scrupulous regard to the ceremonial law, but
pretending, like them, to superior sanctity of manners. They existed in
the time of our Saviour; and though they are not mentioned in the New
Testament, they are supposed to be alluded to by St. Paul in his
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and in his first Epistle to
Timothy. From the account given of the doctrines and institutions of
this sect by Philo and Josephus, we learn that they believed in the
immortality of the soul; that they were absolute predestinarians; that
they observed the seventh day with peculiar strictness; that they held
the Scriptures in the highest reverence, but considered them as mystic
writings, and expounded them allegorically; that they sent gifts to the
temple, but offered no sacrifices; that they admitted no one into their
society till after a probation of three years; that they lived in a
state of perfect equality, except that they paid respect to the aged,
and to their priests; that they considered all secular employment as
unlawful, except that of agriculture; that they had all things in
common, and were industrious, quiet, and free from every species of
vice; that they held celibacy and solitude in high esteem; that they
allowed no change of raiment till necessity required it; that they
abstained from wine; that they were not permitted to eat but with their
own sect; and that a certain portion of food was allotted to each
person, of which they partook together, after solemn ablutions. The
austere and retired life of the Essenes is supposed to have given rise
to monkish superstition.

The Therapeutæ were a distinct branch of the Essenes. Jahn has thus
described the difference between them: The principal ground of
difference between the Essenes or Essaëi, and Therapeutæ consisted in
this; the former were Jews, who spoke the Aramean; the latter were Greek
Jews, as the names themselves intimate, namely, אסיא and Θεραπευταὶ. The
Essenes lived chiefly in Palestine; the Therapeutæ, in Egypt. The
Therapeutæ were more rigid than the Essenes, since the latter, although
they made it a practice to keep at a distance from large cities, lived,
nevertheless, in towns and villages, and practised agriculture and the
arts, with the exception of those arts which were made more directly
subservient to the purposes of war. The Therapeutæ, on the contrary,
fled from all inhabited places, dwelt in fields and deserts and gardens,
and gave themselves up to contemplation. Both the Essenes and the
Therapeutæ held their property in common, and those things which they
stood in need of for the support and the comforts of life, were
distributed to them from the common stock. The candidates for admission
among the Essenes gave their property to the society; but those who were
destined for a membership with the Therapeutæ, left theirs to their
friends; and both, after a number of years of probation, made a
profession which bound them to the exercise of the strictest
uprightness. The Romanists pretend, as Dr. Prideaux observes, without
any foundation, that the Essenes were Christian monks, formed into a
society by St. Mark, who founded the first church at Alexandria. But it
is evident, from the accounts of Josephus and Philo, that the Essenes
were not Christians, but Jews.

Dr. Neander’s account of the Essenes is as follows:--A company of pious
men, much experienced in the trials of the outward and of the inward
life, had withdrawn themselves out of the strife of theological and
political parties, at first apparently (according to Pliny the elder) to
the western side of the Dead Sea; where they lived together in intimate
connection, partly in the same sort of society as the monks of later
days, and partly as mystical orders in all periods have done. From this
society, other smaller ones afterward proceeded, and spread themselves
over all Palestine. They were called Essenes, Ἐσσηνοὶ or Ἐσσαιοὶ. They
employed themselves in the arts of peace, agriculture, pasture,
handicraft works, and especially in the art of healing, while they took
great delight in investigating the healing powers of nature. It is
probable, also, that they imagined themselves under the guidance of a
supernatural illumination in their search into nature, and their use of
her powers. Their natural knowledge, and their art of healing, appear
also to have had a religious, theosophic character, as they professed
also to have peculiar prophetical gifts. The Essenes were, no doubt,
distinguished from the mass of ordinary Jews by this, that they knew and
loved something higher than the outward ceremonial and a dead faith,
that they did really strive after holiness of heart, and inward
communion with God. Their quiet, pious habits also rendered them
remarkable, and by means of these they remained quiet amidst all the
political changes, respected by all parties, even by the Heathens; and
by their laborious habits and kindness, their obedience toward the
higher powers, as ordained of God, their fidelity and love of truth,
they were enabled to extend themselves in all directions. In their
society every yea and nay had the force of an oath; for every oath, said
they, pre-supposes a mutual distrust, which ought not to be the case
among a society of honest men. Only in one case was an oath suffered
among them, namely, as a pledge for those who after a three years’
noviciate were to be received into the number of the initiated.
According to the portraiture of them, given by Philo, the Alexandrian,
in his separate treatise concerning the “True Freedom of the Virtuous,”
we should take the Essenes for men of an entirely practical religious
turn, far removed from all theosophy and all idle speculation; and we
should ascribe to them an inward religious habit of mind, free from all
mixture of superstition and reliance on outward things. But the account
of Philo does not at all accord with that of Josephus; and the more
historical Josephus deserves in general more credit than Philo, who was
too apt to indulge in philosophizing and idealism. Beside, Josephus had
more opportunity of knowing this sect thoroughly, than Philo; for Philo
lived in Egypt, and the Essenes did not extend beyond Palestine.
Josephus had here passed the greater part of his life, and had certainly
taken all necessary pains to inform himself accurately of the nature of
the different sects, among which he was determined, as a youth of
sixteen years of age, to make choice, although he can hardly have
completely passed through a noviciate in the sect of the Essenes,
because he made the round of all the three Jewish sects, in a period of
from three to four years. Josephus, also, shows himself completely
unprejudiced in this description; while Philo, on the contrary, wished
to represent the Essenes to the more cultivated Greeks as models of
practical wisdom, and, therefore, he allowed himself to represent much,
not as it really was, but as it suited his purpose. We must conclude
that the Essenes did also busy themselves with theosophy, and pretended
to impart to those of their order disclosures relating to the
supernatural world of spirits, because those who were about to be
initiated, were obliged to swear that they would never make known to any
one the names of the angels then to be communicated to them. The manner
in which they kept secret the ancient books of their sect is also a
proof of this. And, indeed, Philo himself makes it probable, when he
says, that they employed themselves with a φιλοσοφία διά συμβολῶν, a
philosophy which was supported by an allegorical interpretation of
Scripture, for this kind of allegorizing interpretation was usually the
accompaniment of a certain speculative system. According to Philo, they
rejected the sacrifice of victims, because they considered, that to
consecrate and offer up themselves wholly to God, was the only true
sacrifice, the only sacrifice worthy of God. But according to Josephus
they certainly considered sacrifice as something peculiarly holy, but
they thought that from its peculiar holiness it must have been
desecrated by the profane Jews in the temple of Jerusalem, and that it
could be worthily celebrated only in their holy community, just as
mystic sects of this nature are constantly accustomed to make the
_objective_ acts of religion dependent on the _subjective_ condition of
those who perform or take part in them. In the troublesome and
superstitious observance of the rest of the Sabbath, according to the
letter, and not according to the spirit, they went even farther than the
other Jews, only with this difference, that they were in good earnest in
the matter, while the Pharisees by their casuistry relaxed their rules,
or drew them tighter, just as it suited their purpose. The Essenes, not
only strenuously abhorred, like the other Jews, contact with the
uncircumcised, but, having divided themselves into four classes, the
Essenes of a higher grade were averse from contact with those of a
lower, as if they were rendered unclean by it, and when any thing of
this kind did happen, they purified themselves after it. Like many other
Jews, they attributed great value, in general, to lustration by bathing
in cold water. To their ascetic notions, the constant and healthy
practice in the east of anointing with oil seemed unholy, and if it
befel any one of them, he was obliged to purify himself. It was also a
great abomination to them to eat any food except such as had been
prepared by persons of their own sect. They would die rather than eat of
any other. This is a sufficient proof that although the Essenes might
possess a certain inward religious life, and a certain practical piety,
yet that these qualities with them, as well as with many other mystical
sects, as for example, those of the middle ages, were connected with a
theosophy, which desired to know things hidden from human reason,
ἐμβατευειν εἰς ἁ τις μη ἑωρακεν, and therefore lost itself in idle
imaginations and dreams, and were also mixed up with an outward
asceticism, a proud spirit of separation from the rest of mankind, and
superstitious observances and demeanours totally at variance with the
true spirit of inward religion.

ESTHER. The book of Esther is so called, because it contains the history
of Esther a Jewish captive, who by her remarkable accomplishments gained
the affection of King Ahasuerus, and by marriage with him was raised to
the throne of Persia; and it relates the origin and ceremonies of the
feast of Purim, instituted in commemoration of the great deliverance,
which she, by her interest, procured for the Jews, whose general
destruction had been concerted by the offended pride of Haman. There is
great diversity of opinion concerning the author of this book; it has
been ascribed to Ezra, to Mordecai, to Joachim, and to the joint labours
of the great synagogue; and it is impossible to decide which of these
opinions is the most probable. We are told, that the facts here recorded
happened in the reign of Ahasuerus king of Persia, “who reigned from
India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces,”
Esther i, 1; and this extent of dominion plainly proves that he was one
of the successors of Cyrus. That point is indeed allowed by all; but
learned men differ concerning the person meant by Ahasuerus, whose name
does not occur in profane history; and consequently they are not agreed
concerning the precise period to which we are to assign this history.
Archbishop Usher supposed, that by Ahasuerus was meant Darius Hystaspes,
and Joseph Scaliger contended that Xerxes was meant; but Dean Prideaux
has very satisfactorily shown, that by Ahasuerus we are to understand
Artaxerxes Longimanus. Josephus also considered Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes
as the same person; and we may observe, that Ahasuerus is always
translated Artaxerxes in the Septuagint version; and he is called by
that name in the apocryphal part of the book of Esther. See ECBATANA,
and AHASUERUS.

ETERNITY is an attribute of God. (See _God_.) The self-existent being,
says the learned Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of
eternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that because
something must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any
outward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be
self-existent; and because it is impossible but something must be
self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be
eternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in
the nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and
not depending upon any thing external, must be always unalterably the
same; nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by
somewhat without itself. That being therefore which has no other cause
of its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must of
necessity have existed from everlasting, without beginning; and must of
necessity exist to everlasting, without end.

On the eternal duration of the divine Being, many have held a
metaphysical refinement. “The eternal existence of God,” it is said, “is
not to be considered as successive; the ideas we gain from time are not
to be allowed in our conceptions of his duration. As he fills all space
with his immensity, he fills all duration with his eternity; and with
him eternity is _nunc stans_, a permanent _now_, incapable of the
relations of past, present, and future.” Such, certainly, is not the
view given us of this mysterious subject in the Scriptures; and if it
should be said that they speak popularly, and are accommodated to the
infirmity of the reason of the body of mankind, we may reply, that
philosophy has not, with all its boasting of superior light, carried our
views on this attribute of the divine nature at all beyond revelation;
and, in attempting it, has only obscured the conceptions of its
admirers. “Filling duration with his eternity,” is a phrase without any
meaning: for how can any man conceive a permanent instant, which
coëxists with a perpetually flowing duration? One might as well
apprehend a mathematical point coëxtended with a line, a surface, and
all dimensions. As this notion has, however, been made the basis of some
theological opinions, it may be proper to examine it.

2. Whether we get our idea of time from the motion of bodies without us,
or from the consciousness of the succession of our own ideas, or both,
is not important to this inquiry. Time, in our conceptions, is
divisible. The artificial divisions are years, months, days, minutes,
seconds, &c. We can conceive of yet smaller portions of duration; and,
whether we have given to them artificial names or not, we can conceive
no otherwise of duration, than continuance of being, estimated as to
degree, by this artificial admeasurement, and therefore as substantially
answering to it. It is not denied but that duration is something
distinct from these its artificial measures; yet of this every man’s
consciousness will assure him, that we can form no idea of duration
except in this successive manner. But we are told that the eternity of
God is a fixed eternal _now_, from which all ideas of succession, of
past and future, are to be excluded; and we are called upon to conceive
of eternal duration without reference to past or future, and to the
exclusion of the idea of that _flow_ under which we conceive of time.
The proper abstract idea of duration is, however, simple continuance of
being, without any reference to the exact degree or extent of it,
because in no other way can it be equally applicable to all the
substances of which it is the attribute. It may be finite or infinite,
momentary or eternal; but that depends upon the substance of which it is
the quality, and not upon its own nature. Our own observation and
experience teach us how to apply it to ourselves. As to us, duration is
dependent and finite; as to God, it is infinite; but in both cases the
originality or dependence, the finiteness or infinity of it, arises, not
out of the nature of duration itself, but out of other qualities of the
subjects respectively.

3. Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more than an extension of
the idea as applied to ourselves; and to exhort us to conceive of it as
something essentially different, is to require us to conceive what is
inconceivable. It is to demand of us to think without ideas. Duration is
continuance of existence; continuance of existence is capable of being
longer or shorter; and hence necessarily arises the idea of the
succession of the minutest points of duration into which we can conceive
it divided. Beyond this the mind cannot go, it forms the idea of
duration no other way: and if what we call _duration_ be any thing
different from this in God, it is not duration, properly so called,
according to human ideas; it is something else, for which there is no
name among men, because there is no idea, and therefore it is impossible
to reason about it. As long as meta-physicians use the term, they must
take the idea: if they spurn the idea, they have no right to the term,
and ought at once to confess that they can go no farther. Dr. Cudworth
defines infinity of duration to be nothing else but perfection, as
including in it necessary existence and immutability. This, it is true,
is as much a definition of the moon, as of infinity of duration; but it
is valuable, as it shows that, in the view of this great man, though an
advocate of the _nunc stans_, “the standing now,” of eternity, we must
abandon the term _duration_, if we give up the only idea under which it
can be conceived.

4. It follows from this, therefore, that either we must apply the term
_duration_ to the divine Being in the same sense in which we apply it to
creatures, with the extension of the idea to a duration which has no
bounds and limits; or blot it out of our creeds, as a word to which our
minds, with all the aid they may derive from the labours of
metaphysicians, can attach no meaning. The only objection to successive
duration as applied to God, which has any plausibility, is, that it
seems to imply change; but this wholly arises from confounding two very
distinct things; succession in the duration, and change in the
substance. Dr. Cudworth appears to have fallen into this error. He
speaks of the duration of an imperfect nature, as sliding from the
present to the future, expecting something of itself which is not yet in
being; and of a perfect nature being essentially immutable, having a
permanent and unchanging duration, never losing any thing of itself once
present, nor yet running forward to meet something of itself which is
not yet in being. Now, though this is a good description of a perfect
and immutable nature, it is no description at all of an
eternally-enduring nature. Duration implies no loss in the substance of
any being, nor addition to it. A perfect nature never loses any thing of
itself, nor expects more of itself than is possessed; but this does not
arise from the attribute of its duration, however that attribute may be
conceived of, but from its perfection and consequent immutability. These
attributes do not flow from the duration, but the continuance of the
duration from them. The argument is clearly good for nothing, unless it
could be proved that successive duration necessarily implies a change in
the nature; but that is contradicted by the experience of finite
beings,--their natures are not at all determined by their duration, but
their duration by their natures; and they exist for a moment, or for
ages, according to the nature which their Maker has impressed upon them.
If it be said that, at least, successive duration imports that a being
loses past duration, and expects the arrival of future existence, we
reply, that this is no imperfection at all. Even finite creatures do not
feel it to be an imperfection to have existed, and to look for continued
and interminable being. It is true, with the past we lose knowledge and
pleasure; and expecting in all future periods increase of knowledge and
happiness, we are reminded by that of our present imperfection; but this
imperfection does not arise from our successive and flowing duration,
and we never refer it to that. It is not the past which takes away our
knowledge and pleasure; nor future duration, simply considered, which
will confer the increase of both. Our imperfections arise out of the
essential nature of our being, not out of the manner in which our being
is continued. It is not the flow of our duration, but the flow of our
nature, which produces these effects. On the contrary, we think that the
idea of our successive duration, that is of continuance, is an
advantage, and not a defect. Let all ideas of continuance be banished
from the mind, let there be to us a _nunc semper stans_, during the
whole of our being, and we appear to gain nothing,--our pleasures surely
are not diminished by the idea of successive duration being added to
present enjoyment: that they have been, and still remain, and will
continue, on the contrary, greatly heightens them. Without the idea of a
flowing duration, we could have no such measure of the continuance of
our pleasures; and this we should consider an abatement of our
happiness. What is so obvious an excellency in the spirit of man, and in
angelic natures, can never be thought an imperfection in God, when
joined with a nature essentially perfect and immutable.

5. But it may be said, that “eternal duration, considered as successive,
is only an artificial manner of measuring and conceiving of duration;
and is no more eternal duration itself than minutes and moments, the
artificial measures of time, are time itself.” Were this granted, the
question would still be, whether there is any thing in duration
considered generally, or in time considered specially, which corresponds
to these artificial methods of measuring and conceiving of them. The
ocean is measured by leagues; and the extension of the ocean, and the
measure of it, are distinct; they, nevertheless, answer to each other.
Leagues are the nominal divisions of an extended surface; but there is a
real extension, which answers to the artificial conception and
admeasurement of it. In like manner, days, and hours, and moments, are
the measures of time: but there is either something in time which
answers to these measures; or not only the measure, but the thing
itself, is artificial--an imaginary creation. If any man will contend,
that the period of duration which we call _time_ is nothing, no farther
dispute can be held with him; and he may be left to deny also the
existence of matter, and to enjoy his philosophic revel in an ideal
world. We apply the same argument to duration generally, whether finite
or infinite. Minutes and moments, or smaller portions, for which we have
no name, may be artificial things, adopted to aid our conceptions; but
conceptions of what? Not of any thing standing still, but of something
going on. Of duration we have no other conception; and if there be
nothing in nature which answers to this conception, then is duration
itself imaginary, and we discourse about nothing. If the duration of the
divine Being admits not of past, present, and future, one of these two
consequences must follow,--that no such attribute as that of eternity
belongs to him,--or that there is no power in the human mind to conceive
of it. In either case, the Scriptures are greatly impugned; for “He who
_was_, and _is_, and _is to come_,” is a revelation of the eternity of
God, which is then in no sense true. It is not true, if used literally:
and it is as little so, if the language be figurative; for the figure
rests on no basis, it illustrates nothing, it misleads. It is, however,
to be remembered, that the eternal, supreme cause, must of necessity
have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all
things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal
duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will
not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or
view, and all things present and future be equally entirely in his power
and direction; as if there was really no succession at all, but all
things were actually present at once.

6. The Hebrew word for eternity is שלם. This is its proper sense; but,
as Gesenius observes, as with us in common life, it is often used in an
inaccurate or loose manner to express a very long space of time. So it
is applied to the Jewish priesthood; to the Mosaic ordinances; to the
possession of the land of Canaan; to the hills and mountains; to the
earth, &c. These must, however, be considered as exceptions to
predominant and certain usage.

ETHAN, the Ezrahite, one of the wisest men of his time; nevertheless,
Solomon was wiser than he, 1 Kings iv, 31. The eighty-ninth psalm bears
the name of Ethan the Ezrahite. This Ethan, and Ethan son of Kishi, of
the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Merari, are the same person, 1
Chron. vi, 44. He was called likewise Idithun, and appears under this
name in the titles to several psalms. He was a principal master of the
temple music, 1 Chron. xv, 17, &c.

ETHANIM, one of the Hebrew months, 1 Kings viii, 2. In this month the
temple of Solomon was dedicated. After the Jews returned from the
captivity, the month Ethanim was called Tisri, which answers to our
September.

ETHIOPIA. See CUSH.

EUCHARIST, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The word, in its original
Greek, εὐχαρίϛια, properly signifies _giving thanks_; from the hymns and
thanksgivings which accompanied that holy service in the primitive
church. See LORD’S SUPPER.

EUNICE, the mother of Timothy, who was a Jewess by birth, but married to
a Greek, Timothy’s father, 2 Tim. i, 5. Eunice had been converted to
Christianity by some other preacher, Acts xvi, 1, 2, and not by St.
Paul; for when that Apostle came to Lystra, he found there Eunice and
Timothy, already far advanced in grace and virtue.

EUNUCH. The word signifies, one who guards the bed. In the courts of
eastern kings, the care of the beds and apartments belonging to princes
and princesses, was generally committed to eunuchs; but they had the
charge chiefly of the princesses, who lived secluded. The Hebrew _saris_
signifies a real eunuch, whether naturally born such, or rendered such.
But in Scripture this word often denotes an officer belonging to a
prince, attending his court, and employed in the interior of his palace,
as a name of office and dignity. In the Persian and Turkish courts, the
principal employments are at this day possessed by real eunuchs. Our
Saviour speaks of men who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven,” Matt. xix, 12; that is, who, from a religious motive, renounced
marriage or carnal pleasures.

EUPHRATES, a river of Asiatic Turkey, which rises from the mountains of
Armenia, as some have said, in two streams, a few miles to the
north-east of Erzeron, the streams uniting to the south-west near that
city; and chiefly pursuing a south-west direction to Semisat, where it
would fall into the Mediterranean, if not prevented by a high range of
mountains. In this part of its course the Euphrates is joined by the
Morad, a stream almost doubling in length that of the Euphrates, so that
the latter river might more justly be said to spring from Mount Ararat,
about one hundred and sixty British miles to the east of the imputed
source. At Semisat, the ancient Samosata, this noble river assumes a
southerly direction, then runs an extensive course to the south-east,
and after receiving the Tigris, falls by two or three mouths into the
gulf of Persia, about fifty miles south-east of Bassora; north latitude
29° 50´; east longitude 66° 55´. The comparative course of the Euphrates
may be estimated at about one thousand four hundred British miles. This
river is navigable for a considerable distance from the sea. In its
course it separates Aladulia from Armenia, Syria from Diarbekir, and
Diarbekir from Arabia, and passing through the Arabian Irak, joins the
Tigris. The Euphrates and Tigris, the most considerable as well as the
most renowned rivers of western Asia, are remarkable for their rising
within a few miles of each other, running the same course, never being
more than one hundred and fifty miles asunder, and sometimes, before
their final junction, approaching within fifteen miles of each other, as
in the latitude of Bagdad. The space included between the two is the
ancient country of Mesopotamia. But the Euphrates is by far the more
noble river of the two. Sir R. K. Porter, describing this river in its
course through the ruins of Babylon, observes, “The whole view was
particularly solemn. The majestic stream of the Euphrates wandering in
solitude, like a pilgrim monarch through the silent ruins of his
devastated kingdom, still appeared a noble river, even under all the
disadvantages of its desert-tracked course. Its banks were hoary with
reeds; and the grey osier willows were yet there, on which the captives
of Israel hung up their harps, and, while Jerusalem was not, refused to
be comforted.” The Scripture calls it “the great river,” and assigns it
for the eastern boundary of that land which God promised to the
Israelites, Deut. i, 7; Joshua i, 4.

EUROCLYDON, the Greek name for the north-east wind, very dangerous at
sea, of the nature of a whirlwind, which falls of a sudden upon ships,
Acts xxvii, 14. The same wind is now called a Levanter.

EUTYCHIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, and were so
called from Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at
Constantinople. The Nestorians having explained the two natures in
Christ in such a manner as, in the opinion of many, to make them
equivalent to two persons, which was an evident absurdity, Eutyches, to
avoid this error, fell into the opposite extreme, and maintained that
there was only one nature in Jesus Christ, the divine nature, which,
according to him, had so entirely swallowed up the human, that the
latter could not be distinguished. Hence it was inferred that according
to this system our Lord had nothing of humanity but the appearance.

EVANGELISTS, the inspired authors of the Gospels. The word is derived
from the Greek, εὐαγτελιον, formed of εὖ, _bene_, “well,” and ἄγτελος,
_angel, messenger_. The name of evangelists is said by some to have been
given in the ancient church to such as preached the Gospel without being
attached to any particular church, being either commissioned by the
Apostles to instruct the nations, or, of their own accord, abandoning
every worldly attachment, consecrated themselves to the sacred office of
preaching the Gospel. In which sense these interpreters think it is that
St. Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, is called “the evangelist”
in Acts xxi, 8; and that St. Paul, writing to Timothy, bids him do the
work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv, 5. It is, however, to be remarked,
that the office in which the evangelists chiefly present themselves to
our notice in the New Testament, is that of assistants to the Apostles;
or, as they might be termed vice apostles, who acted under their
authority and direction. As they were directed to ordain pastors or
bishops in the churches, but had no authority given them to ordain
successors to themselves in their particular office as evangelists,
whatever it might be, they must be considered as but temporary officers
in the church, like the Apostles and prophets. The term evangelist is,
at present, confined to the writers of the four Gospels.

EVE, the first woman. She was called הוה, Gen. iii, 20, a word that
signifies _life_, because she was to be the mother of all that live. Our
translators, therefore, might have called her _Life_, as the Septuagint,
who render the Hebrew word by Ζωὴ. Soon after the expulsion of the first
pair from paradise, Eve conceived and bare a son; and imagining, as is
probable, that she had given birth to the promised seed, she called his
name Cain, which signifies _possession_, saying, “I have gotten a man
from the Lord.” She afterward had Abel, and some daughters, and then
Seth. The Scriptures name only these three sons of Adam and Eve, but
sufficiently inform us, Gen. v, 4, that they had many more, saying, that
“Adam lived, after he had begotten Seth, eight hundred years, and begat
sons and daughters.” See ADAM.

EVIL is distinguished into natural and moral. Natural evil is whatever
destroys or any way disturbs the perfection of natural beings, such as
blindness, diseases, death, &c. Moral evil is the disagreement between
the actions of a moral agent, and the rule of those actions, whatever it
be. Applied to choice, or acting contrary to the moral or revealed laws
of the Deity, it is termed _wickedness_, or _sin_. Applied to an act
contrary to a mere rule of fitness, it is called a _fault_. The question
concerning the origin of evil has very much perplexed philosophers and
divines, both ancient and modern. Plato, for the solution of this
question, maintained, that matter, from its nature, possesses a blind
and refractory force, from which arises in it a propensity to disorder
and deformity; and that this is the cause of all the imperfection which
appears in the works of God, and the origin of evil. Matter, he
conceives, resists the will of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot
possibly execute his designs; and this is the cause of the mixture of
good and evil, which is found in the material world. “It cannot be,”
says he, “that evil should be destroyed, for there must always be
something contrary to good;” and again, “God wills, as far as it is
possible, every thing good, and nothing evil.” What that property of
matter is which opposes the wise and benevolent intentions of the first
Intelligence, Plato has not clearly explained; but he speaks of it as
ξύμφυτος ἐπιθυμία, an innate propensity to disorder, and says, that
before nature was adorned with its present beautiful forms, it was
inclined to confusion and deformity, and that from this habitude arises
all the evil which happens in the world. Plutarch supposes the Platonic
notion to be, that there is in matter an unconscious, irrational soul;
and this supposition has been adopted by several modern writers. But the
writings of Plato afford no evidence that he conceived the imperfection
of matter to arise from any cause distinct from its nature. Such a
notion is incongruous with Plato’s general system, and is contrary to
the doctrine of the Pythagorean school, to which he was probably
indebted for his notions on this subject; for the philosophers of that
sect held that motion is the effect of a power essential to matter. Some
of the Stoics adopted the notion of the Platonists concerning the origin
of evil, and ascribed it to the defective nature of matter, which it is
not in the power of the great Artificer to change; asserting, that
imperfections appear in the world, not through any defect of skill in
its author, but because matter will not admit of the accomplishment of
his designs. But it was perceived by others, that this hypothesis was
inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Stoics concerning
nature. For since, according to their system, matter itself receives all
its qualities from God, if its defects be the cause of evil, these
defects must be ultimately ascribed to him. No other way of relieving
this difficulty remained, than to have recourse to fate, and say, that
evil was the necessary consequence of that eternal necessity to which
the great whole, comprehending both God and matter, is subject. Thus,
when Chrysippus was asked whether diseases were to be ascribed to Divine
providence, he replied that it was not the intention of nature that
these things should happen; nor were they conformable to the will of the
Author of nature and Parent of all good things; but that, in framing the
world, some inconveniences had adhered by necessary consequence, to his
wise and useful plan. To others the question concerning the origin of
evil appeared so intricate and difficult, that, finding themselves
unequal to the solution of it, they denied either that there is any God
at all, or, at least, any author or governor of the world. The
Epicureans belonged to this class; nor does Lucretius allege any other
reason for denying the system of the world to be the production of a
Deity beside its being so very faulty. Others again judged it to be more
rational to assign a double cause of visible effects, than to assign no
cause at all; as nothing, indeed, can be more absurd than to admit
actions and effects without any agent and cause. These persons
perceiving a mixture of good and evil, and being persuaded that so many
inconsistencies and disorders could not proceed from a good being,
supposed the existence of a malevolent principle, or god, directly
contrary to the good one; hence they derived corruption and death,
diseases, griefs, mischiefs, frauds, and villanies, while from the good
being they deduced nothing but good. This opinion was held by many of
the ancients; by the Persian magi, Manicheans, Paulicians, &c.

2. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes
of God,” deduces from the possibility and real existence of human
liberty an answer to the question, What is the cause and original of
evil? For liberty, he says, implying a natural power of doing evil, as
well as good; and the imperfect nature of finite beings making it
possible for them to abuse this their liberty to an actual commission of
evil; and it being necessary to the order and beauty of the whole, and
for displaying the infinite wisdom of the Creator, that there should be
different and various degrees of creatures, whereof, consequently, some
must be less perfect than others; hence there necessarily arises a
possibility of evil, notwithstanding that the Creator is infinitely
good. In short thus: all that we call evil is either an evil of
imperfection, as the want of certain faculties and excellencies which
other creatures have; or natural evil, as pain, death, and the like; or
moral evil, as all kinds of vice. The first of these is not properly an
evil: for every power, faculty, or perfection, which any creature
enjoys, being the free gift of God, which he was no more obliged to
bestow, than he was to confer being or existence itself, it is plain the
want of any certain faculty or perfection in any kind of creatures which
never belonged to their nature, is no more an evil to them than their
never having been created, or brought into being at all, could properly
have been called an evil. The second kind of evil, which we call natural
evil, is either a necessary consequence of the former; as death, to a
creature on whose nature immortality was never conferred; and then it is
no more properly an evil than the former; or else it is counterpoised,
in the whole, with as great or greater good, as the afflictions and
sufferings of good men, and then also it is not properly an evil; or
else, lastly, it is a punishment; and then it is a necessary consequent
of the third and last sort of evil, namely, moral evil. And this arises
wholly from the abuse of liberty, which God gave to his creatures for
other purposes, and which it was reasonable and fit to give them for the
perfection and order of the whole creation; only they, contrary to God’s
intention and command, have abused what was necessary for the perfection
of the whole, to the corruption and depravation of themselves. And thus
all sorts of evils have entered into the world, without any diminution
to the infinite goodness of its Creator and Governor.

3. This is obviously all the answer which the question respecting the
origin of evil is capable of receiving. It brings us to the point to
which the Scriptures themselves lead us. And though many questions may
yet be asked, respecting a subject so mysterious as the permission of
evil by the Supreme Being, this is a part of his _counsels_ of which we
can have no cognizance, unless he is pleased to reveal them; and as
revelation is silent upon this subject, except generally, that all his
acts, his permissive ones as well as others, are “wise, and just, and
good,” we may rest assured, that beyond what is revealed, human wisdom
in the present state can never penetrate.

EXCOMMUNICATION, is the judicial exclusion of offenders from the
religious rites and other privileges of the particular community to
which they belong. Founded in the natural right which every society
possesses to guard its laws and privileges from violation and abuse by
the infliction of salutary discipline, proportioned to the nature of the
offences committed against them, it has found a place, in one form or
another, under every system of religion, whether human or divine. That
it has been made an engine for the gratification of private malice and
revenge, and been perverted to purposes the most unjustifiable and even
diabolical, the history of the world but too lamentably proves; yet
this, though unquestionably a consideration which ought to inculcate the
necessity of prudence, as well as impartiality and temperance in the use
of it, affords no valid argument against its legitimate exercise. From
St. Paul’s writings we learn that the early excommunication was effected
by the offender not being allowed to “eat” with the church, that is, to
partake of the Lord’s Supper, the sign of communion. In the early ages
of the primitive church also, this branch of discipline was exercised
with moderation, which, however, gradually gave place to an undue
severity. From Tertullian’s “Apology” we learn, that the crimes which in
his time subjected to exclusion from Christian privileges, were murder,
idolatry, theft, fraud, lying, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and the
like: and in Origen’s treatise against Celsus, we are informed that such
persons were expelled from the communion of the church, and lamented as
lost and dead unto God; [_ut perditos Deoque mortuos_;] but that on
making confession and giving evidence of penitence, they were received
back as restored to life. It was at the same time specially ordained,
that no such delinquent, however suitably qualified in other respects,
could be afterward admitted to any ecclesiastical office. But it does
not appear that the infliction of this discipline was accompanied with
any of those forms of excommunication, of delivering over to Satan, or
of solemn execration, which were usual among the Jews, and subsequently
introduced into them by the Romish church. The authors and followers of
heretical opinions which had been condemned, were also subject to this
penalty; and it was sometimes inflicted on whole congregations when they
were judged to have departed from the faith. In this latter case,
however, the sentence seldom went farther than the interdiction of
correspondence with these churches, or of spiritual communication
between their respective pastors. To the same exclusion from religious
privileges, those unhappy persons were doomed, who, whether from choice
or from compulsion, had polluted themselves, after their baptism, by any
act of idolatrous worship; and the penance enjoined on such persons,
before they could be restored to communion, was often peculiarly severe.
The consequences of excommunication, even then, were of a temporal as
well as a spiritual nature. The person against whom it was pronounced,
was denied all share in the oblations of his brethren; the ties both of
religious and of private friendship were dissolved; he found himself an
object of abhorrence to those whom he most esteemed, and by whom he had
been most tenderly beloved; and, as far as expulsion from a society held
in universal veneration could imprint on his character a mark of
disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind.

2. It was not, however, till churchmen began to unite temporal with
spiritual power, that any penal effects of a civil kind became
consequent on their sentences of excommunication; and that this ghostly
artillery was not less frequently employed for the purposes of lawless
ambition and ecclesiastical domination, than for the just punishment of
impenitent delinquents, and the general edification of the faithful. But
as soon as this union took place, and in exact proportion to the degree
in which the papal system rose to its predominance over the civil rights
as well as the consciences of men, the list of offences which subjected
their perpetrators to excommunication, was multiplied; and the severity
of its inflictions, with their penal effects, increased in the same
ratio. The slightest injury, or even insult, sustained by an
ecclesiastic, was deemed a sufficient cause for the promulgation of an
anathema. Whole families, and even provinces, were prohibited from
engaging in any religious exercise, and cursed with the most tremendous
denunciations of divine vengeance. Nor were kings and emperors secure
against these thunders of the church; their subjects were, on many
occasions, declared, by a papal bull, to be absolved from allegiance to
them; and all who should dare to support them, menaced with a similar
judgment. These terrors have passed away; the true Scriptural
excommunication ought to be maintained in every church; which is the
prohibition of immoral and apostate persons from the use of those
religious rites which indicate “the communion of saints,” but without
any temporal penalty.

EXODUS, from ἐξ, _out_, and ὁδὸς, _a way_, the name of the second book
of Moses, and is so called in the Greek version because it relates to
the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. It comprehends the history
of about a hundred and forty-five years; and the principal events
contained in it are, the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their
miraculous deliverance by the hand of Moses; their entrance into the
wilderness of Sinai; the promulgation of the law, and the building of
the tabernacle. See PENTATEUCH.

EXPIATION, a religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made
for the commission of some crime, the guilt done away, and the
obligation to punishment cancelled. The chief methods of expiation among
the Jews were by sacrifices; and it is important always to recollect
that the Levitical sacrifices were of an expiatory character; because as
among the Jews sacrifices were unquestionably of divine original, and as
the terms taken from them are found applied so frequently to Christ and
to his sufferings in the New Testament, they serve to explain that
peculiarity under which the Apostles regarded the death of Christ, and
afford additional proof that it was considered by them as a sacrifice of
expiation, as the grand universal sin-offering for the whole world. For
our Lord is announced by John as “the Lamb of God;” and that not with
reference to meekness or any other moral virtue; but with an
accompanying phrase, which would communicate to a Jew the full
sacrificial sense of the term employed, “the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world.” He is called “our Passover, sacrificed for
us.” He is said to have given “himself for us, an offering and a
sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour.” As a priest, it was
necessary “he should have somewhat to offer;” and he offered “himself,”
“his own blood,” to which is ascribed the washing away of sin, and our
eternal redemption. He is declared to have “put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself,” to have “by himself purged our sins,” to have
“sanctified the people by his own blood,” to have “offered to God one
sacrifice for sins.” Add to these, and to innumerable other similar
expressions and allusions, the argument of the Apostle in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in which, by proving at length, that the sacrifice of
Christ was superior in efficacy to the sacrifices of the law, he most
unequivocally assumes, that the death of Christ was a sacrifice and
sin-offering; for without that it would no more have been capable of
comparison with the sacrifices of the law, than the death of John the
Baptist, St. Stephen, or St. James, all martyrs and sufferers for the
truth, who had recently sealed their testimony with their blood. This
very comparison, we may affirm, is utterly unaccountable and absurd on
any hypothesis which denies the sacrifice of Christ; for what relation
could his death have to the Levitical immolations and offerings, if it
had no sacrificial character? Nothing could, in fact, be more
misleading, and even absurd, than to apply those terms which, both among
Jews and Gentiles, were in use to express the various processes and
means of atonement and piacular propitiation, if the Apostles and Christ
himself did not intend to represent his death strictly as an expiation
for sin:--misleading, because such would be the natural and necessary
inference from the terms themselves, which had acquired this as their
established meaning:--and absurd, because if, as Socinians say, they
used them metaphorically, there was not even an ideal resemblance
between the figure and that which it was intended to illustrate. So
totally irrelevant, indeed, will those terms appear to any notion
entertained of the death of Christ which excludes its expiatory
character, that to assume that our Lord and his Apostles used them as
metaphors, is profanely to assume them to be such writers as would not
in any other case be tolerated; writers wholly unacquainted with the
commonest rules of language, and therefore wholly unfit to be teachers
of others, and that not only in religion but in things of inferior
importance.

2. The use of such terms, we have said, would not only be wholly absurd,
but criminally misleading to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, who
were first converted to Christianity. To them the notion of propitiatory
offerings, offerings to avert the displeasure of the gods, and which
expiated the crimes of offenders, was most familiar, and terms
corresponding to it were in constant use. The bold denial of this by Dr.
Priestley might well bring upon him the reproof of Archbishop Magee,
who, after establishing this point from the Greek and Latin writers,
observes, “So clearly does their language announce the notion of a
propitiatory atonement, that if we would avoid an imputation on Dr.
Priestley’s fairness, we are driven, of necessity, to question the
extent of his acquaintance with those writers.” The reader may consult
the instances given by this writer, in No. 5 of his “Illustrations,”
appended to his “Discourses on the Atonement;” and also the tenth
chapter of Grotius “_De Satisfactione_,” whose learning has most amply
illustrated and firmly settled this view of the Heathen sacrifices. The
use to be made of this in the argument is, that as the Apostles found
the very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of
the death of Christ, fixed in an expiatory signification among the
Greeks, they could not, in honesty, use them in a distant figurative
sense, much less in a contrary one, without giving their readers due
notice of their having invested them with a new import. From ἄγος, _a
pollution_, _an impurity_, which was to be expiated by sacrifice, are
derived ἁγνίζω and ἁγιάζω, which denote the act of expiation; καθαίρω,
too, _to purify_, _cleanse_, is applied to the effect of expiation; and
ἱλάσκομαι denotes the method of propitiating the gods by sacrifice.
These, and other words of similar import, are used by the authors of the
Septuagint, and by the Evangelists and Apostles; but they give no
premonition of using them in any strange and altered sense; and when
they apply them to the death of Christ, they must, therefore, be
understood to use them in their received meaning. In like manner the
Jews had their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in
them are, in like manner, employed by the Apostles to characterize the
death of their Lord; and they would have been as guilty of misleading
their Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they employed them in a new
sense, and without warning, which, unquestionably, they never gave.

3. As to the expiatory nature of the sacrifices of the law, it is not
required by the argument to show that _all_ the Levitical offerings were
of this character. There were also offerings for persons and for things
prescribed for purification, which were incidental; but even they grew
out of the leading notion of expiatory sacrifice, and that legal
purification which resulted from the forgiveness of sins. It is enough
to prove, that the grand and eminent sacrifices of the Jews were
strictly expiatory, and that by them the offerers were released from
punishment and death, for which ends they were appointed by the
Lawgiver. When we speak, too, of vicarious sacrifice, we do not mean
either, on the one hand, such a substitution as that the victim should
bear the same quantum of pain and suffering as the offender himself; or,
on the other, that it was put in the place of the offender as a mere
symbolical act, by which he confessed his desert of punishment; but _a
substitution made by divine appointment_, by which the victim was
exposed to sufferings and death instead of the offender, in virtue of
which the offender himself was released. With this view, one can
scarcely conceive why so able a writer as Archbishop Magee should prefer
to use the term, “vicarious _import_,” rather than the simple and
established term, “vicarious;” since the Antinomian notion of
substitution may be otherwise sufficiently guarded against, and the
phrase “vicarious _import_” is certainly capable of being resolved into
that figurative notion of mere symbolical action, which, however
plausible, does in fact deprive the ancient sacrifices of their
_typical_, and the oblation of Christ of its _real_, efficacy. Vicarious
acting, is acting for another; vicarious suffering, is suffering for
another; but the nature and circumstances of that suffering in the case
of Christ are to be determined by the doctrine of Scripture at large,
and not wholly by the term itself, which is, however, useful for this
purpose, (and therefore to be preserved,) that it indicates the sense in
which those who use it understand the declaration of Scripture, “Christ
died for us,” so as that he died not merely for our _benefit_, but _in
our stead_; in other words, that, but for his having died, those who
believe in him would personally have suffered that death which is the
penalty of every violation of the law of God.

4. That sacrifices under the law were expiatory and vicarious, admits of
abundant proof.

The chief objections made to this doctrine are, (1.) That under the law
in all capital cases, the offender, upon legal proof or conviction, was
doomed to die, and that no sacrifice could exempt him from the penalty.
(2.) That in all lower cases to which the law had not attached capital
punishment, but pecuniary mulcts, or personal labour or servitude upon
their nonpayment, this penalty was to be strictly executed, and none
could plead any privilege or exemption on account of sacrifice; and that
when sacrifices were ordained with a pecuniary mulct, they are to be
regarded in the light of _fine_, one part of which was paid to the
state, the other to the church. This was the mode of argument adopted by
the author of “the Moral Philosopher;” and nothing of weight has been
added to these objections since his day. Now, much of this may be
granted, without any prejudice to the argument; and, indeed, is no more
than the most orthodox writers on this subject have often remarked. The
law, under which the Jews were placed, was at once, as to them, both a
moral and a political law; and the Lawgiver excepted certain offences
from the benefit of pardon, because that would have been exemption from
temporal death, which was the state penalty. He therefore would accept
no atonement for such transgressions. Blasphemy, idolatry, murder, and
adultery, were the “presumptuous sins” which were thus exempted; and the
reason will be seen in the political relation of the people to God; for
in refusing to exempt them from punishment in this world, respect was
had to the order and benefit of society. Running parallel, however, with
this political application of the law to the Jews as subjects of the
theocracy, we see the authority of the moral law kept over them as men
and creatures; and if these “presumptuous sins,” of blasphemy and
idolatry, of murder and adultery, and a few others, were the only
capital crimes considered politically, they were not the only capital
crimes considered morally; that is, there were other crimes which would
have subjected the offender to death, but for this provision of
expiatory oblations. The true question then is, whether such sacrifices
were appointed by God, and accepted instead of the personal punishment
or life of the offender, which otherwise would have been forfeited, as
in the other cases; and if so, if the life of animal sacrifices was
accepted instead of the life of man, then the notion that “they were
mere mulcts and pecuniary penalties” falls to the ground, and the
vicarious nature of most of the Levitical oblations is established. That
other offences, beside those above mentioned, were capital, that is,
exposed the offender to death, is clear from this, that all offences
against the law had this capital character. As death was the sanction of
the commandment given to Adam, so every one who transgressed any part of
the law of Moses became guilty of death; every man was “accursed,” that
is, devoted to die, who “continued not in all things written in the book
of the law.” “The man only that doeth these things shall live by them,”
was the rule; and it was, therefore, to redeem the offenders from this
penalty that sacrifices were appointed. So with reference to the great
day of expiation, we read, “For on that day shall the priest make an
atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your
sins; and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an
atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year,”
Lev. xvi, 30–34.

5. To prove that this was the intention and effect of the annual
sacrifices of the Jews, we need do little more than refer to Lev. xvii,
10, 11: “I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and
will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in
the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an
atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul.” Here the blood which is said to make an atonement for the
soul, is the blood of the victims; and to make an atonement for the soul
is the same as to be a ransom for the soul, as will appear by referring
to EXODUS xxx, 12–16; and to be a ransom for the soul is to avert death.
“They shall give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that
there be no plague among them,” by which their lives might be suddenly
taken away. The “soul” is also here used obviously for the life; the
blood, or the life of the victims in all sacrifices, was substituted for
the life of man, to preserve him from death, and the victims were
therefore vicarious.

6. The Hebrew word כפר, rendered _atonement_, signifying primarily _to
cover_, _to overspread_, has been the subject of some evasive
criticisms. It comes, however, in the secondary sense to signify
atonement or propitiation, because the effect of that is to cover, or,
in Scripture meaning, to remit offences. The Septuagint also renders it
by ἐξιλάσκομαι, _to appease_, _to make propitious_. It is used, indeed,
where the means of atonement are not of the sacrificial kind, but these
instances equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in
cases of transgression, to be that of reconciling the offended Deity, by
averting his displeasure; so that when the atonement for sin is said to
be made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain that the sacrifice was
strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion we
find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations
for transgression of the divine commands, that the sin for which
atonement was made by those oblations should be forgiven.

7. As the notion that the sacrifices of the law were not vicarious, but
mere mulcts and fines, is overturned by the general appointment of the
blood to be an atonement for the souls, the forfeited lives, of men, so
also is it contradicted by particular instances. Let us refer to
Leviticus v, 15,16: “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through
ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall make amends for the
harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part
thereto, and shall give it to the priest.” Here, indeed, is the proper
fine for the trespass; but it is added, “He shall bring for his trespass
unto the Lord a ram without blemish, and the priest shall make atonement
for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven
him.” Thus, then, so far from the sacrifice being the fine, the fine is
distinguished from it, and with the ram only was the atonement made to
the Lord for his trespass. Nor can the ceremonies with which the
trespass and sin offerings were accompanied agree with any notion but
that of their vicarious character. The worshipper, conscious of his
trespass, brought an animal, his own property, to the door of the
tabernacle. This was not a eucharistical act; not a memorial of mercies
received, but of sins committed. He laid his hands upon the head of the
animal, the symbolical act of transferring punishment; then slew it with
his own hand, and delivered it to the priest, who burned the fat and
part of the animal upon the altar; and, having sprinkled part of the
blood upon the altar, and, in some cases, upon the offerer himself,
poured the rest at the bottom of the altar. And thus, we are told, “The
priest shall make an atonement for him, as concerning his sin, and it
shall be forgiven him.” So clearly is it made manifest by these actions,
and by the description of their nature and end, that the animal bore the
punishment of the offender, and that by this appointment he was
reconciled to God, and obtained the forgiveness of his offences.

8. An equally strong proof that the life of the animal sacrifice was
accepted in place of the life of man, is afforded by the fact, that
atonement was required by the law to be made, by sin offerings and burnt
offerings, for even bodily distempers and disorders. It is not necessary
to the argument to explain the distinctions between these various
oblations; nor yet to inquire into the reason for requiring propitiation
to be made for corporal infirmities which, in many cases, could not be
avoided. They were, however, thus connected with sin as the cause of all
these disorders; and God, who had placed his residence among the
Israelites, insisted upon a perfect ceremonial purity, to impress upon
them a sense of his moral purity, and the necessity of purification of
mind. Whether these were the reasons, or some others not at all
discoverable by us, all such unclean persons were liable to death, and
were exempted from it only by animal sacrifices. This appears from the
conclusion to all the Levitical directions concerning the ceremonial to
be observed in all such cases: “Thus shall ye separate the children of
Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in,” or by, “their
uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle which is among them,” Lev.
xv, 31. So that, by virtue of the sin offerings, the children of Israel
were saved from a death which otherwise they would have suffered from
their uncleanness, and that by substituting the life of the animal for
the life of the offerer. Nor can it be urged that death is, in these
instances, threatened only as the punishment of not observing these laws
of purification; for the reason given in the passage just quoted shows
that the threatening of death was not hypothetical upon their not
bringing the prescribed purification, but is grounded upon the fact of
“defiling the tabernacle of the Lord which was among them,” which is
supposed to be done by all uncleanness, as such, in the first instance.

9. As a farther proof of the vicarious character of the principal
sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, we may instance those statedly offered
for the whole congregation. Every day were offered two lambs, one in the
morning, and the other in the evening, “for a continual burnt offering.”
To these daily victims were to be added, weekly, two other lambs for the
burnt offering of every Sabbath. None of these could be considered in
the light of fines for offences, since they were offered for no
particular persons, and must be considered, therefore, unless resolved
into an unmeaning ceremony, piacular and vicarious. To pass over,
however, the monthly sacrifices, and those offered at the great feasts,
it is sufficient to fix upon those, so often alluded to in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, offered on the solemn anniversary of expiation. On that
day, to other prescribed sacrifices were to be added another ram for a
burnt offering, and another goat, the most eminent of the sacrifices for
a sin offering, whose blood was to be carried by the high priest into
the inner sanctuary, which was not done by the blood of any other
victim, except the bullock, which was offered the same day as a sin
offering for the family of Aaron. The circumstances of this ceremony,
whereby atonement was to be made “for all the sins” of the whole Jewish
people, are so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular
detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is
commanded to offer a bullock and a goat, as sin offerings, the one for
himself, and the other for the people; and, having sprinkled the blood
of these in due form before the mercy seat, to lead forth a second goat,
denominated “the scape-goat;” and, after laying both his hands upon the
head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of
the people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the
animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness;
in this manner expressing, by an action which cannot be misunderstood,
that the atonement, which, it is affirmed, was to be effected by the
sacrifice of the sin offering, consisted in removing from the people
their iniquities by this translation of them to the animal. For it is to
be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one:
it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding
part and symbolical consummation of the sin offering: so that the
transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the
scape-goat, and the bearing them away into the wilderness, manifestly
imply, that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin offering
consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities.

10. How, then, is this impressive and singular ceremonial to be
explained? Shall we resort to the notion of mulcts and fines? If so,
then this and other stated sacrifices must be considered in the light of
penal enactments. But this cannot agree with the appointment of such
sacrifices annually in succeeding generations: “This shall be a statute
for ever unto you.” The law appoints a certain day in the year for
expiating the sins both of the high priest himself and of the whole
congregation, and that for all high priests and all generations of the
congregation. Now, could a law be enacted, inflicting a certain penalty,
at a certain time, upon a whole people, as well as upon their high
priest, thus presuming upon their actual transgression of it? The
sacrifice was also for sins in general; and yet the penalty, if it were
one, is not greater than individual persons were often obliged to
undergo for single trespasses. Nothing, certainly, can be more absurd
than this hypothesis. Shall we account for it by saying that sacrifices
were offered for the benefit of the worshipper, but exclude the notion
of expiation? But here we are obliged to confine the benefit to
reconciliation and the taking away of sins, and that by the appointed
means of the shedding of blood, and the presentation of blood in the
holy place, accompanied by the expressive ceremony of imposition of
hands upon the head of the victim; the import of which act is fixed,
beyond all controversy, by the priest’s confessing over that victim the
sins of all the people, and at the same time imprecating upon its head
the vengeance due to them, Lev. xvi, 21. Shall we content ourselves with
merely saying that this was a symbol? But the question remains, Of what
was it the symbol? To determine this, let the several parts of the
symbolic action be enumerated. Here is confession of sin; confession
before God at the door of the tabernacle; the substitution of a victim;
the figurative transfer of sins to that victim; the shedding of blood,
which God appointed to make atonement for the soul; the carrying the
blood into the holiest place, the very permission of which clearly
marked the divine acceptance; the bearing away of iniquity; and the
actual reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, this is
symbolical, it has nothing correspondent with it, it never had or can
have any thing correspondent to it but the sacrificial death of Jesus
Christ, and the communication of the benefits of his passion in the
forgiveness of sins to those that believe in him, and in their
reconciliation with God. Shall we, finally, say that those sacrifices
had respect, not to God to obtain pardon by expiation, but to the
offerer, teaching him moral lessons, and calling forth moral
dispositions? We answer, that this hypothesis leaves many of the
essential circumstances of the ceremonial wholly unaccounted for. The
tabernacle and temple were erected for the residence of God, by his own
command. There it was his will to be approached, and to these sacred
places the victims were required to be brought. Any where else they
might as well have been offered, if they had had respect only to the
offerer; but they were required to be brought to God, to be offered
according to a prescribed ritual, and by an order of men appointed for
that purpose. Now truly there is no reason why they should be offered in
the sanctuary rather than in any other place, except that they were
offered to the Inhabitant of the sanctuary; nor could they be offered in
his presence without having respect to him. There were some victims
whose blood, on the day of atonement, was to be carried into the inner
sanctuary; but for what purpose can we suppose the blood to have been
carried into the most secret place of the divine residence, except to
obtain the favour of Him in whose presence it was sprinkled? To this we
may add, that the reason given for these sacred services is not in any
case a mere moral effect to be produced upon the minds of the
worshippers: they were “to make atonement,” that is, to avert God’s
displeasure, that the people might not “die.”

11. We may find, also, another more explicit illustration in the
sacrifice of the passover. The sacrificial character of this offering is
strongly marked; for it was an offering brought to the tabernacle; it
was slain in the sanctuary; and the blood was sprinkled upon the altar
by the priests. It derives its name from the passing over and sparing of
the houses of the Israelites, on the door posts of which the blood of
the immolated lamb was sprinkled, when the first-born in the houses of
the Egyptians were slain; and thus we have another instance of life
being spared by the instituted means of animal sacrifice. Nor need we
confine ourselves to particular instances. “Almost all things,” says an
Apostle, who surely knew his subject, “are by the law purged with blood;
and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Thus, by their
very law, and by constant usage, were the Jews familiarized to the
notion of expiatory sacrifice, as well as by the history contained in
their sacred books, especially in Genesis, which speaks of the vicarious
sacrifices offered by the patriarchs; and in the book of Job, in which
that patriarch is said to have offered sacrifices for the supposed sins
of his sons; and where Eliphaz is commanded, by a divine oracle, to
offer a burnt offering for himself and his friends, “lest God should
deal with them after their folly.”

12. On the sentiments of the uninspired Jewish writers on this point,
the substitution of the life of the animal for that of the offerer, and,
consequently, the expiatory nature of their sacrifices, Outram has given
many quotations from their writings, which the reader may consult in his
work on Sacrifices. Two or three only may be adduced by way of specimen.
R. Levi Ben Gerson says, “The imposition of the hands of the offerers
was designed to indicate that their sins were removed from themselves,
and transferred to the animal.” Isaac Ben Arama: “He transfers his sins
from himself, and lays them upon the head of the victim.” R. Moses Ben
Nachman says, with respect to a sinner offering a victim, “It was just
that his blood should be shed, and that his body should be burned; but
the Creator, of his mercy, accepted the victim from him, as his
substitute and ransom; that the blood of the animal might be shed
instead of his blood; that is, that the blood of the animal might be
given for his life.”

13. Full of these ideas of vicarious expiation, then, the Apostles wrote
and spoke, and the Jews of their time heard and read, the books of the
New Testament. The Socinian pretence is, that the inspired penmen used
the sacrificial terms which occur in their writings figuratively; but we
not only reply, as before, that they could not do this honestly, unless
they had given notice of this new application of the established terms
of the Jewish theology; but, if this be assumed, it leaves us wholly at
a loss to discover what that really was which they intended to teach by
these sacrificial terms and allusions. They are themselves utterly
silent as to this point; and the varying theories of those who reject
the doctrine of atonement, in fact, confess that their writings afford
no solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, it is blasphemous to
suppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should write on purpose to
mislead; so, on the other, it is utterly inconceivable that, had they
only been ordinary writers, they should construct a figurative language
out of terms which had a definite and established sense, without giving
any intimation at all that they employed them otherwise than in their
received meaning, or telling us why they adopted them at all, and more
especially when they knew that they must be interpreted, both by Jews
and Greeks, in a sense which, if the Socinians are right, was in direct
opposition to that which they intended to convey. See TYPE, SACRIFICE,
PROPITIATION.

EXPIATION, or ATONEMENT, _Great Day of_, was the tenth of Tizri, which
nearly answers to our September, O. S. The Hebrews call it KIPPUR, or
CHIPPUR, “pardon,” or “expiation,” because the faults of the year were
then expiated. The principal ceremonies of this day have been noticed in
the preceding article; but a more particular detail may be useful. The
high priest, after he had washed, not only his hands and his feet, as
usual at common sacrifices, but his whole body, dressed himself in plain
linen, like the other priests, wearing neither his purple robe, nor the
ephod, nor the pectoral, because he was to expiate his own sins,
together with those of the people. He first offered a bullock and a ram
for his own sins, and those of the priests: putting his hands on the
heads of these victims, he confessed his own sins and the sins of his
house. Afterward, he received from the princes of the people two goats
for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the
name of the whole nation. The lot determined which of the two goats
should be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, the high
priest put some of the sacred fire of the altar of burnt offerings into
a censer, threw incense upon it, and entered with it, thus smoking, into
the sanctuary. After he had perfumed the sanctuary with this incense, he
came out, took some of the blood of the young bullock he had sacrificed,
carried that also into the sanctuary, and, dipping his fingers in it,
sprinkled it seven times between the ark and the vail, which separated
the holy from the sanctuary, or most holy. Then he came out a second
time, and, beside the altar of burnt offerings, killed the goat which
the lot had determined to be the sacrifice. The blood of this goat he
carried into the most holy sanctuary, and sprinkled it seven times
between the ark and the vail, which separated the holy from the
sanctuary: from thence he returned into the court of the tabernacle, and
sprinkled both sides of it with the blood of the goat. During all this,
none of the priests or people were admitted into the tabernacle, or into
the court. After this, the high priest came to the altar of burnt
offerings, wetted the four horns of it with the blood of the goat and
young bullock, and sprinkled it seven times with the same blood. The
sanctuary, the court, and the altar, being thus purified, the high
priest directed the goat which was set at liberty by the lot to be
brought to him. He put his hand on the goat’s head, confessed his own
sins and the sins of the people, and then delivered the goat to a person
appointed, who was to carry it to some desert place, and let it loose,
or, as others say, throw it down some precipice. This being done, the
high priest washed himself all over in the tabernacle; and, putting on
other clothes, his pontifical dress, that is, his robe of purple, the
ephod, and the pectoral, he sacrificed two rams for burnt offering, one
for himself, the other for the people. The great day of expiation was a
principal solemnity of the Hebrews, a day of rest and strict fasting.

2. There have been various disputes among the learned respecting the
meaning of the word _azazel_, the name of the scape-goat on which the
lot fell; but the most prevailing opinion is, that it is derived from
_gnez_, “a goat,” and _azel_, “to go away.” So Buxtorf and many others
explain it; and so it was understood by our translators, who have
therefore rendered it “a scape-goat.” Both goats were typical of Christ:
that which was sacrificed is understood to have denoted his death, by
means of which sin was expiated; the other, which was to have the sins
of the people confessed over him, and, as it were, put upon him, and
then to be sent alive into some desert place, where they could see him
no more, was intended to signify the effect of the expiation, namely,
the removing of guilt, indicating that it should never more be charged
on the pardoned sinner.

3. The rites attending the public service of the day of expiation were
chiefly performed by the high priest, whose duties were on this day more
arduous than on any other day in the year, or perhaps on all the rest
united. He was to kill and offer the sacrifices, and sprinkle their
blood with his own hands, Lev. xvi, 11–15; and he was to enter with it
into the holy of holies, which he was not permitted to do at any other
time, Lev. xvi, 2, &c; Heb. ix, 7. It was thus his peculiar privilege to
draw nearer to God, or to the tokens of his special presence, to the ark
of the covenant, to the mercy seat, and to the Shekinah, than was
allowed to any other mortal. The services which he performed in the
inmost sanctuary were, the burning of incense, and sprinkling the blood
of the sacrifices before the mercy seat, which he was to do with his
finger seven times, Lev. xvi, 14.

4. The spiritual meaning of all these rites has been particularly
explained by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews ix. As the high priest was a
type of Christ, his laying aside those vestments which were made “for
glory and beauty,” Exodus xxviii, 2, and appearing in his common
garments, which he did on that day, probably signified our Lord’s
humiliation, when he emptied himself of the glory which he had with the
Father before the world was, and “was made in fashion as a man,” Phil.
ii, 6, 7. The expiatory sacrifices, offered by the high priest, were
typical of the true expiation which Christ made for the sins of his
people, when he gave himself for them, that he might redeem them from
all iniquity, Titus ii, 14; Heb. i, 3; and the priest’s confessing the
sins of the people over them, and putting them upon the head of the
scape-goat, Lev. xvi, 21, was a lively emblem of the imputation of sin
to Christ, who “was made sin for us,” 2 Cor. v, 21; for “the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah liii, 6. Farther, the goat’s
“bearing upon him all the iniquities of the Jews into a land not
inhabited,” Lev. xvi, 22, represents the effect of Christ’s sacrifice in
delivering his people from guilt and punishment; and the priest’s
entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice is
explained by the Apostle to be typical of Christ’s ascension into heaven
itself, and his making intercession for his people in virtue of the
sacrifice of his death.

EYE, the organ of sight. The Hebrews by a curious and bold metaphor call
fountains eyes; and they also give the same name to colours: “And the
eye,” or colour, “of the manna was as the eye,” or colour, “of
bdellium,” Num. xi, 7. By an “evil eye” is meant, envy, jealousy,
grudging, ill-judged parsimony; to turn the eyes on any one, is to
regard him and his interests; to find grace in any one’s eyes, Ruth ii,
10, is to win his friendship and good will. “The eyes of servants look
unto the hands of their masters,” Psalm cxxiii, 2, to observe the least
motion, and obey the least signal. “Their eyes were opened,” Gen. iii,
7, they began to comprehend in a new manner. “The wise man’s eyes are in
his head,” Eccles. ii, 14, he does not act by chance. The eye of the
soul, in a moral sense, is the intention, the desire. God threatens to
set his eyes on the Israelites for evil, and not for good, Amos ix, 4.
Nebuchadnezzar recommends to Nebuzaradan that he would “set his eyes” on
Jeremiah, and permit him to go where he pleased, Jer. xxxix, 12; xl, 4.
Sometimes expressions of this kind are taken in a quite opposite sense:
“Behold, the eyes of the Lord are on the sinful kingdom; and I will
destroy it,” Amos ix, 8. To be eyes to the blind, or to serve them
instead of eyes, is sufficiently intelligible, Job xxix, 15. The
Persians called those officers of the crown who had the care of the
king’s interests and the management of his finances, the king’s eyes.
Eye service is peculiar to slaves, who are governed by fear only; and is
to be carefully guarded against by Christians, who ought to serve from a
principle of duty and affection, Eph. vi, 6; Col. iii, 22. The lust of
the eyes, or the desire of the eyes, comprehends every thing that
curiosity, vanity, &c, seek after; every thing that the eyes can present
to men given up to their passions, 1 John ii, 16. “Cast ye away every
man the abomination of his eyes,” Ezek. xx, 7, 8; let not the idols of
the Egyptians seduce you. The height or elevation of the eyes is taken
for pride, Eccles. xxiii, 5. St. Paul says that the Galatians would
willingly have “plucked out their eyes” for him, Gal. iv, 15; expressing
the intensity of their zeal, affection, and devotion to him. The Hebrews
call the apple of the eye the black daughter of the eye. To keep any
thing as the apple of the eye, is to preserve it with particular care,
Deut. xxxii, 10: “He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye,”
Zech. ii, 8; attempts to injure me in the tenderest part, which men
instinctively defend. The eye and its actions are occasionally
transferred to God: “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the
whole earth,” Zech. iv, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 9; Psalm xi, 4. “The eyes of
the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good,” Proverbs
xv, 3. “The Lord looked down from heaven,” &c. We read, Matthew vi, 22,
“The light,” or lamp, “of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be
single,” simple, clear, ἁπλοῦς, “thy whole body shall be full of light;
but if thine eye be evil,” distempered, diseased, “thy whole body shall
be darkened.” The direct allusion may hold to a lantern, or lamp,
λύχνος; if the glass of it be clear, the light will shine through it
strongly; but if the glass be soiled, dirty, foul, but little light will
pass through it: for if they had not glass lanterns, such as we use,
they had others in the east made of thin linen, &c: these were very
liable to receive spots, stains, and foulnesses, which impeded the
passage of the rays of light from the luminary within. So, in the
natural eye, if the cornea be single, and the humours clear, the light
will act correctly; but if there be a film over the cornea, or a
cataract, or a skin between any of the humours, the rays of light will
never make any impression on the internal seat of sight, the retina. By
analogy, therefore, if the mental eye, the judgment, be honest,
virtuous, sincere, well-meaning, pious, it may be considered as
enlightening and directing the whole of a person’s actions; but if it be
perverse, malign, biassed by undue prejudices, or drawn aside by
improper views, it darkens the understanding, perverts the conduct, and
suffers a man to be misled by his unwise and unruly passions.

2. The orientals, in some cases, deprive the criminal of the light of
day, by sealing up his eyes. A son of the great Mogul was actually
suffering this punishment when Sir Thomas Roe visited the court of
Delhi. The hapless youth was cast into prison, and deprived of the light
by some adhesive plaster put upon his eyes, for the space of three
years; after which the seal was taken away, that he might with freedom
enjoy the light; but he was still detained in prison. Other princes have
been treated in a different manner, to prevent them from conspiring
against the reigning monarch, or meddling with affairs of state: they
have been compelled to swallow opium and other stupifying drugs, to
weaken or benumb their faculties, and render them unfit for business.
Influenced by such absurd and cruel policy, Shah Abbas, the celebrated
Persian monarch, who died in 1629, ordered a certain quantity of opium
to be given every day to his grandson, who was to be his successor, to
stupify him, and prevent him from disturbing his government. Such are
probably the circumstances alluded to by the prophet: “They have not
known nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes that they cannot see;
and their hearts that they cannot understand,” Isaiah xliv, 18. The verb
טוח, rendered in our version, _to shut_, signifies “to overlay,” “to
cover over the surface;” thus, the king of Israel prepared three
thousand talents of gold, and seven thousand talents of refined silver,
to _overlay_ the walls of the temple, 1 Chron. xxix, 4. But it generally
signifies to _overspread_, or daub over, as with mortar or plaster, of
which Parkhurst quotes a number of examples; a sense which entirely
corresponds with the manner in which the eyes of a criminal are sealed
up in some parts of the east. The practice of sealing up the eyes, and
stupifying a criminal with drugs, seems to have been contemplated by the
same prophet in another passage of his book: “Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their
heart, and convert and be healed.”

3. Deprivation of sight was a very common punishment in the east. It was
at first the practice to sear the eyes with a hot iron; but a discovery
that this was not effectual, led to the cruel method of taking them out
altogether with a sharp-pointed instrument. The objects of this
barbarity were usually persons who aspired to the throne, or who were
considered likely to make such an attempt. It was also inflicted on
chieftains, whom it was desirable to deprive of power without putting
them to death. For this reason the hapless Zedekiah was punished with
the loss of sight, because he had rebelled against the king of Babylon,
and endeavoured to recover the independence of his throne: “Then he put
out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains,
and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his
death,” Jer. lii, 11.

4. Females used to paint their eyes. The substance used for this purpose
is called in Chaldee כהל, _cohol_; by the LXX, ϛίβι. Thus we read of
Jezebel, 2 Kings ix, 30, that, understanding that Jehu was to enter
Samaria, she decked herself for his reception, and (as in the original
Hebrew) “put her eyes in paint.” This was in conformity to a custom
which prevailed in the earliest ages. As large black eyes were thought
the finest, the women, to increase their lustre, and to make them appear
larger, tinged the corner of their eyelids with the impalpable powder of
antimony or of black lead. This was supposed also to give the eyes a
brilliancy and humidity, which rendered them either sparkling or
languishing, as suited the various passions. The method of performing
this among the women in the eastern countries at the present day, as
described by Russel, is by a cylindrical piece of silver or ivory, about
two inches long, made very smooth, and about the size of a common probe;
this is wet with water, and then dipped into a powder finely levigated,
made from what appears to be a rich lead ore, and applied to the eye;
the lids are closed upon it while it is drawn through between them. This
blacks the inside, and leaves a narrow black rim all round the edge.
That this was the method practised by the Hebrew women, we infer from
Isaiah iii, 22, where the prophet, in his enumeration of the articles
which composed the toilets of the delicate and luxurious daughters of
Zion, mentions “the wimples and the crisping pins,” or bodkins for
painting the eyes. The satirist Juvenal describes the same practice:--

               _Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctum
               Obliqua producit acu, pingitque trementes
               Attollens oculos._
                                                SAT. ii.

              “These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dye
              Till the full arch give lustre to the eye.”
                                                GIFFORD.

This custom is referred to by Jeremiah, iv, 30:--

          “Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,
          Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,
          Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,
          In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;
          Thy paramours have rejected thee.”

And Ezekiel, describing the irregularities of the Jewish nation, under
the idea of a debauched woman, says, כחלת עיניך, “Thou didst dress thine
eyes with cohol;” which the Septuagint render, Ἐϛιϐίζȣ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς
σου, “Thou didst dress thine eyes with stibium,” Ezek. xxiii, 40.

5. The passage, Psalm cxxiii, 2, derives a striking illustration from
the customs of the east. The servants or slaves in eastern countries
attend their masters or mistresses with the profoundest respect.
Maundrell observes, that the servants in Turkey stand round their master
and his guests in deep silence and perfect order, watching every motion.
Pococke says, that at a visit in Egypt every thing is done with the
greatest decency and the most profound silence, the slaves or servants
standing at the bottom of the room, with their hands joined before them,
watching with the utmost attention every motion of their master, who
commands them by signs. De la Motraye says, that the eastern ladies are
waited on even at the least wink of the eye, or motion of the fingers,
and that in a manner not perceptible to strangers.

EZEKIEL, like his contemporary Jeremiah, was of the sacerdotal race. He
was carried away captive to Babylon with Jehoiachim, king of Judah, B.
C. 598, and was placed with many others of his countrymen upon the river
Chebar, in Mesopotamia, where he was favoured with the divine
revelations contained in his book. He began to prophesy in the fifth
year of his captivity, and is supposed to have prophesied about
twenty-one years. The boldness with which he censured the idolatry and
wickedness of his countrymen is said to have cost him his life; but his
memory was greatly revered, not only by the Jews, but also by the Medes
and Persians. The book which bears his name may be considered under the
five following divisions: the first three chapters contain the glorious
appearance of God to the prophet, and his solemn appointment to his
office, with instructions and encouragements for the discharge of it.
From the fourth to the twenty-fourth chapter inclusive, he describes,
under a variety of visions and similitudes, the calamities impending
over Judea, and the total destruction of the temple and city of
Jerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, occasionally predicting another period of
yet greater desolation, and more general dispersion. From the beginning
of the twenty-fifth to the end of the thirty-second chapter, the prophet
foretels the conquest and ruin of many nations and cities, which had
insulted the Jews in their affliction; of the Ammonites, the Moabites,
the Edomites, and Philistines; of Tyre, of Sidon, and Egypt; all of
which were to be punished by the same mighty instrument of God’s wrath
against the wickedness of man; and in these prophecies he not only
predicts events which were soon to take place, but he also describes the
condition of these several countries in the remote periods of the world.
From the thirty-second to the fortieth chapter, he inveighs against the
accumulated sins of the Jews collectively, and the murmuring spirit of
his captive brethren; exhorts them earnestly to repent of their
hypocrisy and wickedness, upon the assurance that God will accept
sincere repentance; and comforts them with promises of approaching
deliverance under Cyrus; subjoining intimations of some far more
glorious, but distant, redemption under the Messiah, though the manner
in which it is to be effected is deeply involved in mystery. The last
nine chapters contain a remarkable vision of the structure of a new
temple and a new polity, applicable in the first instance to the return
from the Babylonian captivity, but in its ultimate sense referring to
the glory and prosperity of the universal church of Christ. Jerom
observes that the visions of Ezekiel are among the things in Scripture
hard to be understood. This obscurity arises, in part at least, from the
nature and design of the prophecies themselves; they were delivered
amidst the gloom of captivity; and though calculated to cheer the
drooping spirits of the Jews, and to keep alive a watchful and
submissive confidence in the mercy of God, yet they were intended to
communicate only such a degree of encouragement as was consistent with a
state of punishment, and to excite an indistinct expectation of future
blessings, upon condition of repentance and amendment. It ought also to
be observed, that the last twelve chapters of this book bear a very
strong resemblance to the concluding chapters of the Revelation. The
style of this prophet is characterized by Bishop Lowth as bold,
vehement, and tragical; as often worked up to a kind of tremendous
dignity. He is highly parabolical, and abounds in figures and
metaphorical expressions. He may be compared to the Grecian Æschylus; he
displays a rough but majestic dignity; an unpolished though noble
simplicity; inferior perhaps in originality and elegance to others of
the prophets, but unequalled in that force and grandeur for which he is
particularly celebrated. He sometimes emphatically and indignantly
repeats his sentiments, fully dilates his pictures, and describes the
idolatrous manners of his countrymen under the strongest and most
exaggerated representations that the license of eastern style would
admit. The middle part of the book is in some measure poetical, and
contains even some perfect elegies, though his thoughts are in general
too irregular and uncontrolled to be chained down to rule, or fettered
by language.

EZION-GEBER. See ELATH.

EZRA, the author of the book which bears his name, was of the sacerdotal
family, being a direct descendant from Aaron, and succeeded Zerubbabel
in the government of Judea. This book begins with the repetition of the
last two verses of the second book of Chronicles, and carries the Jewish
history through a period of seventy-nine years, commencing from the
edict of Cyrus. The first six chapters contain an account of the return
of the Jews under Zerubbabel, after the captivity of seventy years; of
their reëstablishment in Judea; and of the building and dedication of
the temple at Jerusalem. In the last four chapters, Ezra relates his own
appointment to the government of Judea by Artaxerxes Longimanus, his
journey thither from Babylon, the disobedience of the Jews, and the
reform which he immediately effected among them. It is to be observed,
that between the dedication of the temple and the departure of Ezra,
that is, between the sixth and seventh chapters of this book, there was
an interval of about fifty-eight years, during which nothing is here
related concerning the Jews, except that, contrary to God’s command,
they intermarried with Gentiles. This book is written in Chaldee from
the eighth verse of the fourth chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of
the seventh chapter. It is probable that the sacred historian used the
Chaldean language in this part of his work, because it contains chiefly
letters and decrees written in that language, the original words of
which he might think it right to record; and indeed the people, who were
recently returned from the Babylonian captivity, were at least as
familiar with the Chaldee as they were with the Hebrew tongue.

Till the arrival of Nehemiah, Ezra had the principal authority in
Jerusalem. In the second year of Nehemiah’s government, the people being
assembled in the temple, at the feast of tabernacles, Ezra was desired
to read the law. He read it from morning till noon, and was accompanied
by Levites who stood beside him, and kept silence. The next day they
desired to know of Ezra how they were to celebrate the feast of
tabernacles. This he explained, and continued eight days reading the law
in the temple. All this was followed by a solemn renewal of the covenant
with the Lord. Josephus says that Ezra was buried at Jerusalem; but the
Jews believe that he died in Persia, in a second journey to Artaxerxes.
His tomb is shown there in the city of Zamuza. He is said to have lived
nearly one hundred and twenty years.

Ezra was the restorer and publisher of the Holy Scriptures, after the
return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 1. He corrected the
errors which had crept into the existing copies of the sacred writings
by the negligence or mistake of transcribers. 2. He collected all the
books of which the Holy Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in
their proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time. 3.
He added throughout the books of his edition what appeared necessary for
illustrating, connecting, or completing them; and of this we have an
instance in the account of the death and burial of Moses, in the last
chapter of Deuteronomy. In this work he was assisted by the same Spirit
by which they were at first written. 4. He changed the ancient names of
several places become obsolete, and substituted for them new names, by
which they were at that time called. 5. He wrote out the whole in the
Chaldee character; that language having grown into use after the
Babylonish captivity. The Jews have an extraordinary esteem for Ezra,
and say that if the law had not been given by Moses, Ezra deserved to
have been the legislator of the Hebrews.


FABLE, a fiction destitute of truth. St. Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus
to shun profane and Jewish fables, 1 Tim. iv, 7; Titus i, 14; as having
a tendency to seduce men from the truth. By these fables some understand
the reveries of the Gnostics; but the fathers generally, and after them
most of the modern commentators, interpret them of the vain traditions
of the Jews; especially concerning meats, and other things, to be
abstained from as unclean, which our Lord also styles “the doctrines of
men,” Matt. xv, 9. This sense of the passages is confirmed by their
contexts. In another sense, the word is taken to signify an apologue, or
instructive tale, intended to convey truth under the concealment of
fiction; as Jotham’s fable of the trees, Judges ix, 7–15, no doubt by
far the oldest fable extant.

FACE. Moses begs of God to show him his face, or to manifest his glory;
he replies, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee,” and I will
proclaim my name; “but my face thou canst not see; for there shall no
man see it and live!” The persuasion was very prevalent in the world,
that no man could support the sight of Deity, Genesis xvi, 13; xxxii,
30; Exod. xx, 19; xxiv, 11; Judges vi, 22, 23. We read that God spake
mouth to mouth with Moses, even apparently, and not in dark speeches,
Numbers xii, 8; “The Canaanites have heard that thou art among thy
people, and seen face to face,” Numbers xiv, 14. God talked with the
Hebrews “face to face out of the midst of the fire,” Deut. v, 4. All
these places are to be understood simply, that God so manifested himself
to the Israelites, that he made them hear his voice as distinctly as if
he had appeared to them face to face; but not that they actually saw
more than the cloud of glory which marked his presence. The face of God
denotes sometimes his anger: “The face of the Lord is against them that
do evil.” “As wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish
before the face of God,” Psalm lxviii, 2. To turn the face upon any one,
especially when connected with the light or shining of the countenance,
are beautiful representations of the divine kindness and condescension.
To regard the face of any one, is to have respect of persons, Proverbs
xxviii, 21. The Apostle, speaking of the difference between our
knowledge of God here and in heaven, says, “Now we see through a glass
darkly; but then face to face,” 1 Cor. xiii, 12; by which he shows the
vast difference between our seeing or knowing God and divine things by
an imperfect revelation to faith, and by direct vision. This observation
of the Apostle is rendered the more striking, when it is recollected
that the Roman glass was not fully transparent as ours, but dull and
clouded. Of this, specimens may be seen in the glass vessels taken out
of Pompeii.

FAITH, in Scripture, is presented to us under two leading views: the
first is that of _assent_ or _persuasion_; the second, that of
_confidence_ or _reliance_. The former may be separate from the latter,
but the latter cannot exist without the former. Faith, in the sense of
an intellectual assent to truth, is, by St. James, allowed to devils. A
dead, inoperative faith is also supposed, or declared, to be possessed
by wicked men, professing Christianity; for our Lord represents persons
coming to him at the last day, saying, “Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name” &c, to whom he will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
And yet the charge in this place does not lie against the sincerity of
their belief, but against their conduct as “workers of iniquity.” As
this distinction is taught in Scripture, so it is also observed in
experience: assent to the truths of revealed religion may result from
examination and conviction, while yet the spirit and conduct may remain
unrenewed and sinful.

2. The faith which is required of us as a condition of salvation always
includes confidence or reliance, as well as assent or persuasion. That
faith by which “the elders obtained a good report,” was of this
character; it united _assent_ to the truth of God’s revelations with a
noble _confidence_ in his promise. “Our fathers trusted in thee, and
were not confounded.” We have a farther illustration in our Lord’s
address to his disciples upon the withering away of the fig tree: “Have
faith in God.” He did not question whether they believed the existence
of God, but exhorted them to confidence in his promises, when called by
him to contend with mountainous difficulties: “Have faith in God; for
verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be
thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his
heart, but shall believe (trust) that these things which he saith shall
come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith.” It was in reference to
his simple confidence in Christ’s power that our Lord so highly
commended the centurion, and said, “I have not found so great faith, no,
not in Israel,” Matt. viii, 10. And all the instances of faith in the
persons miraculously healed by Christ, were also of this kind: their
faith was belief in his claims, and also confidence in his goodness and
power.

3. That faith in Christ which in the New Testament is connected with
salvation, is clearly of this nature; that is, it combines assent with
reliance, belief with trust. “Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name,”
that is, in dependence upon my interest and merits, “he shall give it
you.” Christ was preached both to Jews and Gentiles as the object of
their trust, because he was preached as the only true sacrifice for sin;
and they were required to renounce their dependence upon their own
accustomed sacrifices, and to transfer that dependence to his death and
mediation,--and “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” He is said to be
set forth as a propitiation, “through faith in his blood;” which faith
can neither merely mean assent to the historical fact that his blood was
shed by a violent death; nor mere assent to the general doctrine that
his blood had an atoning quality; but as all expiatory offerings were
_trusted in_ as the means of propitiation both among Jews and Gentiles,
faith or trust was now to be exclusively rendered to the blood of
Christ, as the divinely appointed sacrifice for sin, and the only refuge
of the true penitent.

4. To the most unlettered Christian this then will be very obvious, that
true and saving faith in Christ consists both of assent and trust; but
this is not a blind and superstitious trust in the sacrifice of Christ,
like that of the Heathens in their sacrifices; nor the presumptuous
trust of wicked and impenitent men, who depend on Christ to save them in
their sins; but such a trust as is exercised according to the authority
and direction of the word of God; so that _to know_ the Gospel in its
leading principles, and to have a cordial _belief_ in it, is necessary
to that more specific act of faith which is called _reliance_, or in
systematic language, _fiducial assent_. The Gospel, as the scheme of
man’s salvation, declares that he is under the law; that this law of God
has been violated by all; and that every man is under sentence of death.
Serious consideration of our ways, confession of the fact, and sorrowful
conviction of the evil and danger of sin, will, under the influence of
divine grace, follow the cordial belief of the testimony of God; and we
shall then turn to God with contrite hearts, and earnest prayers, and
supplications for his mercy. This is called “repentance toward God;” and
repentance being the first subject of evangelical preaching, and then
the injunction to believe the Gospel, it is plain, that Christ is only
_immediately_ held out, in this divine plan of our redemption, as the
object of trust in order to forgiveness to persons in this state of
penitence and under this sense of danger. The degree of sorrow for sin,
and alarm upon this discovery of our danger as sinners, is no where
fixed to a precise standard in Scripture; only it is supposed every
where, that it is such as to lead men to inquire earnestly, “What shall
I do to be saved?” and with earnest seriousness to use all the appointed
means of grace, as those who feel that their salvation is at issue, that
they are in a lost condition, and must be pardoned or perish. To all
such persons, Christ, as the only atonement for sin, is exhibited as the
object of their trust, with the promise of God, “that whosoever
believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Nothing
is required of such but this actual trust in, and personal apprehension
or taking hold of, the merits of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sin;
and upon their thus believing they are justified, their “faith is
counted for righteousness,” or, in other words, they are forgiven.

5. This appears to be the plain Scriptural representation of this
doctrine; and we may infer from it, (1.) That the faith by which we are
justified is not a mere assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, which
leaves the heart unmoved and unaffected by a sense of the evil and
danger of sin and the desire of salvation, although it supposes this
assent; nor, (2.) Is it that more lively and cordial assent to, and
belief in, the doctrine of the Gospel, touching our sinful and lost
condition, which is wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, and from
which springeth repentance, although this must precede it; nor, (3.) Is
it only the assent of the mind to the method by which God justifies the
ungodly by faith in the sacrifice of his Son, although this is an
element of it; but it is a hearty concurrence of the will and affections
with this plan of salvation, which implies a renunciation of every other
refuge, and an actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of
his merits: such a belief of the Gospel by the power of the Spirit of
God as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in
Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble
confidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.

6. This is that qualifying condition to which the promise of God annexes
justification; that without which justification would not take place;
and in this sense it is that we are justified by faith; not by the merit
of faith, but by faith instrumentally as this condition: for its
connection with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the
promise of God. If Christ had not merited, God had not promised; if God
had not promised, justification had never followed upon this faith; so
that the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from
God’s institution, whereby he hath bound himself to give the benefit
upon performance of the condition. Yet there is an aptitude in this
faith to be made a condition; for no other act can receive Christ as a
Priest propitiating and pleading the propitiation and the promise of God
for his sake to give the benefit. As receiving Christ and the gracious
promise in this manner, it acknowledgeth man’s guilt, and so man
renounceth all righteousness in himself, and honoureth God the Father,
and Christ the Son, the only Redeemer. It glorifies God’s mercy and free
grace in the highest degree. It acknowledges on earth, as it will be
perpetually acknowledged in heaven, that the whole salvation of sinful
man, from the beginning to the last degree thereof, whereof there shall
be no end, is from God’s freest love, Christ’s merit and intercession,
his own gracious promise, and the power of his own Holy Spirit.

7. Faith, in Scripture, sometimes is taken for the truth and
faithfulness of God, Rom. iii, 3; and it is also taken for the
persuasion of the mind as to the lawfulness of things indifferent, Rom.
xiv, 22, 23; and it is likewise put for the doctrine of the Gospel,
which is the object of faith, Acts xxiv, 24; Phil. i, 27; Jude 3; for
the belief and profession of the Gospel, Rom. i, 8; and for fidelity in
the performance of promises.

FALL OF MAN. In addition to what is stated on this subject under the
article _Adam_, it may be necessary to establish the literal sense of
the account given of man’s fall in the book of Genesis. This account is,
that a garden having been planted by the Creator, for the use of man, he
was placed in it, “to dress it, and to keep it;”--that in this garden
two trees were specially distinguished, one as “the tree of life,” the
other as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;”--that from eating
of the latter Adam was restrained by positive interdict, and by the
penalty, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;”--that
the serpent, who was more subtle than any beast of the field, tempted
the woman to eat, by denying that death would be the consequence, and by
assuring her, that her eyes and her husband’s eyes “would be opened,”
and that they would “be as gods, knowing good and evil;”--that the woman
took of the fruit, gave of it to her husband, who also ate;--that for
this act of disobedience they were expelled from the garden, made
subject to death, and laid under other maledictions.

2. That this history should be the subject of much criticism, not only
by infidels, but by those who hold false and perverted views of the
Christian system, was to be expected. Taken in its natural and obvious
sense, along with the comments of the subsequent Scriptures, it teaches
the doctrines of the existence of an evil, tempting, invisible spirit,
going about seeking whom he may deceive and devour; of the introduction
of moral corruptness into human nature, which has been transmitted to
all men; and is connected also with the doctrine of a vicarious
atonement for sin; and wherever the fundamental truths of the Christian
system are denied, attempts will be made so to interpret this part of
the Mosaic history as to obscure the testimony which it gives to them,
either explicitly, or by just induction. Interpreters have adopted
various and often strange theories; but those whose opinions it seems
necessary to notice may be divided into such as deny the literal sense
of the relation entirely; such as take the account to be in part literal
and in part allegorical; and those who, while they contend earnestly for
the literal interpretation of every part of the history, consider some
of the terms used, and some of the persons introduced, as conveying a
meaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several
symbols of spiritual things and of spiritual beings.

3. Those who have denied the literal sense entirely, and regarded the
whole relation as an instructive _mythos_, or fable, have, as might be
expected, when all restraint of authority was thus thrown off from the
imagination, themselves adopted very different theories. Thus we have
been taught, that this account was intended to teach the evil of
yielding to the violence of appetite and to its control over reason; or
the introduction of vice in conjunction with knowledge and the
artificial refinements of society; or the necessity of keeping the great
mass of mankind from acquiring too great a degree of knowledge, as being
hurtful to society; or to consider it as another version of the story of
the golden age, and its being succeeded by times more vicious and
miserable; or as designed, enigmatically, to account for the origin of
evil, or of mankind. This catalogue of opinions might be much enlarged:
some of them have been held by mere visionaries; others by men of
learning, especially by several of the semi-infidel theologians and
Biblical critics of Germany; nor has our own country been exempt from
this class of bold expositors. How to fix upon the moral of “the fable”
is, however, the difficulty; and the great variety of opinion is a
sufficient refutation of the general notion assumed by the whole class,
since scarcely can two of them be found who adopt the same views, after
they have discarded the literal acceptation.

4. But that the account of Moses is to be taken as a matter of real
history, and according to its literal import, is established by two
considerations, against which, as being facts, nothing can successfully
be urged. The first is, that the account of the fall of the first pair
is a part of a continuous history. The creation of the world, of man, of
woman; the planting of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man there;
the duties and prohibitions laid upon him; his disobedience; his
expulsion from the garden; the subsequent birth of his children, their
lives, and actions, and those of their posterity, down to the flood;
and, from that event, to the life of Abraham, are given in the same
plain and unadorned narrative; brief, but yet simple; and with no
intimation at all, either from the elevation of the style or otherwise,
that a fable or allegory is in any part introduced. As this, then, is
the case, and the evidence of it lies upon the very face of the history,
it is clear, that if the account of the fall be excerpted from the whole
narrative as allegorical, any subsequent part, from Abel to Noah, from
Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, may be excerpted for the same
reason, which reason is merely this, that it does not agree with the
theological opinions of the interpreter; and thus the whole of the
Pentateuch may be rejected history, and converted into fable. Either
then the account of the fall must be taken as history, or the historical
character of the whole five books of Moses must be unsettled; and if
none but infidels will go to the latter consequence, then no one who
admits the Pentateuch to be a true history generally, can consistently
refuse to admit the story of the fall of the first pair to be a
narrative of real events, because it is written in the same style, and
presents the same character of a continuous record of events. So
conclusive has this argument been felt, that the anti-literal
interpreters have endeavoured to evade it, by asserting that the part of
the history of Moses in question bears marks of being a separate
fragment, more ancient than the Pentateuch itself, and transcribed into
it by Moses, the author and compiler of the whole. This point is
examined and satisfactorily refuted in Holden’s learned and excellent
work, entitled, “Dissertation on the Fall of Man;” but it is easy to
show, that it would amount to nothing, if granted, in the mind of any
who is satisfied on the previous question of the inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures. For let it be admitted that Moses, in writing the
pentateuchal history, availed himself of the traditions of the
patriarchal ages, a supposition not in the least inconsistent with his
inspiration or with the absolute truth of his history, since the
traditions so introduced have been authenticated by the Holy Spirit; or
let it be supposed, which is wholly gratuitous, that he made use of
previously existing documents; and that some differences of style in his
books may be traced which serve to point out his quotations, which is a
position that some of the best Hebraists have denied; yet two things are
to be noted: first, that the inspired character of the books of Moses is
authenticated by our Lord and his Apostles, so that they must
necessarily be wholly true, and free from real contradictions; and,
secondly, that to make it any thing to their purpose who contend that
the account of the fall is an older document, introduced by Moses, it
ought to be shown that it is not written as truly in the narrative
style, even if it could be proved to be, in some respects, a different
style, as that which precedes and follows it. Now the very literal
character of our translation will enable even the unlearned reader to
discover this. Whether it be an embodied tradition, or the insertion of
a more ancient document, (though there is no foundation at all for the
latter supposition,) it is obviously a narrative, and a _narrative_ as
simple as any which precedes or follows it.

5. The other indisputable fact to which I just now adverted, as
establishing the literal sense of the history, is that, as such, it is
referred to and reasoned upon in various parts of Scripture: “Knowest
thou not this of old, since man (Adam) was placed upon earth, that the
triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for
a moment?” Job xx, 4, 5. There is no reason to doubt but that this
passage refers to the fall and the first sin of man. The date agrees;
for the knowledge here taught is said to arise from facts as old as the
first placing of man upon earth, and the sudden punishment of the
iniquity corresponds to the Mosaic account: “The triumphing of the
wicked is short, his joy but for a moment.” “If I covered my
transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom,” Job xxxi,
33. Magee renders the verse,

              “Did I cover, like Adam, my transgression,
              By hiding in a lurking place mine iniquity?”

and adds, “I agree with Peters, that this contains a reference to the
history of the first man, and his endeavours to hide himself after his
transgression.” Our margin reads, “after the manner of men;” and also
the old versions; but the Chaldee paraphrase agrees with our
translation, which is also satisfactorily defended by numerous critics.
“What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman,
that he should be righteous?” Job xv, 14. Why not clean? Did God make
woman or man unclean at the beginning? If he did, the expostulation
would have been more apposite, and much stronger, had the true cause
been assigned, and Job had said, “How canst thou expect cleanness in
man, whom thou _createdst_ unclean?” But, as the case now stands, the
expostulation has a plain reference to the introduction of vanity and
corruption by the sin of the woman, and is an evidence that this ancient
writer was sensible of the evil consequences of the fall upon the whole
race of man. “Eden” and “the garden of the Lord” are also frequently
referred to in the prophets. We have the “tree of life” mentioned
several times in the Proverbs and in the Revelation. “God,” says
Solomon, “made man upright.” The enemies of Christ and his church are
spoken of, both in the Old and New Testaments, under the names of “the
serpent,” and “the dragon;” and the habit of the serpent to lick the
dust is also referred to by Isaiah.

6. If the history of the fall, as recorded by Moses, were an allegory,
or any thing but a literal history, several of the above allusions would
have no meaning; but the matter is put beyond all possible doubt in the
New Testament, unless the same culpable liberties be taken with the
interpretation of the words of our Lord and of St. Paul as with those of
the Jewish lawgiver. Our Lord says, “Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?” Matt. xix, 4, 5. This is an
argument on the subject of divorces, and its foundation rests upon two
of the facts recorded by Moses: (1.) That God made at first but two
human beings, from whom all the rest have sprung. (2.) That the intimacy
and indissolubility of the marriage relation rests upon the formation of
the woman from the man; for our Lord quotes the words in Genesis, where
the obligation of man to cleave to his wife is immediately connected
with that circumstance: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of man. _Therefore_ shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” This is
sufficiently in proof that both our Lord and the Pharisees considered
this early part of the history of Moses as a narrative; for, otherwise,
it would neither have been a reason, on his part, for the doctrine which
he was inculcating, nor have had any force of conviction as to them. “In
Adam,” says the Apostle Paul, “all die;” “by one man sin entered into
the world.” “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.” In the last passage, the instrument of
the temptation is said to be a serpent, ὄφις, which is a sufficient
answer to those who would make it any other animal; and Eve is
represented as being first seduced, according to the account in Genesis.
This St. Paul repeats in 1 Tim. ii, 13, 14: “Adam was first formed, then
Eve. And Adam was not deceived,” first or immediately, “but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression.” And he offers this as the
reason of an injunction, “Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection.” When, therefore, it is considered, that these passages are
introduced, not for rhetorical illustration, or in the way of classical
quotation, but are made the basis of grave and important reasonings,
which embody some of the most important doctrines of the Christian
revelation, and of important social duties and points of Christian order
and decorum; it would be to charge the writers of the New Testament with
the grossest absurdity, nay, with even culpable and unworthy trifling,
to suppose them to argue from the history of the fall as a narrative,
when they knew it to be an allegory. And if we are, therefore, compelled
to allow that it was understood as a real history by our Lord and his
inspired Apostles, those speculations of modern critics, which convert
it into a parable, stand branded with their true character of infidel
and semi-infidel temerity.

7. The effect of the sin or lapse of Adam was to bring him under the
wrath of God; to render him liable to pain, disease, and death; to
deprive him of primeval holiness; to separate him from communion with
God and that spiritual life which was before imparted by God, and on
which his holiness alone depended, from the loss of which a total moral
disorder and depravation of his soul resulted; and finally to render him
liable to everlasting misery. See ORIGINAL SIN. For the effect of the
fall of Adam upon his posterity, see JUSTIFICATION.

FASTING has been practised in all ages, and among all nations, in times
of mourning, sorrow, and affliction. We see no example of fasting,
properly so called, before Moses. Since the time of Moses, examples of
fasting have been very common among the Jews. Joshua and the elders of
Israel remained prostrate before the ark from morning till evening,
without eating, after Israel was defeated at Ai, Joshua vii, 6. The
eleven tribes which fought against that of Benjamin, fell down on their
faces before the ark, and so continued till evening without eating,
Judges xx, 26. David fasted while the first child he had by Bathsheba
was sick, 2 Sam. xii, 16. The Heathens sometimes fasted: the king of
Nineveh, terrified by Jonah’s preaching, ordered that not only men, but
also beasts, should continue without eating or drinking; should be
covered with sackcloth, and each after their manner should cry to the
Lord, Jonah iii, 5, 6. The Jews, in times of public calamity, appointed
extraordinary fasts, and made even the children at the breast fast, Joel
ii, 16. Moses fasted forty days upon Mount Horeb, Exod. xxiv, 18. Elijah
passed as many days without eating, 1 Kings xix, 8. Our Saviour fasted
forty days and forty nights in the wilderness, Matt. iv, 2. These fasts
were miraculous, and out of the common rules of nature.

2. Beside the solemn fast of expiation instituted by divine authority,
the Jews appointed certain days of humiliation, called the fasts of the
congregation. The calamities for which these were enjoined, were a
siege, pestilence, diseases, famine, &c. They were observed on the
second and fifth days of the week: they began at sunset, and continued
till midnight of the following day. On these days they wore sackcloth
next the skin, and rent their clothes; they sprinkled ashes on their
heads, and neither washed their hands, nor anointed their heads with
oil. The synagogues were filled with suppliants, whose prayers were long
and mournful, and their countenances dejected with all the marks of
sorrow and repentance.

3. As to the fasts observed by Christians, it does not appear by his own
practice, or by his commands to his disciples, that our Lord instituted
any particular fast. But when the Pharisees reproached him, that his
disciples did not fast so often as theirs, or as John the Baptist’s, he
replied, “Can ye make the children of the bride-chamber fast while the
bride-groom is with them? But the days will come when the bride-groom
shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days,”
Luke v, 34, 35. Fasting is also recommended by our Saviour in his sermon
on the mount; not as a stated, but as an occasional, duty of Christians,
for the purpose of humbling their minds under the afflicting hand of
God; and he requires that this duty be performed in sincerity, and not
for the sake of ostentation, Matt. vi, 16.

4. Although Christians, says Dr. Neander, did not by any means retire
from the business of life, yet they were accustomed to devote many
separate days entirely to examining their own hearts, and pouring them
out before God, while they dedicated their life anew to him with
uninterrupted prayers, in order that they might again return to their
ordinary occupations with a renovated spirit of zeal and seriousness,
and with renewed powers of sanctification. These days of holy devotion,
days of prayer and penitence, which individual Christians appointed for
themselves, according to their individual necessities, were often a kind
of fast-days. In order that their sensual feelings might less distract
and impede the occupation of their heart with its holy contemplations,
they were accustomed on these days to limit their corporeal wants more
than usual, or to fast entirely. In the consideration of this, we must
not overlook the peculiar nature of that hot climate in which
Christianity was first promulgated. That which was spared by their
abstinence on these days was applied to the support of the poorer
brethren.

FAT. God forbade the Hebrews to eat the fat of beasts: “All the fat is
the Lord’s. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations,
throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood,” Lev.
iii, 17. Some interpreters understand these words literally, and suppose
fat as well as blood to be forbidden. Josephus says Moses forbids only
the fat of oxen, goats, sheep, and their species. This agrees with Lev.
vii, 23: “Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of
goat.” This is observed by the modern Jews, who think that the fat of
other sorts of clean creatures is allowed them, even that of beasts
which have died of themselves, conformably to Lev. vii, 24: “And the fat
of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn
with beasts, may be used in any other use; but ye shall in nowise eat of
it.” Others maintain that the law which forbids the use of fat, should
be restrained to fat separated from the flesh, such as that which covers
the kidneys and the intestines; and this only in the case of its being
offered in sacrifice. This is confirmed by Lev. vii, 25: “Whosoever
eateth of the fat of the beast of which men offer an offering made by
fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from
his people.” In the Hebrew style, fat signifies not only that of beasts,
but also the richer or prime part of other things: “He should have fed
them with the finest” (in Hebrew the fat) “of the wheat.” Fat denotes
abundance of good things: “I will satiate the souls of the priests with
fatness,” Jer. xxxi, 14. “My soul shall be satisfied with marrow and
fatness,” Psalm lxiii, 5. The fat of the earth implies its fruitfulness:
“God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and
plenty of corn and wine,” Gen. xxvii, 28.

FATHER. This word, beside its common acceptation, is taken in Scripture
for grandfather, great-grandfather, or the founder of a family, how
remote soever. So the Jews in our Saviour’s time called Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, their fathers. Jesus Christ is called the Son of David,
though David was many generations distant from him. By father is
likewise understood the institutor of a certain profession. Jabal “was
father of such as dwell in tents, and such as have cattle.” Jubal “was
father of all such as handle the harp and organ,” or flute, &c, Gen. iv,
20, 21. Huram is called father of the king of Tyre, 2 Chron. ii, 13;
and, 2 Chron. iv, 16, even of Solomon, because he was the principal
workman, and chief director of their undertakings. The principal
prophets were considered as fathers of the younger, who were their
disciples, and are called sons of the prophets, 2 Kings ii, 12. Father
is a term of respect given by inferiors to superiors. “My father,” said
Naaman’s attendants to him, “if the prophet had bid thee do some great
thing,” 2 Kings v, 13; and so the king of Israel addresses the prophet
Elisha, 2 Kings vi, 21. Rechab, the founder of the Rechabites, is called
their father, Jer. xxxv, 6. A man is said to be a father to the poor and
orphans, when he supplies their necessities, and sympathizes with their
miseries, as a father would do toward them: “I was a father to the
poor,” says Job, xxix, 16. God declares himself to be the “Father of the
fatherless, and Judge of the widow,” Psalm lxviii, 5. God is frequently
called our heavenly Father, and simply our Father; eminently the Father,
Preserver, and Protector of all, especially of those who invoke him, and
serve him: “Is he not thy Father that bought thee?” says Moses, Deut.
xxxii, 6. Since the coming of Jesus Christ, we have a new right to call
God our Father, by reason of the adoption which our Saviour has merited
for us, by clothing himself in our humanity, and purchasing us by his
death: “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God,” Romans viii, 15. Job entitles God “the Father of
rain,” Job xxxviii, 28; he produces it, and causes it to fall. The devil
is called the father of the wicked and the father of lies, John viii,
44. He deceived Eve and Adam; he introduced sin and falsehood; he
inspires his followers with his spirit and sentiments. The father of
Sichem, the father of Tekoah, the father of Bethlehem, &c, signify the
chief persons who inhabited these cities; he who built or rebuilt them.
Adam is the first father, the father of the living; Abraham is the
father of the faithful, the father of the circumcision; called also the
“father of many nations,” because many people sprung from him; as the
Jews, Ishmaelites, Arabs, &c. God is called “the Father of spirits,”
Heb. xii, 9. He not only creates them, but he justifies, sanctifies, and
glorifies them, and thus confers upon them eternal happiness.

FATHERS, a term of honour applied to the first and most eminent writers
of the Christian church. Those of the first century are called
Apostolical fathers; those of the first three centuries, and till the
council of Nice, Ante-Nicene; and those later than that council,
Post-Nicene. Learned men are not unanimous concerning the degree of
esteem which is due to these ancient fathers. Some represent them as the
most excellent guides, while others place them in the very lowest rank
of moral writers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly
insipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. It appears, however,
incontestable, that, in the writings of the primitive fathers are many
sublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and several things well adapted
to form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections.
At the same time, it must be confessed, that, after the earliest age,
they abound still more with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable
austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague and
indeterminate notions, and, what is still worse, with decisions
absolutely false, and in evident opposition to the commands of Christ.
Though the judgment of antiquity in some disputable points may certainly
be useful, yet we ought never to consider the writings of the fathers as
of equal authority with the Scriptures. In many cases they may be deemed
competent witnesses, but we must not confide in their verdict as judges.
As Biblical critics they are often fanciful and injudicious, and their
principal value consists in this, that the succession of their writings
enables us to prove the existence and authenticity of the sacred books,
up to the age of the Apostles.

The following is a list of the entire fathers: Contemporaries of the
Apostles, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Papias, A. D. 116; Justin Martyr, 140; Dionysius of Corinth, 170;
Tatian, 172; Hegesippus, 173; Melito, 177; Irenæus, 178; Athenagoras,
178; Miltiades, 180; Theophilus, 181; Clement of Alexandria, 194;
Tertullian, 200; Minutius Felix, 210; Ammonius, 220; Origen, 230;
Firmilian, 233; Dionysius of Alexandria, 247; Cyprian, 248; Novatus, or
Novatian, 251; Arnobius, 306; Lactantius, 306; Alexander of Alexandria,
313; Eusebius, 315; Athanasius, 326; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Hilary,
354; Epiphanius, 368; Basil, 370; Gregory of Nazianzum, 370; Gregory of
Nyssa, 370; Optatus, 370; Ambrose, 374; Philaster, 380; Jerome, 392;
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 394; Ruffin, 397; Augustine, 398; Chrysostom,
398; Sulpitius Severus, 401; Cyril of Alexandria, 412; Theodoret, 423;
and Gennadius, 494.

Archbishop Wake, in his _Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of
England_ has very satisfactorily shown, that the deference paid by
Protestants to the Christian fathers of the first three ages, is neither
of such an idolatrous description as is generally represented, nor is
their authority ever extolled to an equality with that of the Holy
Scriptures. “Though we have appealed,” he says, “to the churches of the
first ages for new proofs of the truth of our doctrine, it is not that
we think that the doctors of those times had more right to judge of our
faith than those had that followed them; but it is because after a
serious examination we have found, that, as for what concerns _the
common belief_ that is among us, they have believed and practised the
same things without adding other opinions or superstitions that destroy
them,--wherein they have acted conformably to their and our rule, THE
WORD OF GOD: notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that they
effectually fell into some wrong opinions, as that of the Millenaries
and infant communion,” &c. The usefulness and necessity of studying the
ancient fathers have been defended by many persons eminent for their
learning and piety. Archbishop Usher was one who beyond all men then
living knew the vast importance of these studies, and had derived the
greatest benefits from them. The following brief advice, in the language
of Dr. Parr, his erudite biographer, will convey his sentiments on this
very interesting subject: “Indeed he had so great an esteem of the
ANCIENT AUTHORS, for the acquiring any solid learning, whether sacred or
profane, that his advice to young students, either in divinity or
antiquity, was, not to spend too much time in epitomes, but to set
themselves to read the ancient authors themselves; as, to begin with the
FATHERS, and to read them according to the ages in which they lived,
(which was the method he had taken himself,) and, together with them,
carefully to peruse the CHURCH HISTORIANS that treated of that age in
which those fathers lived: by which means the student would be better
able to perceive the reason and meaning of divers passages in their
writings, (which otherwise would be obscure,) when he knew the original
and growth of those heresies and heterodox opinions against which they
wrote, and may also better judge what doctrines, ceremonies, and
opinions prevailed in the church in every age, and by what means
introduced.”

FEAR, a painful apprehension of danger. It is sometimes used for the
object of fear; as, “the fear of Isaac,” that is, the God whom Isaac
feared, Gen. xxxi, 42. God says that he will send his fear before his
people, to terrify and destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. Job speaks of
the terrors of God, as set in array against him, Job vi, 4; the
Psalmist, that he had suffered the terrors of the Lord with a troubled
mind, Psalm lxxxviii, 15. Fear is used, also, for reverence: “God is
greatly to be _feared_” in the assembly of his saints. This kind of
fear, being compatible with confidence and love, is sometimes called
filial fear; while “the fear which hath torment,” being the result of
conscious guilt, and the anticipation of punishment, is removed by that
“love” to God which results from a consciousness of our reconciliation
to him.

The filial fear of God is a holy affection, or gracious habit, wrought
in the soul by God, Jer. xxxii, 40, whereby it is inclined and enabled
to obey all God’s commandments, even the most difficult, Gen. xxii, 12;
Eccl. xii, 13; and to hate and avoid evil, Nehemiah v, 15; Prov. viii,
13; xv, 6. Slavish fear is the consequence of guilt; it is a judicial
impression from the sad thoughts of the provoked majesty of the heaven;
it is an alarm within that disturbs the rest of a sinner. Fear is put
for the whole worship of God: “I will teach you the fear of the Lord,”
Psalm xxxiv, 11; I will teach you the true way of worshipping and
serving God. It is likewise put for the law and word of God: “The fear
of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever,” Psalm xix, 9. The law is so
called, because it is the object, the cause, and the rule of the grace
of holy fear.

FEASTS. God appointed several festivals among the Jews. 1. To perpetuate
the memory of great events; so, the Sabbath commemorated the creation of
the world; the passover, the departure out of Egypt; the pentecost, the
law given at Sinai, &c. 2. To keep them under the influence of religion,
and by the majesty of that service which he instituted among them, and
which abounded in mystical symbols or types of evangelical things, to
convey spiritual instruction, and to keep alive the expectation of the
Messiah, and his more perfect dispensation. 3. To secure to them certain
times of rest and rejoicings. 4. To render them familiar with the law;
for, in their religious assemblies, the law of God was read and
explained. 5. To renew the acquaintance, correspondence, and friendship
of their tribes and families, coming from the several towns in the
country, and meeting three times a year in the holy city.

The first and most ancient festival, the Sabbath, or seventh day,
commemorated the creation. “The Lord blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified it,” says Moses, “because that in it he had rested from all
his work,” Gen. ii, 3. See SABBATH.

The passover was instituted in memory of the Israelites’ departure out
of Egypt, and of the favour which God showed his people in sparing their
first-born, when he destroyed the first-born of the Egyptians, Exod.
xii, 14, &c. See PASSOVER.

The feast of pentecost was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the
passover, in memory of the law being given to Moses on Mount Sinai,
fifty days after the departure out of Egypt. They reckoned seven weeks
from the passover to pentecost, beginning at the day after the passover.
The Hebrews call it the feast of weeks, and the Christians, pentecost,
which signifies the fiftieth day.

The feast of trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the civil year;
on which the trumpets sounded, proclaiming the beginning of the year,
which was in the month Tisri, answering to our September, O. S. We know
no religious cause of its establishment. Moses commands it to be
observed as a day of rest, and that particular sacrifices should be
offered at that time.

The new moons, or first days of every month, were, in some sort, a
consequence of the feasts of trumpets. The law did not oblige people to
rest upon this day, but ordained only some particular sacrifices. It
appears that, on these days, also, the trumpet was sounded, and
entertainments were made, 1 Sam. xx, 5–18.

The feast of expiation or atonement was celebrated on the tenth day of
Tisri, which was the first day of the civil year. It was instituted for
a general expiation of sins, irreverences, and pollutions of all the
Israelites, from the high priest to the lowest of the people, committed
by them throughout the year, Lev. xxiii, 27, 28; Num. xxix, 7. See
EXPIATION, _Day of_.

The feast of tents, or tabernacles, on which all Israel were obliged to
attend the temple, and to dwell eight days under tents of branches, in
memory of their fathers dwelling forty years in tents, as travellers in
the wilderness. It was kept on the fifteenth of the month Tisri, the
first of the civil year. The first and seventh day of this feast were
very solemn. But during the other days of the octave they might work,
Lev. xxiii, 34, 35; Num. xxix, 12, 13. At the beginning of the feast,
two vessels of silver were carried in a ceremonious manner to the
temple, one full of water, the other of wine, which were poured at the
foot of the altar of burnt offerings, always on the seventh day of this
festival.

Of the three great feasts of the year, the passover, pentecost, and that
of the tabernacles, the octave, or seventh day after these feasts, was a
day of rest as much as the festival itself; and all the males of the
nation were obliged to visit the temple at these three feasts. But the
law did not require them to continue there during the whole octave,
except in the feast of tabernacles, when they seem obliged to be present
for the whole seven days.

Beside these feasts, we find the feast of lots, or _purim_, instituted
on occasion of the deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s plot, in the
reign of Ahasuerus. See PURIM.

The feast of the dedication of the temple, or rather of the restoration
of the temple, which had been profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Mac.
iv, 52, &c, was celebrated in winter, and is supposed to be the feast of
dedication mentioned in John x, 22. Josephus says, that it was called
the feast of lights, probably because this happiness befel them when
least expected, and they considered it as a new light risen on them.

In the Christian church, no festival appears to have been expressly
instituted by Jesus Christ, or his Apostles. Yet, as we commemorate the
passion of Christ as often as we celebrate his Supper, he seems by this
to have instituted a perpetual feast. Christians have always celebrated
the memory of his resurrection, and observe this feast on every Sunday,
which was commonly called the Lord’s day, Rev. i, 10. By inference we
may conclude this festival to have been instituted by Apostolic
authority.

The birth-day of Christ, commonly called Christmas-day, has been
generally observed by his disciples with gratitude and joy. His birth
was the greatest blessing ever bestowed on mankind. The angels from
heaven celebrated it with a joyful hymn; and every man, who has any
feeling of his own lost state without a Redeemer, must rejoice and be
glad in it. “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the
everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” Isaiah ix, 6. For this
festival, however, there is no authority in Scripture, nor do we know
that it was observed in the age of the Apostles.

On Easter Sunday we celebrate our Saviour’s victory over death and hell,
when, having on the cross made an atonement for the sin of the world, he
rose again from the grave, brought life and immortality to light, and
opened to all his faithful servants the way to heaven. On this great
event rest all our hopes. “If Christ be not risen,” says St. Paul, “then
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. But now is Christ
risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept,” 1
Cor. xv, 14, 20.

Forty days after his resurrection, our Lord ascended into heaven, in the
sight of his disciples. This is celebrated on what is called
Ascension-day, or Holy Thursday. Ten days after his ascension, our Lord
sent the Holy Spirit to be the comforter and guide of his disciples.
This blessing is commemorated on Whit-Sunday, which is a very great
festival, and may be profitably observed; for the assistance of the Holy
Spirit can alone support us through all temptations, and guide us into
all truth.

The pretended success of some in discovering the remains of certain holy
men, called “relics,” multiplied in the fourth century of the Christian
church the festivals and commemorations of the martyrs in a most
extravagant manner. These days, instead of being set apart for pious
exercises, were spent in indolence, voluptuousness, and criminal
pursuits; and were less consecrated to the service of God, than employed
in the indulgence of sinful passions. Many of these festivals were
instituted on a Pagan model, and perverted to similar purposes.

FELIX, CLAUDIUS. See CLAUDIUS.

FERRET, אנקה, from אנק, or _cry out_, Lev. xi, 30. The ferret is a
species of the weasel; but Bochart will have the _anakah_ to be the
spotted lizard, called by Pliny _stellio_. Dr. James takes it for the
frog, in allusion to the name, which literally signifies _the crier_,
befitting the croaking of that animal; but we shall find the frog
mentioned under another name. Dr. Geddes renders it _the newt_, or
rather _the lizard of the Nile_; and it evidently must be of the lizard
species. Pliny mentions “the _galleotes_, covered with red spots, whose
cries are sharp,” which may be the _gekko_, which is probably the animal
here intended. As its name, in the Indies _tockai_, and in Egypt
_gekko_, is formed from its voice, so the Hebrew name _anakah_, or
perhaps _anakkah_, seems to be formed in like manner; the double k being
equally observable in all these appellations. If these remarks are
admissible, this lizard is sufficiently identified.

FESTUS. Portius Festus succeeded Felix in the government of Judea, A. D.
60. Felix his predecessor, to oblige the Jews, when he resigned his
government, left St. Paul in bonds at Cæsarea, in Palestine, Acts xxiv,
27. Festus, at his first coming to Jerusalem, was entreated by the
principal Jews to condemn St. Paul, or to order him up to Jerusalem,
they having conspired to assassinate him in the way. Festus answered,
that it was not customary with the Romans to condemn any man without
hearing him; but said that he would hear their accusations against St.
Paul at Cæsarea. From these accusations St. Paul appealed to Cæsar, and
by this means secured himself from the prosecution of the Jews, and the
wicked intentions of Festus, whom they had corrupted.

FIG TREE, תאגה, Gen. iii, 7; Num. xiii, 23; συκῆ, Matthew vii, 16; xxi,
19; xxiv, 32; Mark xi, 13, 20, 21; xiii, 28; Luke vi, 44; xiii, 6, 7;
xxi, 29; John i, 48; James iii, 12; Rev. vi, 13. This tree was very
common in Palestine. It becomes large, dividing into many branches,
which are furnished with leaves shaped like those of the mulberry, and
affords a friendly shade. Accordingly, we read, in the Old Testament, of
Juda and Israel dwelling, or sitting securely, every man under his fig
tree, 1 Kings iv, 25; Micah iv, 4; Zech. iii, 10; 1 Mac. xiv, 12. And,
in the New Testament, we find Nathanael under a fig tree, probably for
the purposes of devotional retirement, John i, 49–51. Hasselquist, in
his journey from Nazareth to Tiberias, says, “We refreshed ourselves
under the shade of a fig tree, where a shepherd and his herd had their
rendezvous; but without either house or hut.” The fruit which it bears
is produced from the trunk and large branches, and not from the smaller
shoots, as in most other trees. It is soft, sweet, and very nourishing.
Milton is of opinion that the banian tree was that with the leaves of
which our first parents made themselves aprons. But his account, as to
the matter of fact, wants even probability to countenance it; for the
leaves of this are so far from being, as he has described them, of the
bigness of an Amazonian target, that they seldom or never exceed five
inches in length, and three in breadth. Therefore, we must look for
another of the fig kind, that better answers the purpose referred to by
Moses, Gen. iii, 7; and as the fruit of the banana tree, is often, by
the most ancient authors, called a fig, may we not suppose this to have
been the fig tree of paradise? Pliny, describing this tree, says that
its leaves were the greatest and most shady of all others; and as the
leaves of these are often six feet long, and about two broad, are thin,
smooth, and very flexible, they may be deemed more proper than any other
for the covering spoken of, especially since they may be easily joined
together with the numerous threadlike filaments, which may, without
labour, be peeled from the body of the tree. The first ripe fig is still
called _boccôre_ in the Levant, which is nearly its Hebrew name, בכורה,
Jer. xxiv, 2. Thus Dr. Shaw, in giving an account of the fruits in
Barbary, mentions “the black and white _boccôre_, or ‘early fig,’ which
is produced in June, though the _kermes_, or _kermouse_, the ‘fig,’
probably so called, which they preserve and make up into cakes, is
rarely ripe before August.” And on Nahum iii, 12, he observes, that “the
_boccôres_ drop as soon as they are ripe, and, according to the
beautiful allusion of the prophet, fall into the mouth of the eater upon
being shaken.” Farther, “It frequently falls out in Barbary,” says he;
“and we need not doubt of the like in this hotter climate of Judea,
that, according to the quality of the preceding season, some of the more
forward and vigorous trees will now and then yield a few ripe figs six
weeks or more before the full season. Something like this may be alluded
to by the Prophet Hosea, when he says, ‘I saw your fathers as בכורה,
_the first ripe_, in the fig tree, at her first time,’ Hosea ix, 10.
Such figs were reckoned a great dainty.” See Isaiah xxviii, 4. The
Prophet Isaiah gave orders to apply a lump of figs to Hezekiah’s boil;
and immediately after it was cured. God, in effecting this miraculous
cure, was pleased to order the use of means not improper for that end.

2. The account of our Saviour’s denunciation against the barren fig
tree, Matt. xxi, 19; Mark xi, 13, has occasioned some of the boldest
cavils of infidelity; and the vindication of it has exercised the
ingenuity of several of the most learned critics and commentators. The
whole difficulty arises from the circumstance of his disappointment in
not finding fruit on the tree, when it is expressly said, that “the time
of figs was not yet.” While it was supposed that this expression
signified, that the time for such trees to bring forth fruit was not yet
come, it looked very unaccountable that Christ should reckon a tree
barren, though it had leaves, and curse it as such, when he knew that
the time of bearing figs was not come; and that he should come to seek
figs on this tree, when he knew that figs were not used to be ripe so
soon in the year. But the expression does not signify the time of the
coming forth of figs, but the time of the gathering in of ripe figs, as
is plain from the parallel expressions. Thus, “the time of the fruit,”
Matt. xxi, 34, most plainly signifies the time of gathering in ripe
fruits, since the servants were sent to receive those fruits for their
master’s use. St. Mark and St. Luke express the same by the word _time_,
or _season_: “At the _season_ he sent a servant,” &c; that is, at the
season or time of gathering in ripe fruit, Mark xii, 2; Luke xx, 10. In
like manner, if any one should say in our language, the season of fruit,
the season of apples, the season of figs, every one would understand him
to speak of the season or time of gathering in these fruits. When,
therefore, St. Mark says, that “the time or season of figs was not yet,”
he evidently means that the time of gathering ripe figs was not yet
past; and, if so, it was natural to expect figs upon all those trees
that were not barren; whereas, after the time of gathering figs, no one
would expect to find them on a fig tree, and its having none then would
be no sign of barrenness. St. Mark, by saying, “For the time of figs was
not yet,” does not design to give a reason for “his finding nothing but
leaves;” but he gives a reason for what he said in the clause before:
“He came, if haply he might find any thereon;” and it was a good reason
for our Saviour’s coming and seeking figs on the tree, because the time
for their being gathered was not come. We have other like instances in
the Gospels, and, indeed, in the writings of all mankind, of another
clause coming in between the assertion and the proof. Thus, in this very
evangelist: “They said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre? and when they looked, they saw the stone
was rolled away; for it was very great,” Mark xvi, 3, 4; where its being
very great is not assigned as a reason of its being rolled away, but of
the women’s wishing for some one to roll it away for them. St. Matthew
informs us that the tree was “in the way,” that is, in the common road,
and therefore, probably, no particular person’s property; but if it was,
being barren, the timber might be as serviceable to the owner as before.
So that here was no real injury; but Jesus was pleased to make use of
this innocent miracle to prefigure the speedy ruin of the Jewish nation
on account of its unfruitfulness under greater advantages than any other
people enjoyed at that day; and, like all the rest of his miracles, it
was done with a gracious intention, namely, to alarm his countrymen, and
induce them to repent. In the blasting of this barren fig tree, the
distant appearance of which was so fair and promising, he delivered one
more awful lesson to a degenerate nation, of whose hypocritical exterior
and flattering but delusive pretensions it was a just and striking
emblem.

FINGER. The finger of God signifies his power, his operation. Pharaoh’s
magicians discovered the finger of God in the miracle which Moses
wrought, Exodus viii, 19. This legislator gave the law written by the
finger of God to the Hebrews, Exodus xxxi, 18. Our Saviour says he cast
out devils by the finger and Spirit of God, which he intimates was a
sign that the kingdom of God was come; that God’s spiritual government
of his church was begun to be exercised among the Jews, by the Messiah,
Luke xi, 20. To put forth one’s finger, is a bantering, insulting
gesture. “If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, and the
putting out of the finger,” Isaiah lviii, 9; if thou take away from the
midst of thee the chain, or yoke, wherewith thou loadest thy debtors;
and forbear pointing at them, and using jeering or menacing gestures.

FIRE. God hath often appeared in fire, and encompassed with fire, as
when he showed himself in the burning bush; and descended on Mount
Sinai, in the midst of flames, thunderings, and lightning, Exodus iii,
2; xix, 18. Hence fire is a symbol of the Deity: “The Lord thy God is a
consuming fire,” Deut. iv, 24. The Holy Ghost is compared to fire: “He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. iii, 11. To
verify this prediction, he sent the Holy Ghost, which descended upon his
disciples, in the form of tongues, or like flames of fire, Acts ii, 3.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit to enlighten, purify, and sanctify the
soul; and to inflame it with love to God, and zeal for his glory. Fire
from heaven fell frequently on the victims sacrificed to the Lord, as a
mark of his presence and approbation. It is thought, that God in this
manner expressed his acceptance of Abel’s sacrifices, Gen. iv, 4. When
the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, a fire like that of a furnace
passed through the divided pieces of the sacrifices, and consumed them,
Gen. xv, 17. Fire fell upon the sacrifices which Moses offered at the
dedication of the tabernacle, Lev. ix, 24; and upon those of Manoah,
Samson’s father, Judges xiii, 19, 20; upon Solomon’s, at the dedication
of the temple, 2 Chron. vii, 1; and on Elijah’s, at Mount Carmel, 1
Kings xviii, 38. The fire which came down from heaven, first upon the
altar in the tabernacle, and afterward descended anew upon the altar in
the temple of Solomon, at its consecration, was there constantly fed and
maintained by the priests, day and night, in the same manner as it had
been in the tabernacle. The Jews have a tradition, that Jeremiah,
foreseeing the destruction of the temple, took this fire and hid it in a
pit; but that at the rebuilding of the temple, being brought again from
thence, it revived upon the altar. But this is a fiction: and the
generality of them allow, that, at the destruction of the temple, it was
extinguished: and in the time of the second temple, nothing was made use
of for all their burnt offerings but common fire only. The ancient
Chaldeans adored the fire, as well as the old Persians, and some other
people of the east. The torments of hell are described by fire, both in
the Old and New Testament. Our Saviour makes use of this similitude, to
represent the punishment of the damned, Mark ix, 44. He likewise speaks
frequently of the eternal fire prepared for the devil, his angels, and
reprobates, Matt. xxv, 41. The sting and remorse of conscience is the
worm that will never die; and the wrath of God upon their souls and
bodies, the fire that shall never go out. There are writers who
maintain, that by the worm is to be understood a living and sensible,
not an allegorical and figurative, worm; and by fire, a real elementary
and material fire. Among the abettors of this opinion are Austin,
Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerom, &c. The word of God is compared to fire: “Is
not my word like a fire?” Jer. xxiii, 20. It is full of life and
efficacy; like a fire it warms, melts, and heats; and is powerful to
consume the dross, and burn up the chaff and stubble. Fire is likewise
taken for persecution, dissension, and division: “I am come to send fire
on earth,” Luke xii, 49; as if it was said, upon my coming and
publishing the Gospel, there will follow, through the devil’s malice and
corruption of men, much persecution to the professors thereof, and
manifold divisions in the world, whereby men will be tried, whether they
will be faithful or not.

FIRMAMENT. It is said, Gen. i, 7, that God made the firmament in the
midst of the waters, to separate the inferior from the superior. The
word used on this occasion properly signifies _expansion_, or something
expanded. This expansion is properly the atmosphere, which encompasses
the globe on all sides, and separates the water in the clouds from that
on the earth.

FIRST-BORN. The first-born, who was the object of special affection to
his parents, was denominated by way of eminence, רחם פטר, _the opening
of the womb_. In case a man married with a widow, who by a previous
marriage had become the mother of children, the first-born as respected
the second husband was the eldest child by the second marriage. Before
the time of Moses, the father might, if he chose, transfer the right of
primogeniture to a younger child, but the practice occasioned much
contention, Gen. xxv, 31, 32; and a law was enacted, overruling it,
Deut. xxi, 15–17. The first-born inherited peculiar rights and
privileges. (1.) He received a double portion of the estate. Jacob, in
the case of Reuben, his first-born, bestowed his additional portion upon
Joseph, by adopting his two sons, Gen. xlviii, 5–8; Deut. xxi, 17. This
was done as a reprimand, and a punishment of his incestuous conduct,
Genesis xxxv, 22; but Reuben, notwithstanding, was enrolled as the
first-born in the genealogical registers, 1 Chron. v, 1. (2.) The
first-born was the priest of the whole family. The honour of exercising
the priesthood was transferred, by the command of God communicated
through Moses, from the tribe of Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of
primogeniture, to that of Levi, Num. iii, 12–18; viii, 18. In
consequence of God having taken the Levites from among the children of
Israel instead of all the first-born to serve him as priests, the
first-born of the other tribes were to be redeemed, at a valuation made
by the priest not exceeding five shekels, from serving God in that
capacity, Numbers xviii, 15, 16; Luke ii, 22, &c. (3.) The first-born
enjoyed an authority over those who were younger, similar to that
possessed by a father, Gen. xxv, 23, &c; 2 Chron. xxi, 3; Gen. xxvii,
29; Exod. xii, 29: which was transferred in the case of Reuben by Jacob
their father to Judah, Gen. xlix, 8–10. The tribe of Judah, accordingly,
even before it gave kings to the Hebrews, was every where distinguished
from the other tribes. In consequence of the authority which was thus
attached to the first-born, he was also made the successor in the
kingdom. There was an exception to this rule in the case of Solomon,
who, though a younger brother, was made his successor by David at the
special appointment of God. It is very easy to see in view of these
facts, how the word “first-born” came to express sometimes a great, and
sometimes the highest, dignity.

2. First-born is not always to be understood literally; it is sometimes
taken for the prime, most excellent, most distinguished of any thing.
“The first-born of the poor,” Isaiah xiv, 30, signifies the most
miserable of the poor; and “the first-born of death,” Job xviii, 13, the
most terrible of deaths.

3. God ordained that all the Jewish first-born both of men and beasts,
for service, should be consecrated to him. The male children only were
subject to this law. If a woman’s first child were a girl, the father
was not obliged to offer any thing for her, or for the children after
her, though they were males. If a man had many wives, he was obliged to
offer the first-born of each of them to the Lord. The first-born were
offered in the temple, and were redeemed for the sum of five shekels.
The firstling of a clean beast was offered at the temple, not to be
redeemed, but to be killed. An unclean beast, a horse, an ass, or a
camel, was either redeemed or exchanged. An ass was redeemed by a lamb,
or five shekels; if not redeemed, it was killed.

FIRST-FRUITS, among the Hebrews, were presents made to God of part of
the fruits of the harvest, to express the submission, dependence, and
thankfulness of the offerers. They were offered at the temple, before
the crop was touched; and when the harvest was over, before any private
persons used their corn. The first of these first-fruits, offered in the
name of the nation, was a sheaf of barley, gathered on the fifteenth of
Nisan in the evening, and threshed in a court of the temple. After it
was well cleaned, about three pints of it were roasted and pounded in a
mortar. Over this was thrown a portion of oil, and a handful of incense.
Then the priest took this offering, waved it before the Lord toward the
four parts of the world, threw a handful of it into the fire upon the
altar, and kept the rest. After this, every one was at liberty to get in
his harvest. Beside these first-fruits, every private person was obliged
to bring his first-fruits to the temple. The Scripture prescribes
neither the time nor the quantity. The rabbins say, that they were
obliged to bring at least the sixtieth part of their fruits and harvest.
These first-fruits consisted of wheat, barley, grapes, figs, apricots,
olives, and dates. They met in companies of four-and-twenty persons to
carry their first-fruits in a ceremonious manner. The company was
preceded by an ox appointed for the sacrifice, with a crown of olives on
his head, and his horns gilded. There was also another sort of
first-fruits paid to God, Num. xv, 19, 20, when the bread in every
family was kneaded, a portion of it was set apart, and given to the
priest or Levite of the place. If there was no priest or Levite, it was
cast into the oven, and consumed by the fire. This is one of the three
precepts peculiar to the women; because they generally made the bread.
The first-fruits and tenths were the most substantial revenue of the
priests and Levites. St. Paul says, Christians have the first-fruits of
the Spirit, Rom. viii, 23, that is, a greater abundance of God’s Spirit,
more perfect and more excellent gifts than the Jews. Christ is called
the first-fruits of them that slept; for as the first-fruits were
earnests to the Jews of the succeeding harvest, so Christ is the
first-fruits or the earnest of the general resurrection.

FIR TREE, ברוש, occurs 2 Sam. vi, 5; 1 Kings v, 8, 10; vi, 15, 34; ix,
11; 2 Kings xix, 23; 2 Chron. ii, 8; iii, 5; Psalm civ, 17; Isaiah xiv,
8; xxxvii, 24; xli, 19; lv, 13; lx, 13; Ezek. xxvii, 5; xxxi, 8; Hosea
xiv, 8; Nahum ii, 3; Zech. xi, 2. The LXX render it so variously as to
show that they knew not what particular tree is meant; the Vulgate,
generally by _abietes_, the “fir tree.” Celsius asserts that it is the
cedar; but Millar maintains that it is the fir. The fir tree is an
evergreen, of beautiful appearance, whose lofty height, and dense
foliage, afford a spacious shelter and shade. The trunk of the tree is
very straight. The wood was anciently used for spears, musical
instruments, furniture for houses, rafters in building, and for ships.
In 2 Sam. vi, 5, it is mentioned that David played on instruments of fir
wood; and Dr. Burney, in his “History of Music,” observes, “This species
of wood, so soft in its nature, and sonorous in its effects, seems to
have been preferred by the ancients, as well as moderns, to every other
kind for the construction of musical instruments, particularly the
bellies of them, on which the tone of them chiefly depends. Those of the
harp, lute, guitar, harpsichord, and violin, in present use, are always
made of this wood.”

FISH, דג, ἰχθὺς, Matt. vii, 10; xvii, 27; Luke v, 6; John xxi, 6, 8, 11,
occurs very frequently. This appears to be the general name in Scripture
of aquatic animals. Boothroyd, in the note upon Num. xi, 4, says, “I am
inclined to think that the word בשר, here rendered _flesh_, denotes only
the flesh of fish, as it certainly does in Lev. xi, 11; and indeed the
next verse seems to support this explication: ‘We remember how freely we
ate fish.’ It was then, particularly, the flesh of fish, for which they
longed, which was more relishing than either the beef or mutton of those
regions, which, unless when young, is dry and unpalatable. Of the great
abundance and deliciousness of the fish of Egypt, all authors, ancient
and modern, are agreed.” We have few Hebrew names, if any, for
particular fishes. Moses says in general, Lev. xi, 9–12, that all sorts
of river, lake, and sea fish, might be eaten, if they had scales and
fins; others were unclean. St. Barnabas, in his epistle, cites, as from
ancient authority, “You shall not eat of the lamprey, the many-feet,
[polypes,] nor the cuttle fish.” Though fish was the common food of the
Egyptians, yet we learn from Herodotus and Chæremon, as quoted by
Porphyry, that their priests abstained from fish of all sorts. Hence we
may see how distressing to the Egyptians was the infliction which turned
the waters of the river into blood, and occasioned the death of the
fish, Exod. vii, 18–21. Their sacred stream became so polluted as to be
unfit for drink, for bathing, and for other uses of water to which they
were superstitiously devoted, and themselves obliged to nauseate what
was the usual food of the common people, and held sacred by the priests,
Exod. ii, 5; vii, 15; viii, 20.

In Ezekiel xxix, 4, the king of Egypt is compared to the crocodile: “I
am against thee, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers
in Egypt. I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish in thy
rivers to stick to thy scales, and I will bring thee out of the midst of
thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick to thy scales.”
If the _remora_ is as troublesome to the crocodile as it is to some
other tenants of the water, it may here be referred to. Forskal mentions
the _echeneis neucrates_ [remora] at Gidda, there called _kaml el
kersh_, “the louse of the shark,” because it often adheres very strongly
to this fish; and Hasselquist says that it is found at Alexandria.

The term, ἰχθὺς, _a fish_, was, at an early period of the Christian era,
adopted as a symbolical word. It was formed from the initial letters of
the Greek words, Ἰησοῦς Χριϛὸς, Θεοῦ Ὑιὸς, Σωτὴρ, “Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, our Saviour.” From the use of symbolical terms, the transition
was easy to the adoption of symbolical representations, and it therefore
soon became common for the Christians to have the letters of the word
ιχθυς, or the figures of fishes, sculptured on their monuments for the
dead, struck on their medals, engraved on their rings and seals, and
even formed on the articles of domestic use.

FITCHES, or VETCHES, a kind of tare. There are two words in Hebrew which
our translators have rendered _fitches_, קצח and כסמת: the first occurs
only in Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27, and must be the name of some kind of
seed; but the interpreters differ much in explaining it. Jerom,
Maimonides, R. David Kimchi, and the rabbins understand it of the
_gith_; and rabbi Obdias de Bartenora expressly says that its barbarous
or vulgar name is ניילי. The _gith_ was called by the Greeks μελάνθιον,
and by the Latins _nigella_; and is thus described by Ballester: “It is
a plant commonly met with in gardens, and grows to a cubit in height,
and sometimes more, according to the richness of the soil. The leaves
are small like those of fennel, the flower blue, which disappearing, the
ovary shows itself on the top, like that of a poppy, furnished with
little horns, oblong, divided by membranes into several partitions, or
cells, in which are enclosed seeds of a very black colour, not unlike
those of the leek, but of a very fragrant smell.” And Ausonius observes,
that its pungency is equal to that of pepper:--

             _Est inter fruges morsu piper æquiparens git._

Pliny says it is of use in bakehouses, _pistrinis_, and that it affords
a grateful seasoning to the bread. The Jewish rabbins also mention the
seeds among condiments, and mixed with bread. For this purpose it was
probably used in the time of Isaiah; since the inhabitants of those
countries, to this day, have a variety of rusks and biscuits, most of
which are strewed on the top with the seeds of sesamum, coriander, and
wild garden saffron.

The other word rendered _fitches_ in our translation of Ezek. iv, 9, is
כסמת; but in Exod. ix, 32, and Isaiah xxviii, 25, “rye.” In the latter
place the Septuagint has ξέα, and in the two former ὀλύρα; and the
Vulgate in Exodus, _far_, and in Isaiah and Ezekiel, _vicia_. Saadias,
likewise, took it to be something of the leguminous kind, גלנאן,
_cicircula_, (misprinted _circula_ in the Polyglott version,) or, “a
chickling.” Aquila has ζέα, and Theodotion, ὀλύρα. Onkelos and Targum
have כונהיא and Syriac, כונחא, which are supposed to be the _millet_, or
a species of it called _panicum_; Persian, כורכדם, the _spelt_; and this
seems to be the most probable meaning of the Hebrew word; at least it
has the greatest number of interpreters from Jerom to Celsius. There are
not, however, wanting, who think it was rye; among whom R. D. Kimchi,
followed by Luther, and our English translators: Dr. Geddes, too, has
retained it, though he says that he is inclined to think that the
_spelt_ is preferable.

Dr. Shaw thinks that this word may signify _rice_. Hasselquist, on the
contrary, affirms that rice was brought into cultivation in Egypt under
the Caliphs. This, however, may be doubted. One would think from the
intercourse of ancient Egypt with Babylon and with India, that this
country could not be ignorant of a grain so well suited to its climate.

FLAG, אחו, occurs Gen. xli, 2, 18; Job viii, 11; and סוף, _weeds_, Exod.
ii, 3, 5; Isa. xix, 6; John ii, 5. The word _achu_ in the first two
instances is translated “meadows,” and in the latter, “flag.” It
probably denotes the sedge, or long grass, which grows in the meadows of
the Nile, very grateful to the cattle. It is retained in the Septuagint
in Genesis, ἐν τῷ ἄχει; and is used by the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus
xl, 16, ἄχι and ἄχει; for the copies vary.

“We have no radix,” says the learned Chapelow, “for אחו, unless we
derive it, as Schultens does, from the Arabic _achi_, ‘to bind or join
together.’” Thus, Parkhurst defines it “a species of plant, sedge, or
reed, so called from its fitness for making ropes, or the like, to
connect or join things together; as the Latin _juncus_, a ‘bulrush,’ _a
jungendo_, from ‘joining,’ for the same reason;” and he supposes that it
is the plant, or reed, growing near the Nile, which Hasselquist
describes as having numerous narrow leaves, and growing about eleven
feet high, of the leaves of which the Egyptians make ropes.

The word סוף is called by Eben Ezra, “a reed growing on the borders of
the river.” Bochart, Fuller, Rivetus, Ludolphus, and Junius and
Tremellius, render it by _juncus_, _carex_, or _alga_; and Celsius
thinks it the _fucus_ or _alga_, “sea weed.” Dr. Geddes says there is
little doubt of its being the sedge called _sari_, which, as we learn
from Theophrastus and Pliny, grows on the marshy banks of the Nile, and
rises to the height of almost two cubits. This, indeed, agrees very well
with Exod. ii, 3, 5, and the thickets of arundinaceous plants, at some
small distances from the Red Sea, observed by Dr. Shaw; but the place in
Jonah seems to require some submarine plant.

FLAX, פשתה, Exod. ix, 31; Lev. xiii, 47, 48, 52, 59; Deut. xxii, 11;
Joshua ii, 6; Judg. xv, 14; Prov. xxxi, 13; Isaiah xix, 9; xlii, 3;
xliii, 17; Jer. xiii, 1; Ezek. xl, 3; xliv, 17, 18; Hosea ii, 5, 9;
λῖνον Matt. xii, 20; Rev. xv, 6; a plant very common, and too well known
to need a description. It is a vegetable upon which the industry of
mankind has been exercised with the greatest success and utility. On
passing a field of it, one is struck with astonishment when he considers
that this apparently insignificant plant may, by the labour and
ingenuity of man, be made to assume an entirely new form and appearance,
and to contribute to pleasure and health, by furnishing us with
agreeable and ornamental apparel. This word Mr. Parkhurst thinks is
derived from the verb פשט, _to strip_, because the substance which we
term _flax_ is properly the bark or fibrous part of the vegetable,
pilled or stripped off the stalks. From time immemorial Egypt was
celebrated for the production or manufacture of flax. Wrought into
garments, it constituted the principal dress of the inhabitants, and the
priests never put on any other kind of clothing. The fine linen of Egypt
is celebrated in all ancient authors, and its superior excellence
mentioned in the sacred Scriptures. The manufacture of flax is still
carried on in that country, and many writers take notice of it. Rabbi
Benjamin Tudela mentions the manufactory at Damiata; and Egmont and
Heyman describe the article as being of a beautiful colour, and so
finely spun that the threads are hardly discernible.

FLEA, פרעש, 1 Sam. xxiv, 14; xxvi, 20. The LXX, and another Greek
version in the _Hexapla_, render it ψύλλον, and the Vulgate _pulex_. It
seems, says Mr. Parkhurst, an evident derivative from פרע _free_, and
רעש _to leap_, _bound_, or _skip_, on account of its agility in leaping
or skipping. The flea is a little wingless insect, equally contemptible
and troublesome. It is thus described by an Arabian author: “A black,
nimble, extenuated, hunch-backed animal, which being sensible when any
one looks on it, jumps incessantly, now on one side, now on the other,
till it gets out of sight.” David likens himself to this insect;
importing that while it would cost Saul much pains to catch him, he
would obtain but very little advantage from it.

FLESH, a term of very ambiguous import in the Scriptures. An eminent
critic has enumerated no less than six different meanings which it bears
in the sacred writings, and for which, he affirms, there will not be
found a single authority in any profane writer: 1. It sometimes denotes
the whole body considered as animated, as in Matt. xxvi, 41, “The spirit
is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 2. It sometimes means a human being,
as in Luke iii, 6, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” 3.
Sometimes a person’s kindred collectively considered, as in Rom. xi, 14,
“If by any means I may provoke them which are my flesh.” 4. Sometimes
any thing of an external or ceremonial nature, as opposed to that which
is internal and moral, as in Gal. iii, 3, “Having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” 5. The sensitive part of our
nature, or that which is the seat of appetite, as in 2 Cor. vii, 1, “Let
us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;” where
there can be no doubt that the pollutions of the flesh must be those of
the appetites, being opposed to the pollutions of the spirit, or those
of the passions. 6. It is employed to denote any principle of vice and
moral pravity of whatever kind. Thus among the works of the flesh, Gal.
v, 19–21, are numbered not only adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, drunkenness, and revellings, which all relate to
criminal indulgence of appetite, but idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, and
murders, which are manifestly vices of a different kind, and partake
more of the diabolical nature than of the beastly.

FLIES. The kinds of flies are exceedingly numerous; some with two, and
some with four, wings. They abound in warm and moist regions, as in
Egypt, Chaldea, Palestine, and in the middle regions of Africa; and
during the rainy seasons are very troublesome. In the Hebrew Scriptures,
or in the ancient versions, are seven kinds of insects, which Bochart
classes among _muscæ_, or flies. These are, 1. ערב, Exod. viii, 20; Psa.
lxxviii, 45; cv, 31, which those interpreters who, by residing on the
spot, have had the best means of identifying, have rendered the
_dog-fly_, κυνόμυια, and it is supposed to be the same which in
Abyssinia is called the _zimb_. 2. זבוב, 2 Kings i, 2, 3, 6, 16; Eccles.
x, 1; Isa. vii, 18. Whether this denotes absolutely a distinct species
of fly, or swarms of all sorts, may be difficult to determine. 3. ידברה
Judges xiv, 18; Psa. cxviii, 12, rendered _bee_. 4. צרעה, σφὴξ, Exodus
xxiii, 28; Joshua xxiv, 12; Deut. vii, 20, _hornet_. 5. סרבים, οἶϛρος,
Ezek. ii, 6; Hosea iv, 16. 6. כק, κώνωψ, Matt. xxiii, 24, _the gnat_. 7.
כנים, σκνίφες, Exod. viii, 16; Psa. cv, 31, _lice_.

2. M. Sonnini, speaking of Egypt, says, “Of insects there the most
troublesome are the flies. Both man and beast are cruelly tormented with
them. No idea can be formed of their obstinate rapacity when they wish
to fix upon some part of the body. It is in vain to drive them away;
they return again in the self-same moment; and their perseverance
wearies out the most patient spirit. They like to fasten themselves in
preference on the corners of the eye, and on the edge of the eyelid;
tender parts, toward which a gentle moisture attracts them.” The
Egyptians paid a superstitious worship to several sorts of flies and
insects. If, then, such was the superstitious homage of this people,
nothing could be more determinate than the judgment brought upon them by
Moses. They were punished by the very things they revered; and though
they boasted of spells and charms, yet they could not ward off the evil.

3. “The word _zimb_,” says Bruce, “is Arabic, and signifies _the fly_ in
general.” The Chaldee paraphrase is content with calling it simply
_zebub_, which has the same general signification. The Ethiopic version
calls it _tsaltsalya_, which is the true name of this particular fly in
Geez. It is in size very little larger than a bee, of a thicker
proportion; and its wings, which are broader, are placed separate like
those of a fly. Its head is large; the upper jaw or lip is sharp, and
has at the end of it a strong pointed hair, of about a quarter of an
inch in length; the lower jaw has two of these hairs: and this pencil of
hairs, joined together, makes a resistance to the finger, nearly equal
to a strong bristle of a hog. Its legs are serrated on the inside, and
the whole covered with brown hair, or down. It has no sting, though it
appears to be of the bee kind. As soon as this winged assassin appears,
and its buzzing is heard, the cattle forsake their food, and run wildly
about the plain till they die, worn out with affright, fatigue, and
pain. The inhabitants of Melinda down to Cape Gardefan, to Saba, and the
south coast of the Red Sea, are obliged to put themselves in motion, and
remove to the next sand in the beginning of the rainy season. This is
not a partial emigration; the inhabitants of all the countries, from the
mountains of Abyssinia northward, to the confluence of the Nile and
Astaboras, are, once in a year, obliged to change their abode, and seek
protection in the sands of Beja, till the danger of the insect is over.
The elephant and the rhinoceros, which by reason of their enormous bulk,
and the vast quantity of food and water they daily need, cannot shift to
desert and dry places, are obliged, in order to resist the zimb, to roll
themselves in mud and mire, which, when dry, coats them over like
armour. It was no trifling judgment, then, with which the prophet
threatened the refractory Israelites: “The Lord shall hiss for the fly
that is in the uttermost parts of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee
that is in the land of Assyria,” Isaiah vii, 18. If the prediction be
understood in the literal sense, it represents the _œstra_ or
_cincinellæ_, as the armies of Jehovah, summoned by him to battle
against his offending people; or, if it be taken metaphorically, which
is perhaps the proper way of expounding it, the prophet compares the
numerous and destructive armies of Babylon to the countless swarms of
these flies, whose distant hum is said to strike the quadrupeds with
consternation, and whose bite inflicts, on man and beast, a torment
almost insupportable. How intolerable a plague of flies can prove, is
evident from the fact, that whole districts have been laid waste by
them. Such was the fate of Myuns in Ionia, and of Alarnæ. The
inhabitants were forced to quit these cities, not being able to stand
against the flies and gnats with which they were pestered. Trajan was
obliged to raise the siege of a city in Arabia, before which he had sat
down, being driven away by the swarms of these insects. Hence different
people had deities whose office it was to defend them against flies.
Among these may be reckoned Baalzebub, the fly-god of Ekron: _Hercules
muscarum abactor_, “Hercules, the expeller of flies;” and hence Jupiter
had the titles of ἀπόμυιος, μυΐαγρος, μυϊόχορος, because he was supposed
to expel flies, and especially to clear his temples of these insects.

4. Solomon observes, “Dead flies cause the apothecary’s ointment to
stink,” Eccles. x, 1. “A fact well known,” says Scheuchzer; “wherefore
apothecaries take care to prevent flies from coming to their syrups and
other fermentable preparations. For in all insects there is an acrid
volatile salt, which, mixed with sweet or even alkaline substances,
excites them to a brisk intestine motion, disposes them to fermentation,
and to putrescence itself; by which the more volatile principles fly
off, leaving the grosser behind: at the same time, the taste and odour
are changed, the agreeable to fetid, the sweet to insipid.” This verse
is an illustration, by a very appropriate similitude, of the concluding
assertion in the preceding chapter, that “one sinner destroyeth much
good,” as one dead fly spoils a whole vessel of precious ointment,
which, in eastern countries, was considered as very valuable, 2 Kings
xx, 13. The application of this proverbial expression to a person’s good
name, which is elsewhere compared to sweet ointment, Eccles. vii, 1;
Cant. i, 3, is remarkably significant. As a fly, though a diminutive
creature, can taint and corrupt much precious perfume; so a small
mixture of folly and indiscretion will tarnish the reputation of one
who, in other respects, is very wise and honourable; and so much the
more, because of the malignity and ingratitude of mankind, who are
disposed rather to censure one error, than to commend many excellencies,
and from whose minds one small miscarriage is sufficient to blot out the
memory of all other deserts. It concerns us, therefore, to conduct
ourselves unblamably, that we may not by the least oversight or folly
blemish our profession, or cause it to be offensive to others.

FLOCK. See SHEPHERD.

FLOOR, for threshing corn, or threshing floor, is frequently mentioned
in Scripture. This was a place in the open air, in which corn was
threshed, by means of a cart or sledge, or some other instrument drawn
by oxen. The threshing floors among the Jews were only, as they are to
this day in the east, round level plats of ground in the open air, where
the corn was trodden out by oxen. Thus Gideon’s floor appears to have
been in the open air, Judges vi, 37; and also that of Araunah the
Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, otherwise it would not have been a proper place
for erecting an altar, and offering sacrifices. In Hosea xiii, 3, we
read of the chaff which is driven by the whirlwind from the floor. This
circumstance of the threshing floor’s being exposed to the agitation of
the wind seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew name. It
appears, therefore, that a threshing floor, which is rendered in our
textual translation, “a void place,” might well be _near_ the entrance
of the gate of Samaria, and a proper situation in which the kings of
Israel and Judah might hear the prophets, 1 Kings xxii, 10; 2 Chron.
xviii, 9. An instrument sometimes used in Palestine and the east, to
force the corn out of the ear, and bruise the straw, was a heavy kind of
sledge made of thick boards, and furnished beneath with teeth of stone
or iron, Isa. xli, 15. The sheaves being laid in order, the sledge was
drawn over the straw by oxen, and at the same time threshed out the
corn, and cut or broke the straw into a kind of chaff. An instrument in
the east is still used for the same purpose. This sledge is alluded to
in 2 Sam. xii, 31; Isa. xxviii, 27; xli, 15; Amos i, 3. Dr. Lowth, in
his notes on Isaiah xxviii, 27, 28, observes, that four methods of
threshing are mentioned in this passage, by different instruments, the
flail, the drag, the wain, and the treading of the cattle. The staff, or
flail, was used for the _infirmiora semina_, the grain that was too
tender to be treated in the other methods. The drag consisted of a sort
of frame of strong planks, made rough at the bottom with hard stones or
iron; it was drawn by horses or oxen over the corn sheaves on the floor,
the driver sitting upon it. The wain was nearly similar to this
instrument, but had wheels with iron teeth, or edges like a saw. The
last method is well known from the law of Moses, which forbids the ox to
be muzzled when he treadeth out the corn. Niebuhr, in his Travels, gives
the following description of a machine which the people of Egypt use at
this day for threshing out their corn: “This machine,” says he, “is
called _nauridsj_. It has three rollers which turn on their axles; and
each of them is furnished with some irons round and flat. At the
beginning of June, Mr. Forskall and I several times saw, in the environs
of Dsjise, how corn was threshed in Egypt. Every peasant chose for
himself, in the open field, a smooth plat of ground from eighty to a
hundred paces in circumference. Hither was brought on camels or asses
the corn in sheaves, of which was formed a ring of six or eight feet
wide, and two high. Two oxen were made to draw over it again and again
the sledge, _traineau_, above mentioned; and this was done with the
greatest convenience to the driver; for he was seated in a chair fixed
on the sledge. Two such parcels or layers of corn are threshed out in a
day, and they move each of them as many as eight times, with a wooden
fork of five prongs, which they call _meddre_. Afterward they throw the
straw into the middle of the ring, where it forms a heap, which grows
bigger and bigger. When the first layer is threshed they replace the
straw in the ring, and thresh it as before. Thus the straw becomes every
time smaller, till at last it resembles chopped straw. After this, with
the fork just described, they cast the whole some yards from thence, and
against the wind; which driving back the straw, the corn and the ears
not threshed out fall apart from it, and make another heap. A man
collects the clods of dirt, and other impurities to which any corn
adheres, and throws them into a sieve. They afterward place in a ring
the heaps, in which a good many entire ears are still found, and drive
over them for four or five hours together ten couple of oxen joined two
and two, till by absolute trampling they have separated the grains,
which they throw into the air with a shovel to cleanse them.”

FO, or FUH, as the Chinese now call him, was an Indian prince, who was
made a god at thirty years of age, and died at seventy-five. His
worshippers form one of the three great sects of China, and it is said
to be far the most numerous. The worship of this idol, they pretend, was
observed a thousand years before the Christian era, and was introduced
from India into China within the first century after. Many temples are
reared to this deity, some of which are magnificent; and a number of
bonzes, or priests, are consecrated to his service. He is represented
shining in light, with his hands hid under his robes, to show that he
does all things invisibly. The doctors of this sect, like those of
Egypt, Greece, and India, teach a double doctrine; the one public, the
other private. According to the former, they say, all the good are
recompensed, and the wicked punished, in places destined for each. They
enjoin all works of charity; and forbid cheating, impurity, murder, and
even the taking of life from any creature whatever. For they believe
that the souls of their ancestors transmigrate into irrational
creatures; either into such as they liked best, or resembled most in
their behaviour; for which reason they never kill any such animals; but,
while they live, feed them well, and when they die bury them with
respect. As they build temples for Fuh, which are filled with images, so
also monasteries for his priests, providing for their maintenance, as
the most effectual means to partake of their prayers. These priests
pretend to know into what bodies the dead are transmigrated; and seldom
fail of representing their case to the surviving friends as miserable,
or uncomfortable; that they may extort money from them to procure for
the deceased a passage into a better state, or pray them out of
purgatory, which forms a part of their system.

The interior doctrine of this sect, which is kept secret from the common
people, teaches a philosophical atheism, which admits neither rewards
nor punishments after death; and believes not in a providence, or the
immortality of the soul; acknowledges no other God than the _void_, or
_nothing_; and which makes the supreme happiness of mankind to consist
in a total inaction, an entire insensibility, and a perfect quietude.
Fuh, though the idol of the common people, is considered as a foreign
deity in China, imported by the Boudhists from India: great effects are,
however, attached to the perpetual reiteration of his name, and even to
meditation upon it. It is supposed to render fate favourable, and life
secure; to prevent migration into the bodies of inferior animals; and,
in fine, to secure a place in the paradise of Fuh, whose land is yellow
gold, whose towers are composed of gems, the bridges of pearls, &c.

FOOL, FOLLY, or FOOLISHNESS. The term fool is to be understood sometimes
according to its plain, literal meaning, as denoting a person void of
understanding; but it is often used figuratively, Psalm xxxviii, 5;
lxix, 5. “The fool,” that is, the impious sinner, “hath said in his
heart, There is no God,” Psalm xiv, 1. “I have sinned: do away the
iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” 1 Chron. xxi,
8. “Fools make a mock at sin,” Prov. xiv, 9. See also the language of
Tamar to her brother Amnon: “Do not this folly; for whither shall I
cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools
in Israel,” 2 Sam. xiii, 13; that is, Thou wilt be accounted a very
wicked person. Our Lord seems to have used the term in a sense somewhat
peculiar in Matthew v, 22: “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” But the whole verse shows the
meaning to be, that when any one of his professed disciples indulges a
temper and disposition of mind contrary to charity, or that peculiar
love which the brethren of Christ are bound by his law to have toward
each other, John xiii, 34, not only showing anger against another
without a cause, but also treating him with contemptuous language, and
that with malicious intent, he shall be in danger of eternal
destruction.

FOOT. Anciently it was customary to wash the feet of strangers coming
off a journey, because generally they travelled barefoot, or wore
sandals only, which did not secure them from dust or dirt. Jesus Christ
washed the feet of his Apostles, and thereby taught them to perform the
humblest services for one another. Feet, in the sacred writers, often
mean inclinations, affections, propensities, actions, motions: “Guide my
feet in thy paths.” “Keep thy feet at a distance from evil.” “The feet
of the debauched woman go down to death.” “Let not the foot of pride
come against me.” To be at any one’s feet, signifies obeying him,
listening to his instructions and commands. Moses says that “the Lord
loved his people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at
his feet,” Deut. xxxiii, 3. St. Paul was brought up at the feet of
Gamaliel. Mary sat at our Saviour’s feet, and heard his word, Luke x,
39.

It is said that the land of Canaan is not like Egypt, “where thou
sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy _foot_,” Deut. xi, 10.
Palestine is a country which has rains, plentiful dews, springs,
rivulets, brooks, &c, that supply the earth with the moisture necessary
to its fruitfulness. On the contrary, Egypt has no river except the
Nile: there it seldom rains, and the lands which are not within reach of
the inundation continue parched and barren. To supply this want, ditches
are dug from the river, and water is distributed throughout the several
villages and cantons: there are great struggles who shall first obtain
it; and, in this dispute, they frequently come to blows. Notwithstanding
these precautions, many places have no water; and, in the course of the
year, those places which are nearest the Nile require to be watered
again by means of art and labour. This was formerly done by the help of
machines, one of which is thus described by Philo: It is a wheel which a
man turns by the motion of his feet, by ascending successively the
several steps that are within it. This is what Moses means in this place
by saying, that, in Egypt, they water the earth with their feet. The
water is thus conveyed to cisterns; and when the gardens want
refreshment, water is conducted by trenches to the beds in little rills,
which are stopped by the _foot_, and turned at pleasure into different
directions.

2. To be under any one’s feet, to be a footstool to him, signifies the
subjection of a subject to his sovereign, of a slave to his master. To
lick the dust of one’s feet, is an abject manner of doing homage. In Mr.
Hugh Boyd’s account of his embassy to the king of Candy, in Ceylon,
there is a paragraph which singularly illustrates this, and shows the
adulation and obsequious reverence with which an eastern monarch is
approached. Describing his introduction to the king, he says, “The
removal of the curtain was the signal of our obeisances. Mine, by
stipulation, was to be only kneeling. My companions immediately began
the performance of theirs, which were in the most perfect degree of
eastern humiliation. They almost literally licked the dust; prostrating
themselves with their faces almost close to the stone floor, and
throwing out their arms and legs; then, rising on their knees, they
repeated, in a very loud voice, a certain form of words of the most
extravagant meaning that can be conceived, that the head of the king of
kings might reach beyond the sun; that he might live a thousand years,”
&c. Nakedness of feet was a sign of mourning. God says to Ezekiel, “Make
no mourning for the dead, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet,” &c. It
was also a mark of respect: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for
the place whereon thou standest is holy ground,” Exodus iii, 5. The
rabbins say that the priests went barefoot in the temple. “If thou turn
away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day,”
Isaiah lviii, 13; if thou forbear walking and travelling on the Sabbath
day, and do not then thine own will. We know that journeys were
forbidden on the Sabbath day, Matt. xxiv, 20; Acts i, 12. Kissing the
feet was often practised as a mark of affection and reverence.

FORNICATION, whoredom, or the act of incontinency between single
persons; for if either of the parties be married, the sin is adultery.

FOREHEAD, _Mark on the_, Ezekiel ix, 4. Mr. Maurice, speaking of the
religious rites of the Hindoos, says, Before they can enter the great
pagoda, an indispensable ceremony takes place, which can only be
performed by the hand of a brahmin; and that is, the impression of their
foreheads with the _tiluk_, or mark of different colours, as they may
belong either to the sect of Veeshnu, or Seeva. If the temple be that of
Veeshnu, their foreheads are marked with a longitudinal line, and the
colour used is vermilion. If it be the temple of Seeva, they are marked
with a parallel line, and the colour used is turmeric, or saffron. But
these two grand sects being again subdivided into numerous classes, both
the size and the shape of the _tiluk_ are varied, in proportion to their
superior or inferior rank. In regard to the _tiluk_, I must observe,
that it was a custom of very ancient date in Asia to mark their servants
in the forehead. It is alluded to in these words of Ezekiel, where the
Almighty commands his angels to “go through the midst of the city, and
set a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh for the abominations
committed in the midst thereof.” The same idea occurs also in Rev. vii,
3. The divers sects of the Hindoos have a distinguishing mark of the
sect, by which they are known, on the forehead, of powdered sandal wood,
or of the slime of the Ganges. The mark of the Wischnites consists of
two nearly oval lines down the nose, which runs from two straight lines
on the forehead. The mark of the Schivites consists of two curved lines,
like a half moon with a point on the nose. It is made either with the
slime of the Ganges, with sandal wood, or the ashes of cow dung.

FOUNTAIN is properly the source or springhead of waters. There were
several celebrated fountains in Judea, such as that of Rogel, of Gihon,
of Siloam, of Nazareth, &c; and allusions to them are often to be met
with in both the Old and New Testament. Dr. Chandler, in his travels in
Asia Minor, says, “The reader, as we proceed, will find frequent mention
of fountains. Their number is owing to the nature of the country and the
climate. The soil, parched and thirsty, demands moisture to aid
vegetation; and a cloudless sun, which inflames the air, requires for
the people the verdure, with shade and air, its agreeable attendants.
Hence fountains are met with, not only in the towns and villages, but in
the fields and gardens, and by the sides of the roads, and of the beaten
tracks on the mountains. Many of them are the useful donations of humane
persons while living, or have been bequeathed as legacies on their
decease.” As fountains of water were so extremely valuable to the
inhabitants of the eastern countries, it is easy to understand why the
inspired writers so frequently allude to them, and thence deduce some of
their most beautiful and striking similitudes, when they would set forth
the choicest spiritual blessings. Thus Jeremiah calls the blessed God,
“the fountain of living waters,” Jer. ii, 13. As those springs or
fountains of water are the most valuable and highly prized which never
intermit or cease to flow, but are always sending forth their streams;
such is Jehovah to his people: he is a perennial source of felicity.
Zechariah, pointing in his days to the atonement which was to be made in
the fulness of time, by the shedding of the blood of Christ, describes
it as a fountain that was to be opened in which the inhabitants of
Jerusalem might wash away all their impurities: “In that day there shall
be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness,” Zech. xiii, 1. Joel predicted
the salvation which was to come out of Zion, under the beautiful figure
of “a fountain which should come forth out of the house of the Lord, and
water the plain of Shittim,” Joel iii, 18. The Psalmist, expatiating on
the excellency of the loving-kindness of God, not only as affording a
ground of hope to the children of men, but also as the source of
consolation and happiness, adds, “Thou shalt make them drink of the
river of thy pleasures; for with thee is the fountain of life,” Psalm
xxxvi, 7–9. In short, the blessedness of the heavenly state is shadowed
forth under this beautiful figure; for as “in the divine presence there
is fulness of joy, and at God’s right hand, pleasures for evermore,”
Psalm xvi, 11; so it is said of those who came out of great tribulation,
that “the Lamb that was in the midst of the throne shall lead them unto
living fountains of water, and God shall wipe away all tears from their
eyes,” Rev. vii, 17.

FOX, שועל, Judges xv, 4; Nehemiah iv, 3; xi, 27; Psalm lxiii, 10; Cant.
ii, 15; Lam. v, 11; Ezek. xiii, 4; Matt. viii, 20; Luke ix, 58; xiii,
32. Parkhurst observes that this is the name of an animal, probably so
called from its burrowing, or making holes in the earth to hide himself
or dwell in. The LXX render it by ἀλώπηξ, the Vulgate, _vulpes_, and our
English version, _fox_. It is recorded, in Judges xv, 4, 5, that “Samson
went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned
tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails; and
when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing
corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the
standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.” Dr. Shaw thinks jackals
to be the animals here intended; observing, that “as these are creatures
by far the most common and familiar, as well as the most numerous of any
in the eastern countries, we may well perceive the great possibility
there was for Samson to take, or cause to be taken, three hundred of
them. The fox, properly so called,” he adds, “is rarely to be met with,
neither is it gregarious.” So Hasselquist remarks: “Jackals are found in
great numbers about Gaza; and, from their gregarious nature, it is much
more probable that Samson should have caught three hundred of them, than
of the solitary quadruped, the fox.”

2. At the feast of Ceres, the goddess of corn, celebrated annually at
Rome about the middle of April, there was the observance of this custom,
to fix burning torches to the tails of a number of foxes, and to let
them run through the circus till they were burnt to death. This was done
in revenge upon that species of animals, for having once burnt up the
fields of corn. The reason, indeed, assigned by Ovid, is too frivolous
an origin for so solemn a rite; and the time of its celebration, the
seventeenth of April, it seems, was not harvest time, when the fields
were covered with corn, _vestitos messibus agros_; for the middle of
April was seed time in Italy, as appears from Virgil’s Georgics. Hence
we must infer that this rite must have taken its rise from some other
event than that by which Ovid accounted for it; and Samson’s foxes are a
probable origin of it. The time agrees exactly, as may be collected from
several passages of Scripture. For instance: from the book of Exodus we
learn, that before the passover, that is, before the fourteenth day of
the month Abib, or March, barley in Egypt was in the ear, Exod. xii, 18;
xiii, 4. And in chapter ix, 31, 32, it is said, that the wheat at that
time was not grown up. Barley harvest, then, in Egypt, and so in the
country of the Philistines, which bordered upon it, must have fallen
about the middle of March. Wheat harvest, according to Pliny, was a
month later: “_In Egypto hordeum sexto a satu mense, frumenta septimo
metuntur._” [In Egypt barley is reaped in the sixth month from the time
of its being sown, wheat in the seventh.] Therefore wheat harvest
happened about the middle of April; the very time in which the burning
of foxes was observed at Rome. It is certain that the Romans borrowed
many of their rites and ceremonies, both serious and ludicrous, from
foreign nations; and Egypt and Phenicia furnished them with more perhaps
than any other country. From one of these the Romans might either
receive this rite immediately, or through the hands of their neighbours,
the Carthaginians, who were a colony of Phenicians; and so its true
origin may be referred back to the story which we have been considering.

Bochart has made it probable that the איים spoken of in Isaiah xiii, 22;
xxxiv, 14; and Jer. 1, 39, rendered by our translators “the beasts of
the islands,” an appellation very vague and indeterminate, are
_jackals_; and that the θωὲς of the Greeks, and the _beni ani_ of the
Arabians are the same animal; and though he takes that to have been
their specific name, yet he thinks, that, from their great resemblance
to a fox, they might be comprehended under the Hebrew name of a fox,
_shual_; which is indeed almost the same with _sciagal sciugal_, the
Persian names of the jackal. Scaliger and Olearius, quoted by Bochart,
expressly call the jackal a fox; and Mr. Sandys speaks of it in the same
manner: “The jackals, in my opinion, are no other than foxes, whereof an
infinite number,” &c. Hasselquist calls it the little eastern fox; and
Kæmpfer says that it might not be improperly called the wolf-fox. It is
therefore very conceivable that the ancients might comprehend this
animal under the general name of fox.

3. To give an idea of his own extreme poverty, the Lord Jesus says, Luke
ix, 58, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son
of man hath not where to lay his head.” And he calls Herod, the tetrarch
of Galilee, a fox, Luke xiii, 32; thereby signifying his craft, and the
refinements of his policy. In illustration of the pertinency of this
allusion, we may quote a remark of Busbequius: “I heard a mighty noise,
as if it had been of men who jeered and mocked us. I asked what was the
matter; and was answered, ‘Only the howlings of certain beasts which the
Turks call, _ciagals_, or _jackals_.’ They are a sort of wolves,
somewhat bigger than foxes, but less than common wolves, yet as greedy
and devouring. They go in flocks, and seldom hurt man or beast; but get
their food more by craft and stealth than by open force. Thence it is
that the Turks call subtle and crafty persons by the metaphorical name
of _ciagals_.”

FRANKINCENSE, לבונה, Exod. xxx, 34, &c. λίϐανος, Matt. ii, 11; Rev.
xviii, 13, a dry, resinous substance, of a yellowish white colour, a
strong fragrant smell, and bitter, acrid taste. The tree which produces
it is not known. Dioscorides mentions it as procured from India. What is
here called the pure frankincense is, no doubt, the same with the
_mascula thura_ of Virgil, and signifies what is first obtained from the
tree.

FRIEND is taken for one whom we love and esteem above others, to whom we
impart our minds more familiarly than to others, and that from a
confidence of his integrity and good will toward us: thus Jonathan and
David were mutually friends. Solomon, in his book of Proverbs, gives the
qualities of a true friend. “A friend loveth at all times:” not only in
prosperity, but also in adversity; and, “there is a friend that sticketh
closer than a brother.” He is more hearty in the performance of all
friendly offices; he reproves and rebukes when he sees any thing amiss.
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend.” His sharpest reproofs proceed
from an upright, and truly loving and faithful soul. He is known by his
good and faithful counsel, as well as by his seasonable rebukes.
“Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart, so does the sweetness of a
man’s friend by hearty counsel:” by such counsel as comes from his very
heart and soul, and is the language of his inward and most serious
thoughts. The company and conversation of a friend is refreshing and
reviving to a person, who, when alone, is sad, dull, and inactive. “Iron
sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” The
title, “the friend of God,” is principally given to Abraham: “Art not
thou our God, who gavest this land to the seed of Abraham, thy friend,
for ever?” And in Isaiah xli, 8, “But thou Israel art the seed of
Abraham, my friend.” “And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and
he was called the friend of God,” James ii, 23. This title was given
him, not only because God frequently appeared to him, conversed
familiarly with him, and revealed his secrets to him, “Shall I hide from
Abraham that thing which I do?” Gen. xviii, 17; but also because he
entered into a covenant of perpetual friendship both with him and his
seed. Our Saviour calls his Apostles “friends:” “But I have called you
friends;” and he adds the reason of it, “for all things that I have
heard of my Father, I have made known unto you,” John xv, 15. As men use
to communicate their counsels and their whole mind to their friends,
especially in things which are of any concern, or may be of any
advantage for them to know and understand, so I have revealed to you
whatever is necessary for your instruction, office, comfort, and
salvation. And this title is not peculiar to the Apostles only, but is
common with them to all true believers. The friend of the bridegroom is
the brideman; he who does the honours of the wedding, and leads his
friend’s spouse to the nuptial chamber. John the Baptist, with respect
to Christ and his church, was the friend of the bridegroom; by his
preaching he prepared the people of the Jews for Christ, John iii, 29.
Friend is a word of ordinary salutation, whether to a friend or foe: he
is called friend who had not on a wedding garment, Matt. xxii, 12. And
our Saviour calls Judas the traitor friend. Some are of opinion that
this title is given to the guest by an irony, or antiphrasis; meaning
the contrary to what the word importeth; or that he is called so,
because he appeared to others to be Christ’s friend; or was so in his
own esteem and account, though falsely, being a hypocrite. However, this
being spoken in the person of him who made the feast, it is generally
taken for a usual compellation, and that Christ, following the like
courteous custom of appellation and friendly greeting, did so salute
Judas, which yet left a sting behind it in his conscience, who knew
himself to be the reverse of what he was called. The name of friend is
likewise given to a neighbour. “Which of you shall have a friend, and
shall go to him at midnight, and say, Friend, lend me three loaves?”
Luke xi, 3.

FRIENDS, or QUAKERS, a religious society which began to be distinguished
about the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first
promulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647; for which he
was imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following
at Derby. Fox evidently considered himself as acting under a divine
commission, and went, not only to fairs and markets, but into courts of
justice and “steeple houses,” as he called the churches, warning all to
obey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him. It is said, that the appellation
of Quakers was given them in reproach by one of the magistrates, who, in
1650, committed Fox to prison, on account of his bidding him, and those
about him, to _quake_ at the word of the Lord. But they adopted among
themselves, and still retain, the kind appellation of Friends.

From their first appearance, they suffered much persecution. In
New-England they were treated with peculiar severity, imprisoned,
scourged, (women as well as men,) and at Boston four of them were even
hanged, among whom was one woman; and this was the more extraordinary
and inexcusable, as the settlers themselves had but lately fled from
persecution in the parent country! During these sufferings, they applied
to King Charles II, for relief; who, in 1661, granted a mandamus, to put
a stop to them. Neither were the good offices of this prince in their
favour confined to the colonies; for in 1672, he released, under the
great seal, four hundred of these suffering people who were imprisoned
in Great Britain. To what has been alleged against them, on account of
James Naylor and his associates, they answer that their extravagancies
and blasphemies were disapproved at the time, and the parties disowned;
nor was Naylor restored till he had given signs of a sincere repentance,
and publicly condemned his errors.

In 1681, Charles II, granted to W. Penn the province of Pennsylvania.
Penn’s treaty with the Indians, and the liberty of conscience which he
granted to all denominations, even those which had persecuted his own,
do honour to his memory. In the reign of James II, the Friends, in
common with other English Dissenters, were relieved by the suspension of
the penal laws. But it was not till the reign of William and Mary that
they obtained any thing like a proper legal protection. An act was
passed in the year 1696, which, with a few exceptions, allowed to their
affirmation the legal force of an oath, and provided a less oppressive
mode for recovering tithes under a certain amount; which provisions,
under the reign of George I, were made perpetual. For refusing to pay
tithes, &c, however, they are still liable to suffer in the exchequer
and ecclesiastical court, both in Great Britain and Ireland.

The true Friends are orthodox, as to the leading doctrines of
Christianity, but express themselves in peculiar phrases. They hold
special revelations of the Holy Spirit, yet not to the disparagement of
the written word, which they regard as the infallible rule of faith and
practice. They reject a salaried ministry, and interpret the sacraments
mystically. They are advocates of the interior spiritual life of
religion, to which, indeed, they have borne constant testimony; and they
are distinguished by probity, philanthropy, and a public spirit. [In the
United States, the Friends are divided into the Orthodox, (so called,)
and Hicksites, or followers of the late Elias Hicks. The latter are
considered as having departed from the original doctrines of the
Friends, and very far from the leading doctrines of Christianity, as
held by Protestant Christians in general.]

FROG, צפרדע; Arabic, _akurrak_; Greek, βάτραχος; Exod. viii, 2–14; Psalm
lxxviii, 45; cv, 30; Rev. xvi, 13. When God plagued Pharaoh and his
people, the river Nile, which was the object of great admiration to the
Egyptians, was made to contribute to their punishment. “The river
brought forth frogs abundantly;” but the circumstance of their coming up
into the bed chambers, and into the ovens and kneading troughs, needs
explanation to us, whose domestic apartments and economy are so
different from those of the ancient nations. Their lodgings were not in
upper stories, but in recesses on the ground floor; and their ovens were
not like ours, built on the side of a chimney, and adjacent to a
fireplace, where the glowing heat would frighten away the frogs, but
they dug a hole in the ground, in which they placed an earthen pot,
which having sufficiently heated, they stuck their cakes to the inside
to be baked. To find such places full of frogs when they came to heat
them in order to bake their bread, and to see frogs in the beds where
they sought repose, must have been both disgusting and distressing in
the extreme. Frogs were reckoned unclean by the Hebrews.

FRONTLETS. Leo of Modena thus describes them: The Jews take four pieces
of parchment, and write, with an ink made on purpose, and in square
letters, these four passages, one on each piece: 1. “Sanctify unto me
all the first-born,” &c, Exodus xiii, 1–10. 2. “And when the Lord shall
bring thee into the land of the Canaanites,” &c, verses 11–16. 3. “Hear,
O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,” &c, Deut. vi, 4–9. 4. “If you
shall hearken diligently unto my commandments,” &c, Deut. xi, 13–21.
This they do in obedience to these words of Moses: “These commandments
shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial
between thine eyes.” These four little pieces of parchment are fastened
together, and a square formed of them, on which the letter ש is written;
then a little square of hard calf’s skin is put upon the top, out of
which come two leathern strings an inch wide, and a cubit and a half, or
thereabouts, in length. This square is put on the middle of the
forehead, and the strings being girt about the head, make a knot in the
form of the letter ד: they then are brought before, and fall on the
breast. It is called _teffila-schel-rosch_, or the _tephila_ of the
head. The most devout Jews put it on both at morning and noon-day
prayer; but the generality of the Jews wear it only at morning prayer.
Only the chanter of the synagogue is obliged to put it on at noon as
well as morning.

It is a question, whether the use of frontlets, and other phylacteries,
was literally ordained by Moses. They who believe their use to be
binding, observe, that the text of Moses speaks as positively of this as
of other precepts; he requires the commandments of God to be written on
the doors of houses, as a sign on their hands, and as an ornament on
their foreheads, Exod. xiii, 16. If there be any obligation to write
these commandments on their doors, as the text intimates, there is the
same for writing them on their hands and foreheads. On the contrary,
others maintain that these precepts should be taken figuratively and
allegorically, as denoting that the Jews should very carefully preserve
the remembrance of God’s law, and observe his commands; that they should
always have them before them, and never forget them. Prior to the
Babylonish captivity, no traces of them appear in the history of the
Jews. The prophets never inveigh against the omission or neglect of
them, nor was there any question concerning them in the reformation of
manners at any time among the Hebrews. The almost general custom in the
east of wearing phylacteries and frontlets, determines nothing for the
antiquity or usefulness of this practice. The Caraite Jews, who adhere
to the letter of the law, and despise traditions, call the rabbinical
Jews bridled asses, because they wear these tephilim and frontlets. See
PHYLACTERY.

FRUIT, the product of the earth, as trees, plants, &c. “Blessed shall be
the fruit of thy ground and cattle.” The fruit of the body signifies
children: “Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body.” By fruit is
sometimes meant reward: “They shall eat of the fruit of their own ways,”
Prov. i, 31; they shall receive the reward of their bad conduct, and
punishment answerable to their sins. The fruit of the lips is the
sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving, Heb. xiii, 15. The fruit of the
righteous, that is, the counsel, example, instruction, and reproof of
the righteous, is a tree of life, is a means of much good, both temporal
and eternal; and that not only to himself, but to others also, Prov. xi,
30. Solomon says, in Prov. xii, 14, “A man shall be satisfied with good
by the fruit of his mouth;” that is, he shall receive abundant blessings
from God as the reward of that good he has done, by his pious and
profitable discourses. “Fruits meet for repentance,” Matt. iii, 8, is
such a conduct as befits the profession of penitence.

2. The fruits of the Spirit are those gracious habits which the Holy
Spirit of God produces in those in whom he dwelleth and worketh, with
those acts which flow from them, as naturally as the tree produces its
fruit. The Apostle enumerates these fruits in Galatians v, 22, 23. The
same Apostle, in Eph. v, 9, comprehends the fruits of the sanctifying
Spirit in these three things; namely, goodness, righteousness, and
truth. The fruits of righteousness are such good works and holy actions
as spring from a gracious frame of heart: “Being filled with the fruits
of righteousness,” Phil. i, 11. Fruit is taken for a charitable
contribution, which is the fruit or effect of faith and love: “When I
have sealed unto them this fruit,” Rom. xv, 28; when I have safely
delivered this contribution. When fruit is spoken of good men, then it
is to be understood of the fruits or works of holiness and
righteousness; but when of evil men, then are meant the fruits of sin,
immorality, and wickedness. This is our Saviour’s doctrine, Matt. vii,
16–18.

3. Uncircumcised fruit, or impure, of which there is mention in Lev.
xix, 23, is the fruit for the first three years of a tree newly planted;
it was reputed unclean, and no one was permitted to eat of it in all
that time. In the fourth year it was offered to the Lord; after which it
was common, and generally eaten. Various reasons are assigned for this
precept. As (1.) Because the first-fruits were to be offered to God, who
required the best: but in this time the fruit was not come to
perfection. (2.) It was serviceable to the trees themselves, which grew
the better and faster; being early stripped of those fruits which
otherwise would have derived to themselves, and drawn away, much of the
strength from the root and tree. (3.) It tended to the advantage of men,
both because the fruit was then waterish, undigestible, and unwholesome;
and because hereby men were taught to bridle their appetites, a lesson
of great use and absolute necessity in a godly life.

FUEL. In preparing their victuals, the orientals are, from the extreme
scarcity of wood in many countries, reduced to use cow dung for fuel. At
Aleppo, the inhabitants use wood and charcoal in their rooms, but heat
their baths with cow dung, the parings of fruit, and other things of a
similar kind, which they employ people to gather for that purpose. In
Egypt, according to Pitts, the scarcity of wood is so great, that at
Cairo they commonly heat their ovens with horse or cow dung, or dirt of
the streets; what wood they have, being brought from the shores of the
Black Sea, and sold by weight. Chardin attests the same fact: “The
eastern people always used cow dung for baking, boiling a pot, and
dressing all kinds of victuals that are easily cooked, especially in
countries that have but little wood;” and Dr. Russel remarks, in a note,
that “the Arabs carefully collect the dung of the sheep and camel, as
well as that of the cow; and that the dung, offals, and other matters,
used in the bagnios, after having been new gathered in the streets, are
carried out of the city, and laid in great heaps to dry, where they
become very offensive. They are intolerably disagreeable, while drying,
in the town, adjoining to the bagnios; and are so at all times when it
rains, though they be stacked, pressed hard together, and thatched at
top.” These statements exhibit, in a very strong light, the extreme
misery of the Jews, who escaped from the devouring sword of
Nebuchadnezzar: “They that did feed delicately are desolate in the
streets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills,” Lam.
iv, 5. To embrace dunghills, is a species of wretchedness, perhaps
unknown to us in the history of modern warfare; but it presents a
dreadful and appalling image, when the circumstances to which it alludes
are recollected. What can be imagined more distressing to those who
lived delicately, than to wander without food in the streets? What more
disgusting and terrible to those who had been clothed in rich and
splendid garments, than to be forced, by the destruction of their
palaces, to seek shelter among stacks of dung, the filth and stench of
which it is almost impossible to endure? The dunghill, it appears from
Holy Writ, is one of the common retreats of the mendicant. This imparts
great force and beauty to a passage in the song of Hannah: “He raiseth
up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the beggar from the dunghill,
to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of
glory,” 1 Sam. ii, 8. The change in the circumstances of that excellent
woman, she reckoned as great, (and it was to her as unexpected,) as the
elevation of a poor despised beggar from a nauseous and polluting
dunghill, rendered tenfold more fetid by the intense heat of an oriental
sun, to one of the highest and most splendid stations on earth.

2. Dung is used as fuel in the east only when wood cannot be had; for
the latter, and even any other combustible substance, is preferred when
it can be obtained. The inhabitants of Aleppo, according to Russel, use
thorns and fuel of a similar kind for those culinary purposes which
require haste, particularly for boiling, which seems to be the reason
that Solomon mentions the “crackling of thorns under a pot,” rather than
in any other way. The same allusion to the use of thorns for boiling
occurs in other parts of the sacred volume: thus, the Psalmist speaks of
the wicked, “Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them
away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.” The Jews are
sometimes compared in the prophets to “a brand plucked out of the
burning,” Amos iv, 11; Zech. iii, 2; a figure which Chardin considers as
referring to vine twigs, and other brushwood which the orientals
frequently use for fuel, and which, in a few minutes, must be consumed
if they are not snatched out of the fire; and not to those battens, or
large branches, which will lie a long time in the fire before they are
reduced to ashes. If this idea be correct, it displays in a stronger and
more lively manner the seasonable interposition of God’s mercy, than is
furnished by any other view of the phrase. The same remark applies to
the figure by which the Prophet Isaiah describes the sudden and complete
destruction of Rezin, and the son of Remaliah; only in this passage, the
firebrands are supposed to be smoking; that is, in the opinion of
Harmer, having the steam issuing with force from one end, in consequence
of the fire burning violently at the other. The words of the prophet
are: “Take heed and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted, for
the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin
with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah,” Isaiah vii, 4. It is not easy
to conceive an image more striking than this; the remains of two small
twigs burning with violence at one end, as appears by the steaming of
the other, are soon reduced to ashes; so shall the kingdoms of Syria and
Israel sink into ruin and disappear.

3. The scarcity of fuel in the east obliges the inhabitants to use, by
turns, every kind of combustible matter. The withered stalks of herbs
and flowers, the tendrils of the vine, the small branches of myrtle,
rosemary, and other plants, are all used in heating their ovens and
bagnios. We can easily recognise this practice in these words of our
Lord: “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,
neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that Solomon, in all his
glory, was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe
the grass of the field, which today is, and to-morrow is cast into the
oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” Matt.
vi, 28–30. The grass of the field, in this passage, evidently includes
the lilies of which our Lord had just been speaking, and, by
consequence, herbs in general; and in this extensive sense the word
χόρτος is not unfrequently taken. These beautiful productions of nature,
so richly arrayed, and so exquisitely perfumed, that the splendour even
of Solomon is not to be compared with theirs, shall soon wither and
decay, and be used as fuel to heat the oven and the bagnio. Has God so
adorned these flowers and plants of the field, which retain their beauty
and vigour but for a few days, and are then applied to some of the
meanest purposes of life; and will he not much more clothe you who are
the disciples of his own Son, who are capable of immortality, and
destined to the enjoyment of eternal happiness?

FULNESS. “The fulness of time” is the time when the Messiah appeared,
which was appointed by God, promised to the fathers, foretold by the
prophets, expected by the Jews themselves, and earnestly longed for by
all the faithful: “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent his
Son,” Gal. iv, 4. The fulness of Christ is the superabundance of grace
with which he was filled: “Of his fulness have all we received,” John i,
16. And whereas men are said to be filled with the Holy Ghost, as John
the Baptist, Luke i, 15; and Stephen, Acts vi, 5; this differs from the
fulness of Christ in these three respects: (1.) Grace in others is by
participation, as the moon hath her light from the sun, rivers their
waters from the fountain: but in Christ all that perfection and
influence which we include in that term is originally, naturally, and of
himself. (2.) The Spirit is in Christ infinitely and above measure, John
iii, 34; but in the saints by measure according to the gift of God, Eph.
iv, 16. The saints cannot communicate their graces to others, whereas
the gifts of the Spirit are in Christ as a head and fountain, to impart
them to his members. “We have received of his fulness,” John i, 16. It
is said, that “the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily,” Col.
ii, 2; that is, the whole nature and attributes of God are in Christ,
and that really, essentially, or substantially; and also personally, by
nearest union; as the soul dwells in the body, so that the same person
who is man is God also. The church is called the fulness of Christ, Eph.
i, 23. It is the church which makes him a complete and perfect head; for
though he has a natural and personal fulness as God, yet, as Mediator,
he is not full and complete, without his mystical body, (as a king is
not complete without his subjects,) but receives an outward, relative,
and mystical fulness from his members.

FUNERAL RITES. See BURIAL.

FURNACE, a fireplace for melting gold and other metals. “The fining pot
is for silver, the furnace for gold,” Prov. xvii, 3. It signifies also a
place of cruel bondage and oppression, such as Egypt was to the
Israelites, who there met with much hardship, rigour, and severity, to
try and purge them, Deut. iv, 20; Jer. xi, 4; the sharp and grievous
afflictions and judgments, wherewith God tries his people, Ezek. xxii,
18; xx, 22; also a place of torment, as Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace,
Dan. iii, 6, 11. On the last we may remark, that this mode of putting to
death is not unusual in the east in modern times. After speaking of the
common modes of punishing with death in Persia, Chardin says, “But there
is still a particular way of putting to death such as have transgressed
in civil affairs, either by causing a dearth, or by selling above the
tax by a false weight, or who have committed themselves in any other
manner: they are put upon a spit and roasted over a slow fire, Jer.
xxix, 22. Bakers, when they offend, are thrown into a hot oven. During
the dearth in 1668, I saw such ovens heated in the royal square in
Ispahan, to terrify the bakers, and deter them from deriving advantage
from the general distress.”


GABBATHA, a place in Pilate’s palace, from whence he pronounced sentence
of death upon Jesus Christ, John xix, 13. This was probably an eminence,
or terrace, paved with marble, for the Hebrew means _elevated_.

GABRIEL, one of the principal angels of heaven. He was sent to the
Prophet Daniel, to explain to him the visions of the ram and goat, and
the mystery of the seventy weeks, which had been revealed to him, Dan.
viii, 15; ix, 21; xi, 1, &c. The same angel was sent to Zechariah, to
declare to him the future birth of John the Baptist, Luke i, 11, &c. Six
months after this he appeared to a virgin, whose name was Mary, of the
city of Nazareth, as related Luke i, 26, &c.

GAD was the name of the son of Jacob and Zilpah, Leah’s servant, Gen.
xxx, 9–11. Leah, Jacob’s wife, gave him also Zilpah, that by her she
might have children. Zilpah brought a son, whom Leah called Gad, saying,
“A troop cometh.” Gad had seven sons, Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri,
Arodi, and Areli, Genesis xlvi, 16. Jacob, blessing Gad, said, “A troop
shall overcome him, but he shall overcome at the last,” Gen. xlix, 19;
and Moses, in his last song, mentions Gad as “a lion which teareth the
arm with the crown of the head,” &c, Deut. xxxiii, 20, 21. The tribe of
Gad came out of Egypt in number forty-five thousand six hundred and
fifty. After the defeat of the kings Og and Sihon, Gad and Reuben
desired to have their lot in the conquered country, and alleged their
great number of cattle. Moses granted their request, on condition that
they would accompany their brethren, and assist in the conquest of the
land beyond Jordan. Gad had his inheritance between Reuben south, and
Manasseh north, with the mountains of Gilead east, and Jordan west.

2. GAD, a prophet, David’s friend, who followed him when persecuted by
Saul. The Scripture calls him a prophet and David’s seer, 2 Sam. xxiv,
11. The first time we find him with this prince is when he fled into the
land of Moab, 1 Sam. xxii, 5, to secure his father and mother in the
first year of Saul’s persecution. The Prophet Gad warned him to return
into the land of Judah. After David had determined to number his people,
the Lord sent to him the Prophet Gad, to offer him his choice of three
scourges: seven years’ famine, or three months’ flight before his
enemies, or three days’ pestilence. Gad also directed David to erect an
altar to the Lord, in the threshing floor of Ornan or Araunah, the
Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, 13–19; and he wrote a history of David’s life,
cited in 1 Chron. xxix, 29.

GADARA, a city which gave name to the country of the Gadarenes; situated
on a steep rocky hill on the river Hieromax, or Yermuck, about five
miles from its junction with the Jordan. It was a place of considerable
note in the time of Josephus, and the metropolis of Peræa, or the
country beyond Jordan. It was also celebrated for its hot baths. The
vicinity was likewise called the country of the Gergesenes, from Gerasa,
or Gergesa, another considerable city in the same neighbourhood. Thus
the miracle of our Lord performed here is represented by St. Mark to
have been done in the country of the Gadarenes, Mark v, 1; and by St.
Matthew, in that of the Gergesenes, Matt. viii, 28.

GALATIA, a province of the Lesser Asia, bounded on the west by Phrygia,
on the east by the river Haylys, on the north by Paphlagonia, and on the
south by Lycaonia. The Galatians are said to have been descended from
those Gauls, who, finding their own country too strait for them, left
it, after the death of Alexander the Great, in quest of new settlements.
Quitting their own country, they migrated eastward along the Danube till
they came where the Saave joins that river; then dividing themselves
into three bodies, under the conduct of different leaders, one of these
bodies entered Pannonia; another marched into Thrace; a third into
Illyricum and Macedonia. The party which proceeded into Thrace, crossed
the Bosphorus into the Lesser Asia, and hiring themselves to Nicomedes,
king of Bithynia, assisted him to subdue his brother Zipetes, with whom
he was then at war; and as a reward of their services they received from
him a country in the middle of Asia Minor, which from them was afterward
called _Gallo-Græcia_, and, by contraction, Galatia. As their inland
situation in a great measure cut them off from all intercourse with more
civilized nations, the Galatians long remained a rude and illiterate
people. And as a proof of this, it is mentioned by Jerom, that when the
Apostle Paul preached the Gospel among them, and for many ages
afterward, they continued to speak the language of the country from
whence they came out.

2. Paul and Barnabas carried the light of the Gospel into the regions of
Galatia at a very early period; and it appears from the epistle which
the former subsequently wrote to the churches in that country, that they
had at first received it with great joy, Gal. iv, 15. But some Judaizing
teachers getting access among them soon after the Apostle’s departure,
their minds became corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ
Jesus; and, though mostly Gentiles, they were beginning to mingle
circumcision, and other Jewish observances, with their faith in Christ,
in order to render it more available to their salvation. This occasioned
Paul’s writing his epistle to those churches; and his object throughout
nearly the whole of it is to counteract the pernicious influence of the
doctrine of those false teachers particularly as it respected the
article of justification, or a sinner’s acceptance with God. And in no
part of the Apostle’s writings is that important doctrine handled in a
more full and explicit manner; nor does he any where display, such a
firm, determined, and inflexible opposition to all who would corrupt the
truth from its simplicity. He begins by expressing his astonishment that
they were so soon turned aside “unto another gospel,” but instantly
checking himself, he recals the word and declares, “it is not another
gospel,” but a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. “And though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” There are in his epistle
several other things equally pointed and severe, particularly his
expostulation on the folly and absurdity of their conduct in subjecting
themselves to the Jewish yoke of bondage, Gal. iii, 1. “The erroneous
doctrines of the Judaizing teachers,” says Dr. Macknight, “and the
calumnies they spread for the purpose of discrediting St. Paul’s
apostleship, no doubt occasioned great uneasiness of mind to him and to
the faithful in that age, and did much hurt, at least for a while, among
the Galatians. But in the issue these evils have proved of no small
service to the church in general; for by obliging the Apostle to produce
the evidences of his apostleship, and to relate the history of his life,
especially after his conversion, we have obtained the fullest assurance
of his being a real Apostle, called to the office by Jesus Christ
himself; consequently we are assured that our faith in the doctrines of
the Gospel, as taught by him, (and it is he who hath taught the peculiar
doctrines of the Gospel most fully,) is not built on the credit of a
man, but on the authority of the Spirit of God, by whom St. Paul was
inspired in the whole of the doctrine which he has delivered to the
world.”

GALBANUM, חלבנה, Exod. xxx, 34. Michaëlis makes the word a compound of
חלב, _milk_ or _gum_, (for the Syriac uses the noun in both senses,) and
לבן], _white_, as being the white milk or gum of a plant. It is the
thickened sap of an umbelliferous plant, called _metopion_, which grows
on Mount Amanus, in Syria, and is frequently found in Persia, and in
some parts of Africa. It was an ingredient in the holy incense of the
Jews.

GALILEANS. In the twelfth year of Christ, about the time that Archelaus
was sent away from his government, a secession was made from the sect of
the Pharisees, and a new sect arose, called the Galileans. Not long
after this time, Judea, which was a Roman province, was added, for civil
purposes, to Syria, over which Quirinus was governor. It happened, when
the tax was levied by Quirinus, that one Judas, of Galilee, otherwise
called Gaulonites, in company with Zaduk, a Sadducee, publicly taught,
that such taxation was repugnant to the law of Moses, according to which
the Jews, they maintained, had no king but God. The tumults which this
man excited were suppressed, Acts v, 37; but his disciples, who were
called Galileans, continued to propagate this doctrine, and,
farthermore, required of all proselytes that they should be circumcised.
It was in reference to this sect that the captious question was proposed
in Matt. xxii, 17, &c; namely, whether it was lawful to give tribute to
Cæsar. The Galileans, whom Pilate slew in the temple, Luke xiii, 1, 2,
appear to have been of this sect. By degrees, the Galileans swallowed up
almost all the other sects; and it is highly probable that the zealots,
particularly mentioned at the siege of Jerusalem, were of this faction.

GALILEE was one of the most extensive provinces into which the Holy Land
was divided. It exceeded Judea in extent, but probably varied in its
limits at different times. This province is divided by the rabbins into,
1. The Upper; 2. The Nether; and, 3. The Valley. Josephus divides it
into only Upper and Lower; and he says that the limits of Galilee were,
on the south, Samaria and Scythopolis, unto the flood of Jordan. Galilee
contained four tribes, Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Asher; a part,
also, of Dan, and part of Peræa, that is, beyond the river. Upper
Galilee abounded in mountains. Lower Galilee, which contained the tribes
of Zebulun and Asher, was sometimes called the Great Field, “the
champaign,” Deut. xi, 30. The Valley was adjacent to the sea of
Tiberias. Josephus describes Galilee as very populous, and containing
two hundred and four cities and towns. It was also very rich, and paid
two hundred talents in tribute. The natives were brave and good
soldiers; but they were seditious, and prone to insolence and rebellion.
In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the inhabitants of Galilee and Peræa
are scarcely mentioned, whether they were Jews returned from Babylon, or
a mixture of different nations. The language of these regions differed
considerably from that of Judea; as did various customs, in which each
followed its own mode. Our Lord so frequently visited Galilee, that he
was called a Galilean, Matt. xxvi, 69. The population of Galilee being
very great, he had many opportunities of doing good in this country;
and, being there out of the power of the priests at Jerusalem, he seems
to have preferred it as his abode. Nazareth and Capernaum were in this
division. From such a mixture of people, many provincialisms might be
expected. Hence, we find Peter detected by his language, probably by his
phraseology, as well as his pronunciation, Mark xiv, 70. Upper Galilee
had Mount Lebanon and the countries of Tyre and Sidon on the north; the
Mediterranean Sea on the west; Abilene, Ituræa, and the country of the
Decapolis, on the east; and Lower Galilee on the south. Its principal
city was Cæsarea Philippi. This part of Galilee, being less inhabited by
Jews, was thence called Galilee of the Nations, or of the Gentiles.
Lower Galilee had the upper division of the same country to the north;
the Mediterranean on the west; the sea of Galilee. or lake of
Gennesareth, on the east; and Samaria on the south. Its principal cities
were Tiberias, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, Nain,
Cæsarea of Palestine, and Ptolemais. This district was of all others
most honoured with the presence of our Saviour. Here he was conceived;
here he was brought back by his mother and reputed father, after their
return from Egypt; here he lived with them till he was thirty years of
age; and, although after his entrance on his public ministry he
frequently visited the other provinces, it was here that he chiefly
resided. Here, also, he made his first appearance after his resurrection
to his Apostles, who were themselves natives of the same country, and
were thence called men of Galilee.

GALILEE, _Sea of_. This inland sea, or more properly lake, which derives
its several names, the lake of Tiberias, the sea of Galilee, and the
lake of Gennesareth, from the territory which forms its western and
south-western border, is computed to be between seventeen and eighteen
miles in length, and from five to six in breadth. The mountains on the
east come close to its shore, and the country on that side has not a
very agreeable aspect: on the west, it has the plain of Tiberias, the
high ground of the plain of Hutin, or Hottein, the plain of Gennesareth,
and the foot of those hills by which you ascend to the high mountain of
Saphet. To the north and south it has a plain country, or valley. There
is a current throughout the whole breadth of the lake, even to the
shore; and the passage of the Jordan through it is discernible by the
smoothness of the surface in that part. Various travellers have given
different accounts of its general aspect. According to Captain Mangles,
the land about it has no striking features, and the scenery is
altogether devoid of character. “It appeared,” he says, “to particular
disadvantage to us, after those beautiful lakes we had seen in
Switzerland; but it becomes a very interesting object when you consider
the frequent allusions to it in the Gospel narrative.” Dr. Clarke, on
the contrary, speaks of the uncommon grandeur of this memorable scenery.
“The lake of Gennesareth,” he says, “is surrounded by objects well
calculated to heighten the solemn impressions made by such
recollections, and affords one of the most striking prospects in the
Holy Land. Speaking of it comparatively, it may be described as longer
and finer than any of our Cumberland and Westmoreland lakes, although
perhaps inferior to Loch Lomond. It does not possess the vastness of the
lake of Geneva, although it much resembles it in certain points of view.
In picturesque beauty, it comes nearest to the lake of Locarno, in
Italy, although it is destitute of any thing similar to the islands by
which that majestic piece of water is adorned. It is inferior in
magnitude, and in the height of its surrounding mountains, to the Lake
Asphaltites.” Mr. Buckingham may perhaps be considered as having given
the most accurate account, and one which reconciles, in some degree, the
differing statements above cited, when, speaking of the lake as seen
from Tel Hoom, he says, that its appearance is grand, but that the
barren aspect of the mountains on each side, and the total absence of
wood, give a cast of dulness to the picture: this is increased to
melancholy by the dead calm of its waters, and the silence which reigns
throughout its whole extent, where not a boat or vessel of any kind is
to be found. The situation of the lake, lying, as it were, in a deep
basin between the hills which enclose it on all sides, excepting only
the narrow entrance and outlets of the Jordan at either end, protects
its waters from long-continued tempests: its surface is in general as
smooth as that of the Dead Sea. But the same local features render it
occasionally subject to whirlwinds, squalls, and sudden gusts from the
mountains, of short duration; especially when the strong current formed
by the Jordan is opposed by a wind of this description from the
south-east, sweeping from the mountains with the force of a hurricane,
it may easily be conceived that a boisterous sea must be instantly
raised, which the small vessels of the country would be unable to
resist. A storm of this description is plainly denoted by the language
of the evangelist, in recounting one of our Lord’s miracles: “There came
down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled with water, and
were in jeopardy. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of
the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm,” Luke viii, 23, 24.
There were fleets of some force on this lake during the wars of the Jews
with the Romans, and very bloody battles were fought between them.
Josephus gives a particular account of a naval engagement between the
Romans under Vespasian, and the Jews who had revolted during the
administration of Agrippa. Titus and Trajan were both present, and
Vespasian himself was on board the Roman fleet. The rebel force
consisted of an immense multitude, who, as fugitives after the capture
of Tarichæa by Titus, had sought refuge on the water. The vessels in
which the Romans defeated them were built for the occasion, and yet were
larger than the Jewish ships. The victory was followed by so terrible a
slaughter of the Jews, that nothing was to be seen, either on the lake
or its shores, but the blood and mangled corses of the slain; and the
air was infected by the number of dead bodies. Six thousand five hundred
persons are stated to have perished in this naval engagement, and in the
battle of Tarichæa, beside twelve hundred who were afterward massacred
in cold blood, by order of Vespasian, in the amphitheatre at Tiberias,
and a vast number who were given to Agrippa as slaves.

GALL, ראש, something excessively bitter, and supposed to be poisonous,
Deut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii,
15; Lam. iii, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12. It is evident, from the
first-mentioned place, that some herb or plant is meant of a malignant
or nauseous kind. It is joined with wormwood, and, in the margin of our
Bibles, explained to be “a very poisonful herb.” In Psalm lxix, 21,
which is justly considered as a prophecy of our Saviour’s sufferings, it
is said, “They gave me ראש to eat”; which the LXX have rendered χολὴν,
_gall_. And, accordingly, it is recorded in the history, “They gave him
vinegar to drink, mingled with gall,” ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς, Matt. xxvii, 34.
But, in the parallel passage, it is said to be, ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον,
“wine mingled with myrrh,” Mark xv, 23, a very bitter ingredient. From
whence it is probable that χολὴ, and perhaps ראש, may be used as a
general name for whatever is exceedingly bitter; and, consequently,
where the sense requires it, may be put specially for any bitter herb or
plant, the infusion of which may be called מי־ראש.

GALLIO was the name of the brother of Seneca, the philosopher. He was at
first named Marcus Annæus Novatus; but, being adopted by Lucius Junius
Gallio, he took the name of his adoptive father. The Emperor Claudius
made him proconsul of Achaia. He was of a mild and agreeable temper. To
him his brother Seneca dedicated his books, “Of Anger.” He shared in the
fortunes of his brothers, as well when out of favour as in their
prosperity at court. At length, Nero put him, as well as them, to death.
The Jews were enraged at St. Paul for converting many Gentiles, and
dragged him to the tribunal of Gallio, who, as proconsul, generally
resided at Corinth, Acts xviii, 12, 13. They accused him of teaching
“men to worship God contrary to the law.” St. Paul being about to speak,
Gallio told the Jews, that if the matter in question were a breach of
justice, or an action of a criminal nature, he should think himself
obliged to hear them; but, as the dispute was only concerning their law,
he would not determine such differences, nor judge them. Sosthenes, the
chief ruler of the synagogue, was beaten by the Greeks before Gallio’s
seat of justice; but this governor did not concern himself about it. His
abstaining from interfering in a religious controversy did credit to his
prudence; nevertheless, his name has oddly passed into a reproachful
proverb; and a man regardless of all piety is called “a Gallio,” and is
said “Gallio-like to care for none of these things.” Little did this
Roman anticipate that his name would be so immortalized.

GAMALIEL, a celebrated rabbi, and doctor of the Jewish law, under whose
tuition the great Apostle of the Gentiles was brought up, Acts xxii, 3.
Barnabas and Stephen are also supposed to have been among the number of
his pupils. Soon after the day of pentecost, when the Jewish sanhedrim
began to be alarmed at the progress the Gospel was making in Jerusalem,
and consequently wished to put to death the Apostles, in the hope of
checking its farther progress, they were apprehended and brought before
the national council, of which Gamaliel seems to have been a leading
member. It is very probable that many zealots among them would have
despatched the affair in a very summary manner, but their impetuosity
was checked by the cool and prudent advice of Gamaliel; for, having
requested the Apostles to withdraw for a while, he represented to the
sanhedrim that, if the Apostles were no better than impostors, their
fallacy would quickly be discovered; but on the other hand, if what they
were engaged in was from God, it was vain for them to attempt to
frustrate it, since it was the height of folly to contend with the
Almighty. The assembly saw the wisdom of his counsel, and very prudently
changed the sentence, upon which they were originally bent against the
Apostles’ lives, into that of corporal punishment.

2. It may here also be remarked, that the sanhedrim could not themselves
believe that tale which they had diligently circulated among the people,
that the disciples had stolen away the body of Jesus, and then pretended
that he had arisen from the dead. If the Jewish council had thought
this, it would have been very absurd in Gamaliel to exhort them to wait
to see whether “the counsel and work” was of God, that is, whether the
Apostles related a fact when they preached the resurrection, and
grounded the divine authority of their religion upon that fact.
Gamaliel’s advice was wholly based upon the admission, that an
extraordinary, and to them an inexplicable, event had happened.

GAMES. Games and combats were instituted by the ancients in honour of
their gods; and were celebrated with that view by the most polished and
enlightened nations of antiquity. The most renowned heroes, legislators,
and statesmen, did not think it unbecoming their character and dignity,
to mingle with the combatants, or contend in the race; they even
reckoned it glorious to share in the exercises, and meritorious to carry
away the prize. The victors were crowned with a wreath of laurel in
presence of their country; they were celebrated in the rapturous
effusions of their poets; they were admired, and almost adored, by the
innumerable multitudes which flocked to the games, from every part of
Greece, and many of the adjacent countries. They returned to their own
homes in a triumphal chariot, and made their entrance into their native
city, not through the gates which admitted the vulgar throng, but
through a breach in the walls, which were broken down to give them
admission; and at the same time to express the persuasion of their
fellow citizens, that walls are of small use to a city defended by men
of such tried courage and ability. Hence the surprising ardour which
animated all the states of Greece to imitate the ancient heroes, and
encircle their brows with wreaths, which rendered them still more the
objects of admiration or envy to succeeding times, than the victories
they had gained, or the laws they had enacted.

2. But the institutors of those games and combats had higher and nobler
objects in view than veneration for the mighty dead, or the
gratification of ambition or vanity; it was their design to prepare the
youth for the profession of arms; to confirm their health; to improve
their strength, their vigour, and activity; to inure them to fatigue;
and to render them intrepid in close fight, where, in the infancy of the
art of war, muscular force commonly decided the victory. This statement
accounts for the striking allusions which the Apostle Paul makes in his
epistles to these celebrated exercises. Such references were calculated
to touch the heart of a Greek, and of every one familiarly acquainted
with them, in the liveliest manner, as well as to place before the eye
of his mind the most glowing and correct images of spiritual and divine
things. No passages in the nervous and eloquent epistles from the pen of
St. Paul, have been more admired by the critics and expositors of all
times, than those into which some allusion to these agonistic exercises
is introduced; and, perhaps, none are calculated to leave a deeper
impression on the Christian’s mind, or excite a stronger and more
salutary influence on his actions. Certain persons were appointed to
take care that all things were done according to custom, to decide
controversies that happened among the antagonists, and to adjudge the
prize to the victor. Some eminent writers are of opinion that Christ is
called the “Author and Finisher of faith,” in allusion to these judges.
Those who were designed for the profession of _athletæ_, or combatants,
frequented from their earliest years the academies maintained for that
purpose at the public expense. In these places they were exercised under
the direction of different masters, who employed the most effectual
methods to inure their bodies for the fatigues of the public games, and
to form them for the combats. The regimen to which they submitted was
very hard and severe. At first, they had no other nourishment than dried
figs, nuts, soft cheese, and a gross heavy sort of bread called μάζα;
they were absolutely forbidden the use of wine, and enjoined continence.
When they proposed to contend in the Olympian games, they were obliged
to repair to the public gymnasium at Elis, ten months before the
solemnity, where they prepared themselves by continual exercises. No man
that had omitted to present himself at the appointed time, was allowed
to be a candidate for the prizes; nor were the accustomed rewards of
victory given to such persons, if by any means they insinuated
themselves, and overcame their antagonists; nor would any apology,
though seemingly ever so reasonable, serve to excuse their absence. No
person that was himself a notorious criminal, or nearly related to one,
was permitted to contend. Farther, to prevent underhand dealings, if any
person was convicted of bribing his adversary, a severe fine was laid
upon him; nor was this alone thought a sufficient guard against unfair
contracts, and unjust practices, but the contenders were obliged to
swear they had spent ten whole months in preparatory exercises; and,
beside all this, they, their fathers, and their brethren, took a solemn
oath, that they would not, by any sinister or unlawful means, endeavour
to stop the fair and just proceedings of the games.

3. The spiritual contest, in which all true Christians aim at obtaining
a heavenly crown, has its rules also, devised and enacted by infinite
wisdom and goodness, which require implicit and exact submission, which
yield neither to times nor circumstances, but maintain their supreme
authority, from age to age, uninterrupted and unimpaired. The combatant
who violates these rules forfeits the prize, and is driven from the
field with indelible disgrace, and consigned to everlasting wo. Hence
the great Apostle of the Gentiles exhorts his son Timothy strictly to
observe the precepts of the Gospel, without which, he can no more hope
to obtain the approbation of God, and the possession of the heavenly
crown, than a combatant in the public games of Greece, who disregarded
the established rules, could hope to receive from the hands of his judge
the promised reward: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he
not crowned except he strive lawfully,” 2 Tim. ii, 5, or according to
the established laws of the games. Like the Grecian combatants, the
Christian must “abstain from fleshly lusts,” and “walk in all the
statutes and commandments of the Lord, blameless.” Such was St. Paul;
and in this manner he endeavoured to act: “But I keep under my body, and
bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached
to others, I myself should be a cast-away,” 1 Cor. ix, 27. The latter
part of this verse Doddridge renders, “lest after having served as a
herald I should be disapproved;” and says in a note, “I thought it of
importance to retain the primitive sense of these gymnastic
expressions.” It is well known to those who are at all acquainted with
the original, that the word used means to discharge the office of a
herald, whose business it was to proclaim the conditions of the games,
and display the prizes, to awaken the emulation and resolution of those
who were to contend in them. But the Apostle intimates, that there was
this peculiar circumstance attending the Christian contest, that the
person who proclaimed its laws and rewards to others, was also to engage
in it himself; and that there would be a peculiar infamy and misery in
his miscarrying. Ἀδόκιμος, which we render _cast-away_, signifies one
who is disapproved by the judge of the games, as not having fairly
deserved the prize: he therefore loses it; even the prize of eternal
life. The rule which the Apostle applies to himself he extends in
another passage to all the members of the Christian church: “Those who
strive for the mastery are temperate in all things; now they do it to
obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.” Tertullian uses
the same thought to encourage the martyrs. He urges constancy upon them,
from what the hopes of victory made the _athletæ_ endure; and repeats
the severe and painful exercises they were obliged to undergo, the
continual anguish and constraint in which they passed the best years of
their lives, and the voluntary privation which they imposed on
themselves, of all that was most grateful to their appetites and
passions.

4. The _athletæ_ took care to disencumber their bodies of every article
of clothing which could in any manner hinder or incommode them. In the
race, they were anxious to carry as little weight as possible, and
uniformly stripped themselves of all such clothes as, by their weight,
length, or otherwise, might entangle or retard them in the course. The
Christian also must “lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so
easily beset” him, Heb. xii, 1. In the exercise of faith and
self-denial, he must “cast off the works of darkness,” lay aside all
malice and guile, hypocrisies, and envyings, and evil speakings,
inordinate affections, and worldly cares, and whatever else might
obstruct his holy profession, damp his spirits, and hinder his progress
in the paths of righteousness.

5. The foot race seems to have been placed in the first rank of public
games, and cultivated with a care and industry proportioned to the
estimation in which it was held. The Olympic games generally opened with
races, and were celebrated at first with no other exercise. The lists or
course where the _athletæ_ exercised themselves in running, was at first
but one stadium in length, or about six hundred feet; and from this
measure it took its name, and was called the _stadium_, whatever might
be its extent. This, in the language of St. Paul, speaking of the
Christian’s course, was “the race which was set before them,” determined
by public authority, and carefully measured. On each side of the stadium
and its extremity, ran an ascent or kind of terrace, covered with seats
and benches, upon which the spectators were seated, an innumerable
multitude collected from all parts of Greece, to which the Apostle thus
alludes in his figurative description of the Christian life: “Seeing we
are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside
every weight,” Heb. xii, 1.

The most remarkable parts of the stadium were its entrance, middle, and
extremity. The entrance was marked at first only by a line drawn on the
sand, from side to side of the stadium. To prevent any unfair advantage
being taken by the more vigilant or alert candidates, a cord was at
length stretched in front of the horses or men that were to run; and
sometimes the space was railed in with wood. The opening of this
barrier, was the signal for the racers to start. The middle of the
stadium was remarkable, only by the circumstance of having the prizes
allotted to the victors set up there. From this custom, Crysostom draws
a fine comparison: “As the judges in the races and other games, expose
in the midst of the stadium, to the view of the champions, the crowns
which they were to receive; in like manner, the Lord, by the mouth of
his prophets, has placed the prizes in the midst of the course, which he
designs for those who have the courage to contend for them.” At the
extremity of the stadium was a goal, where the foot races ended; but in
those of chariots and horses, they were to run several times round it
without stopping, and afterward conclude the race by regaining the other
extremity of the lists from whence they started. It is therefore to the
foot race the Apostle alludes, when he speaks of the race set before the
Christian, which was a straight course, to be run only once, and not, as
in the other, several times without stopping.

6. According to some writers, it was at the goal, and not in the middle
of the course, that the prizes were exhibited; and they were placed in a
very conspicuous situation, that the competitors might be animated by
having them always in their sight. This accords with the view which the
Apostle gives of the Christian life: “Brethren, I count not myself to
have apprehended; but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which
are behind, and reaching forth unto those things, which are before, I
press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ
Jesus,” Phil. iii, 13, 14. L’Enfant thinks, the Apostle here alludes to
those who stood at the elevated place at the end of the course, calling
the racers by their names, and encouraging them by holding out the
crown, to exert themselves with vigour. Within the measured and
determinate limits of the stadium, the _athletæ_ were bound to contend
for the prize, which they forfeited without hope of recovery, if they
deviated ever so little from the appointed course.

7. The honours and rewards granted to the victors were of several kinds.
They were animated in their course by the rapturous applauses of the
countless multitudes that lined the stadium, and waited the issue of the
contest with eager anxiety; and their success was instantly followed by
reiterated and long continued plaudits; but these were only a prelude to
the appointed rewards, which, though of little value in themselves, were
accounted the highest honour to which a mortal could aspire. These
consisted of different wreaths of wild olive, pine, parsley, or laurel,
according to the different places where the games were celebrated. After
the judges had passed sentence, a public herald proclaimed the name of
the victor; one of the judges put the crown upon his head, and a branch
of palm into his right hand, which he carried as a token of victorious
courage and perseverance. As he might be victor more than once in the
same games, and sometimes on the same day, he might also receive several
crowns and palms. When the victor had received his reward, a herald,
preceded by a trumpet, conducted him through the stadium, and proclaimed
aloud his name and country; while the delighted multitudes, at the sight
of him, redoubled their acclamations and applauses.

8. The crown in the Olympic games was of wild olive; in the Pythian, of
laurel; in the Isthmian or Corinthian, of pine tree; and in the Nemæan,
of smallage or parsley. Now, most of these were evergreens; yet they
would soon grow dry, and crumble into dust. Elsner produces many
passages in which the contenders in these exercises are rallied by the
Grecian wits, on account of the extraordinary pains they took for such
trifling rewards; and Plato has a celebrated passage, which greatly
resembles that of the Apostle, but by no means equals it in force and
beauty: “Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an
incorruptible.” The Christian is thus called to fight the good fight of
faith, and to lay hold of eternal life; and to this he is more
powerfully stimulated by considering that the ancient _athletæ_ took all
their care and pains only for the sake of obtaining a garland of
flowers, or a wreath of laurel, which quickly fades and perishes,
possessed little intrinsic value, and only served to nourish their pride
and vanity, without imparting any solid advantage to themselves or
others; but that which is placed in the view of the spiritual
combatants, to animate their exertions, and reward their labours, is no
less than a crown of glory which never decays; “an inheritance
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven
for them,” 1 Pet. i, 4; v, 4. But the victory sometimes remained
doubtful, in consequence of which a number of competitors appeared
before the judges, and claimed the prize. The candidates who were
rejected on such occasions by the judge of the games, as not having
fairly merited the prize, were called by the Greeks ἀδοκιμοί, or
_disapproved_, which we render _cast away_, in a passage already quoted
from St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: “But I keep under my
body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be, ἀδόκιμος, cast away,” rejected
by the Judge of all the earth, and disappointed of my expected crown.
What has been observed concerning the spirit and ardour with which the
competitors engaged in the race, and concerning the prize they had in
view to reward their arduous contention, will illustrate the following
sublime passage of the same sacred writer in his Epistle to the
Philippians: “Not as though I had already attained, either were already
perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also
I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have
apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are
behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press
toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ
Jesus,” Phil. iii, 12–14. The affecting passage, also, of the same
Apostle, in the Second Epistle of Timothy, written a little before his
martyrdom, is beautifully allusive to the above-mentioned race, to the
crown that awaited the victory, and to the Hellanodics or judges who
bestowed it: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I
have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at
that day: and not to me only, but to all them also that love his
appearing,” 2 Tim. iv, 8.

GARDENS. In the language of the Hebrews, every place where plants and
trees were cultivated with greater care than in the open field, was
called a garden. The idea of such an enclosure was certainly borrowed
from the garden of Eden, which the bountiful Creator planted for the
reception of our first parents. Beside, the gardens of primitive nations
were commonly, if not in every instance, devoted to religious purposes.
In these shady retreats were celebrated, for a long succession of ages,
the rites of Pagan superstition. Thus Jehovah calls the apostate Jews,
“a people that provoketh me continually to anger to my face, that
sacrificeth in gardens,” Isa. lxv, 3. And in a preceding chapter, the
prophet threatens them in the name of the Lord: “They shall be ashamed
of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the
gardens which ye have chosen.” The oriental gardens were either open
plantations, or enclosures defended by walls or hedges. Some fences in
the Holy Land, in later times, are not less beautiful than our living
fences of white thorn; and perfectly answer the description of ancient
Jewish prophets, who inform us that the hedges in their times consisted
of thorns, and that the spikes of these thorny plants were exceedingly
sharp. Doubdan found a very fruitful vineyard, full of olives, fig
trees, and vines, about eight miles south-west from Bethlehem, enclosed
with a hedge; and that part of it adjoining to the road, strongly formed
of thorns and rose bushes, intermingled with pomegranate trees of
surpassing beauty and fragrance. A hedge composed of rose bushes and
wild pomegranate shrubs, then in full flower, mingled with other thorny
plants, adorned in the varied livery of spring, must have made at once a
strong and beautiful fence. The wild pomegranate tree, the species
probably used in fencing, is much more prickly than the other variety;
and when mingled with other thorny bushes, of which they have several
kinds in Palestine, some of whose prickles are very long and sharp, must
form a hedge very difficult to penetrate. These facts illustrate the
beauty and force of several passages in the sacred volume: thus, in the
Proverbs of Solomon, “The way of the slothful man is as a hedge of
thorns,” Prov. xv, 19; it is obstructed with difficulties, which the
sloth and indolence of his temper represent as galling or insuperable;
but which a moderate share of resolution and perseverance would easily
remove or surmount. In the prophecies of Hosea, God threatens his
treacherous and idolatrous people with many painful embarrassments and
perplexities, which would as effectually retard or obstruct their
progress in the paths of wickedness, as a hedge of thorny plants
stretching across the traveller’s way, the prosecution of his journey:
“Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a
wall, that she shall not find her paths,” Hosea ii, 6. In the days of
Micah, the magistrates of Judah had become exceedingly corrupt: “The
best of them is a brier; the most upright is sharper than a thorn
hedge;” to appear before their tribunal, or to have any dealings with
them, was to involve one’s self in endless perplexities, and to be
exposed to galling disappointments, if not to certain destruction. They
resembled those thorny plants which are twisted together, whose spines
point in every direction, and are so sharp and strong that they cannot
be touched without danger, and so entangling that when the traveller has
with much pain and exertion freed himself from one, he is instantly
seized by another. “But the sons of Belial,” said the king of Israel,
“shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be
taken with hands: but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with
iron, and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with
fire in the same place,” 2 Sam. xxiii, 6, 7. Other enclosures had fences
of loose stones, or mud walls, some of them very low, which often
furnished a retreat to venomous reptiles. To this circumstance the royal
preacher alludes, in his observations of wisdom and folly: “He that
diggeth a pit, shall fall into it: and whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent
shall bite him,” Eccles. x, 8. The term which our translators render
_hedge_ in this passage, they might with more propriety have rendered
_wall_, as they had done in another part of the writings of Solomon: “I
went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void
of understanding; and lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles
had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken
down,” Proverbs xxiv, 30.

2. The land of promise has been, from the earliest ages, an unenclosed
country, with a few spots defended by a hedge of thorny plants, or a
stone wall built without any cement. At Aleppo, most of the vineyards
are fenced with stone walls; for in many parts of Syria a hedge would
not grow for want of moisture. But, as their various esculent vegetables
are now not unfrequently planted in the open fields, both in Syria and
Palestine, so Chardin seems to suppose they were often unfenced in
ancient times; and, on this account, those lodges and booths, to which
Isaiah refers, in the first chapter of his prophecy, were built. In
Hindostan they follow the same custom. At the commencement of the rainy
season, the peasants plant abundance of melons, cucumbers, and gourds,
which are then the principal food of the inhabitants. They are planted
in the open fields and extensive plains, and are therefore liable to the
depredations of men and beasts. In the centre of the field is an
artificial mount, with a hut on the top, sufficiently large to shelter a
single person from the inclemency of the weather. There, amid heavy
rains and tempestuous winds, a poor solitary being is stationed day and
night to protect the crop. From thence he gives an alarm to the nearest
village. Few situations can be more unpleasant than a hovel of this
kind, exposed for three or four months to wind, lightning, and rain. To
such a cheerless station the prophet no doubt alludes, in that passage
where he declares the desolations of Judah: “The daughter of Zion is
left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,”
Isa. i, 8. If such watch houses were necessary in those gardens which
were defended by walls or hedges, some of which, indeed, it was not
difficult to get over, they must have been still more necessary in those
which were perfectly open.

3. The oriental garden displays little method, or design; the whole
being commonly no more than a confused medley of fruit trees, with beds
of esculent plants, and even plots of wheat and barley sometimes
interspersed. The garden belonging to the governor of Eleus, a Turkish
town on the western border of the Hellespont, which Dr. Chandler
visited, consisted only of a very small spot of ground, walled in, and
containing only two vines, a fig and a pomegranate tree, and a well of
excellent water. And, it would seem, the garden of an ancient Israelite
could not boast of greater variety; for the grape, the fig, and the
pomegranate, are almost the only fruits which it produced. This fact may
perhaps give us some insight into the reason of the sudden and
irresistible conviction which flashed on the mind of Nathanael, when our
Saviour said to him, “When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.”
The good man seems to have been engaged in devotional exercises in a
small retired garden, walled in, and concealed from the scrutinizing
eyes of men. The place was so small, that he was perfectly certain no
man but himself was there; and so completely defended, that none could
break through, or look over, the fence; and, by consequence, that no eye
was upon him, but the all-seeing eye of God; and, therefore, since
Christ saw him there, Nathanael knew he could be no other than the Son
of God, and the promised Messiah.

GARLICK, שום. As this word occurs only in Numbers xi, 5, some doubts
have arisen respecting the plant intended. From its being coupled with
leeks and onions, there can be but little doubt that the garlick is
meant. The Talmudists frequently mention the use of this plant among the
Jews, and their fondness for it. That garlicks grew plenteously in
Egypt, is asserted by Dioscorides: there they were much esteemed, and
were both eaten and worshipped:--

            “Then gods were recommended by their taste.
            Such savoury deities must needs be good,
            Which served at once for worship and for food.”

GARMENT. See HABITS.

GATE is often used in Scripture to denote a place of public assembly,
where justice was administered, Deut. xvii, 5, 8; xxi, 19; xxii, 15;
xxv, 6, 7, &c. One instance of these judgments appears in that given at
the gate of Bethlehem, between Boaz and a relation of Naomi, on the
subject of Ruth, chap. iv, 2; another in Abraham’s purchase of a field
to bury Sarah, Gen. xxiii, 10, 18. The gate of judgment is a term still
common to the Arabians to express a court of justice, and even
introduced by the Saracens into Spain. “I had several times,” says
Jacob, “visited the Alhambra, the ancient palace and fortress of the
Moorish kings: it is situated on the top of a hill, overlooking the
city, and is surrounded by a wall of great height and thickness. The
entrance is through an archway, over which is carved a key, the symbol
of the Mohammedan monarchs. This gate, called the gate of judgment,
according to eastern forms, was the place where the kings administered
justice.” In Morocco, the gate is still the place where judgment is
held. “All complaints,” says Host, “are brought, in the first instance,
to the cadi, or governor, who, for that purpose, passes certain hours of
the day in the gate of the city, partly for the sake of the fresh air,
and partly to see all those who go out; and, lastly, to observe a custom
which has long prevailed, of holding judgment there. The gate is
contrived accordingly, being built like a square chamber, with two
doors, which are not directly opposite to each other, but on two
adjoining sides, with seats on the other sides. In this manner David sat
between two gates,” 2 Sam. xviii, 24. Gate sometimes signifies power,
dominion, almost in the same sense as the Turkish emperor’s palace is
called the _Porte_. God promises Abraham that his posterity shall
possess the gates of their enemies, their towns, their fortresses,
Genesis xxii, 17. Jesus Christ says to Peter, “Thou art Peter; and on
this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it,” Matt. xvi, 18. This may mean either the powers of
hell, or invisible spirits; or simply death,--the church shall be
replenished by living members from generation to generation, so that
death shall never annihilate it.

Solomon says, “He that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction.” The Arabs
are accustomed to ride into the houses of those they design to harass.
To prevent this, Thevenot tells us that the door of the house in which
the French merchants live at Rama was not three feet high, and that all
the doors of that town are equally low. Agreeably to this account, the
Abbé Mariti, speaking of his admission into a monastery near Jerusalem,
says, “The passage is so low, that it will scarcely admit a horse; and
it is shut by a gate of iron, strongly secured in the inside. As soon as
we entered, it was again made fast with various bolts and bars of iron:
a precaution extremely necessary in a desert place, exposed to the
incursions, and insolent attacks of the Arabs.” Mr. Drummond says, that
in the country about Roudge, in Syria, “the poor miserable Arabs are
under the necessity of hewing their houses out of the rock, and cutting
very small doors or openings to them, that they may not be made stables
for the Turkish horse, as they pass and repass.” And thus, long before
him, Sandys, at Gaza, in Palestine: “We lodged under an arch in a little
court, together with our asses; the door exceeding low, as are all that
belong unto Christians, to withstand the sudden entrance of the insolent
Turks.” “To exalt the gate,” would consequently be to court destruction.
Morier says, “A poor man’s door is scarcely three feet in height; and
this is a precautionary measure to hinder the servants of the great from
entering it on horseback; which, when any act of oppression is intended,
they would make no scruple to do. But the habitation of a man in power
is known by his gate, which is generally elevated in proportion to the
vanity of its owner. A lofty gate is one of the insignia of royalty:
such is the _Allan Capi_, at Ispahan, and _Bob Homayan_, or the _Sublime
Porte_, at Constantinople. It must have been the same in ancient days;
the gates of Jerusalem, Zion, &c, are often mentioned in the Scripture,
with the same notion of grandeur annexed to them.”

GATH, the fifth of the Philistine cities. It was a place of strength in
the time of the prophets Amos and Micah, and is placed by Jerom on the
road between Eleutheropolis and Gaza. It appears to have been the
extreme boundary of the Philistine territory in one direction, as Ekron
was on the other. Hence the expression, “from Ekron even unto Gath,” 1
Sam. vii, 14.

GAULAN, or GOLAN, a city beyond Jordan, from which the small province
called Gaulonitis took its name. It was given to the half tribe of
Manasseh, on the other side Jordan, Deut. iv, 43; and became a city of
refuge, Joshua xxi, 27.

GAZA, a city of the Philistines, made by Joshua part of the tribe of
Judah. It was one of the five principalities of the Philistines,
situated toward the southern extremity of the promised land, 1 Sam. vi,
17, between Raphia and Askelon. The advantageous situation of Gaza was
the cause of the numerous revolutions which it underwent. It first of
all belonged to the Philistines, and then to the Hebrews. It recovered
its liberty in the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, and was reconquered by
Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii, 8. It was subject to the Chaldeans, who
conquered Syria and Phenicia. Afterward, it fell into the hands of the
Persians. It must have been a place of considerable strength. For two
months it baffled all the efforts of Alexander the Great, who was
repeatedly repulsed, and wounded in the siege; which he afterward
revenged in a most infamous manner on the person of the gallant defender
Betis, whom, while yet alive, having ordered his ankles to be bored, he
dragged round the walls, tied to his chariot wheels, in the barbarous
parade of imitating the less savage treatment of the corpse of Hector by
Achilles.

Dr. Wittman gives the following description of his visit to Gaza: “In
pursuing our route toward this place, the view became still more
interesting and agreeable: the groves of olive trees extending from the
place where we had halted to the town, in front of which a fine avenue
of these trees was planted. Gaza is situated on an eminence, and is
rendered picturesque by the number of fine minarets which rise
majestically above the buildings, and by the beautiful date trees which
are interspersed. The suburbs of Gaza are composed of wretched mud huts;
but within side the town the buildings make a much better appearance
than those we had generally met with in Syria. The streets are of a
moderate breadth. Many fragments of statues, columns, &c, of marble were
seen in the walls and buildings in different parts of the town. The
suburbs and environs of Gaza are rendered infinitely agreeable by a
number of large gardens, cultivated with the nicest care, which lie in a
direction north and south of the town; while others of the same
description run to a considerable distance westward. These gardens are
filled with a great variety of choice fruit trees, such as the fig, the
mulberry, the pomegranate, the apricot, the peach, and the almond;
together with a few lemon and orange trees. The numerous plantations of
olive and date trees which are interspersed contribute greatly to the
picturesque effect of the scene exhibited by the surrounding plains.
These, on our arrival, were overspread with flowers, the variegated
colours of which displayed every tint and every hue. Among these were
the chrysanthemum, scarlet ranunculus, lupin, pheasant-eye, tulip,
china-aster, dwarf-iris, lintel, daisy, &c, all of them growing wild and
abundantly, with the exception of the lupin, which was cultivated in
patches, regularly ploughed and sowed, with a view to collect the seeds,
which the inhabitants employ at their meals, more especially to thicken
their ragouts. The few corn fields, which lay at a distance, displayed
the promise of a rich golden harvest; and the view of the sea, distant
about a league, tended to diversify still more the animated features of
this luxuriant scene.” This and similar descriptions of modern
travellers, which are occasionally introduced into this work, are given
both as interesting in themselves, and to show that relics of the
ancient beauty and fertility of the Holy Land are still to be found in
many parts of it.

GEMARA. This word signifies _complement_, _perfection_. The rabbins call
the Pentateuch the law, without any addition. Next to this they have the
Talmud, which is divided into two parts: the first is only an
application of the law to particular cases, with the decision of the
ancient rabbins, and is called _mishnah_, or “second law:” the other
part, which is a more extensive application of the same law, is a
collection of determinations by rabbins, later than the _mishnah_. This
last is termed _gemara_, “perfection,” “finishing,” because they
consider it as a conclusive explanation of the law, to which no farther
additions can be made. There are two _gemaras_, or two Talmuds, that of
Jerusalem, and that of Babylon. The former was compiled, according to
the Jews, about the end of the second or third century, by a celebrated
rabbin, called Jochanan; but father Morinus maintains that the _gemara_
was not finished till about the seventh century. Dr. Prideaux says that
it was completed about A. D. 300. The Jews have little value for this
Jerusalem Talmud, on account of its obscurity. The Babylonish _gemara_
is, as the rabbins say, more modern. It was begun by a Jewish doctor,
named Asa, and continued by Marmar and Mar, his sons or disciples. The
Jews believe that the _gemara_ contains nothing but the word of God,
preserved in the tradition of the elders, and transmitted, without
alteration, from Moses to rabbi Judah, the holy, and the other compilers
of the Talmud; who did not reduce it to writing till they were afraid it
would be corrupted by the several transmigrations and persecutions to
which their nation was subjected.

GENEALOGY, γενεαλογία, signifies a list of a person’s ancestors. The
common Hebrew expression for it is _Sepher-Toledoth_, “the Book of
Generations.” No nation was ever more careful to preserve their
genealogies than the Jews. The sacred writings contain genealogies
extended three thousand five hundred years backward. The genealogy of
our Saviour is deduced by the evangelists from Adam to Joseph and Mary,
through a space of four thousand years and upward. The Jewish priests
were obliged to produce an exact genealogy of their families, before
they were admitted to exercise their function. Wherever placed, the Jews
were particularly careful not to marry below themselves; and to prevent
this, they kept tables of genealogy in their several families, the
originals of which were lodged at Jerusalem, to be occasionally
consulted. These authentic monuments, during all their wars and
persecutions, were taken great care of, and from time to time renewed.
But, since the last destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the
people, their ancient genealogies are lost. But to this the Jews reply,
that either Elias, or some other inspired priest or prophet, shall come,
and restore their genealogical tables before the Messiah’s appearance; a
tradition, which they ground on a passage in Nehemiah vii, 64, 65, to
this effect: the genealogical register of the families of certain
priests being lost, they were not able to make out their lineal descent
from Aaron; and therefore, “as polluted, were put from the priesthood;”
the “Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy
things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.” From hence
the Jews conclude, that such a priest will stand up, and restore and
complete the genealogies of their families: though others suppose these
words to import, that they should never exercise their priesthood any
more; and that, “till there shall stand up a priest with Urim and
Thummim,” amounts to the same as the Roman proverb, _ad Græcas
calendas_, [never,] since the Urim and Thummim were now absolutely and
for ever lost.

GENERATION. Beside the common acceptation of this word, as signifying
descent, it is used for the history and genealogy of any individual, as
“The book of the generations of Adam,” Genesis v, 1, the history of
Adam’s creation, and of his posterity. “The generations of the heavens
and of the earth,” Genesis ii, 4, is a recital of the creation of heaven
and earth. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of
David,” Matthew i, 1, is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and the history
of his life. The ancients sometimes computed by generations: “In the
fourth generation thy descendants shall come hither again,” Genesis xv,
16. “Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation,” Genesis 1,
23. “A bastard shall not be admitted into the congregation, till the
tenth generation,” Deut. xxiii, 2. Among the ancients, when the duration
of generations was not exactly described by the age of four men
succeeding one another from father to son, it was fixed by some at a
hundred years, by others at a hundred and ten, by others at
thirty-three, thirty, twenty-five, and even at twenty years; being
neither uniform nor settled: only, it is remarked, that a generation is
longer as it is more ancient.

GENESIS, a canonical book of the Old Testament, so called from the Greek
γενεσις, _genesis_, or _generation_, because it contains an account of
the origin of all visible things, and of the genealogy of the first
patriarchs. In the Hebrew it is called בראשית, which signifies, _in the
beginning_, because it begins with that word. See PENTATEUCH.

GENNESARETH, LAND OF, or GENNESAR, a small district of Galilee, supposed
to have been so called from its pleasantness, and extending about four
miles along the north-western shore of the sea of Galilee, or
Gennesareth, so called from this same region. It is more probable,
however, that Gennesareth is nothing more than a word moulded from
Cinnereth, the ancient name of a city and adjoining tract in this very
situation, as well as of the lake itself. This part of Galilee is
described by Josephus as possessing a singular fertility, with a
delightful temperature of the air, and abounding in the fruits of
different climates.

GENTILE. The Hebrews called the Gentiles גויים, ἔθνη, _the nations_,
that is, those who have not received the faith or law of God. All who
are not Jews, and circumcised, are _goiim_. Those who were converted,
and embraced Judaism, they called proselytes. Since the Gospel, the true
religion is not confined to any one nation or country, as heretofore,
God, who had promised by his prophets to call the Gentiles to the faith,
with a superabundance of grace, has fulfilled his promise; so that the
Christian church is now composed principally of Gentile converts; and
the Jews, too proud of their particular privileges, and abandoned to
their reprobate sense of things, have disowned Jesus Christ, their
Messiah and Redeemer, for whom, during so many ages, they had looked so
impatiently. In the writings of St. Paul, the Gentiles are generally
denoted as Greeks, Rom. i, 14, 16; ii, 9, 10; iii; x, 12; 1 Cor. i,
22–24; Gal. iii, 28. St. Luke, in the Acts, expresses himself in the
same manner, Acts vi, 1; xi, 20; xviii, &c.

2. St. Paul is commonly called the Apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. ii,
7, or Greeks; because he, principally, preached Jesus Christ to them;
whereas Peter, and the other Apostles, preached generally to the Jews,
and are called Apostles of the circumcision, Gal. ii, 8. The prophets
declared very particularly the calling of the Gentiles. Jacob foretold
that the Messiah, he who was to be sent, the Shiloh, should gather the
Gentiles to himself. Solomon, at the dedication of his temple, prays for
“the stranger” who should there entreat God. The Psalmist says, that the
Lord would give the Gentiles to the Messiah for his inheritance; that
Egypt and Babylon shall know him; that Ethiopia shall hasten to bring
him presents; that the kings of Tarshish, and of the isles, the kings of
Arabia and Sheba, shall be tributary to him, Psalm ii, 8; lxvii, 4;
lxxii, 9, 10. Isaiah abounds with prophecies of the like nature, on
which account he has justly been distinguished by the name of “the
prophet of the Gentiles.”

GENTILES, COURT OF THE. Josephus says there was, in the court of the
temple, a wall, or balustrade, breast-high, with pillars at particular
distances, and inscriptions on them in Greek and Latin, importing that
strangers were forbidden from entering farther; here their offerings
were received, and sacrifices were offered for them, they standing at
the barrier; but they were not allowed to approach to the altar. Pompey,
nevertheless, went even into the sanctuary, but behaved with strict
decorum; and the next day he commanded the temple to be purified, and
the customary sacrifices to be offered. A little before the last
rebellion of the Jews, some mutineers would have persuaded the priests
to accept no victim not presented by a Jew; and obliged them to reject
those which were offered by command of the emperor, for the Roman
people. The wisest in vain remonstrated with them on the danger this
would bring on their country; urged that their ancestors had never
rejected the presents of Gentiles; and that the temple was mostly
adorned with the offerings of such people; at the same time, the most
learned priests, who had spent their whole lives in the study of the
law, testified that their forefathers had always received the sacrifices
of strangers.

From the above particulars, we learn the meaning of what the Apostle
Paul calls “the middle wall of partition,” between Jews and Gentiles
broken down by the Gospel.

GERAR, a royal city of the Philistines, situate not far from the angle
where the south and west sides of Palestine meet.

GERIZIM, a mount near Shechem, in Ephraim, a province of Samaria.
Shechem lay at the foot of two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim. Gerizim was
fruitful, Ebal was barren. God commanded that the Hebrews, after passing
the Jordan, should be so divided, that six tribes might be stationed on
Mount Gerizim, and six on Mount Ebal. The former was to pronounce
blessings on those who observed the law of the Lord; the others, curses
against those who should violate it, Deut. xi, 29; xxvii, 12. As to the
original of the temple upon Gerizim, we must take Josephus’s relation of
it. Manasseh, the grandson of Eliashib, the high priest, and brother to
Jaddus, high priest of the Jews, having been driven from Jerusalem in
the year of the world 3671, and not enduring patiently to see himself
deprived of the honour and advantages of the priesthood, Sanballat, his
father-in-law, addressed himself to Alexander the Great, who was then
carrying on the siege of Tyre; and having paid him homage for the
province of Samaria, whereof he was governor, he farther offered him
eight thousand of his best troops, which disposed Alexander to grant
what he desired for his son-in-law, and for many other priests, who
being married, as well as he, contrary to the law, chose rather to
forsake their country than their wives, and had joined Manasseh in
Samaria. When Antiochus Epiphanes began to persecute the Jews, A. M.
3836; B. C. 186, the Samaritans entreated him that their temple upon
Gerizim, which hitherto had been dedicated to an unknown and nameless
god, might be consecrated to Jupiter the Grecian, which was easily
consented to by Antiochus. The temple of Gerizim subsisted some time
after the worship of Jupiter was introduced into it; but it was
destroyed by John Hircanus Maccabæus, and was not rebuilt till Gabinius
was governor of Syria; who repaired Samaria, and called it by his own
name. It is certain, that, in our Saviour’s time, this temple was in
being; and that the true God was worshipped there, since the woman of
Samaria, pointing to Gerizim, said to him, “Our fathers worshipped in
this mountain, and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men
ought to worship,” John iv, 20. We are assured, that Herod the Great,
having rebuilt Samaria, and called it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus,
would have obliged the Samaritans to worship in the temple which he had
erected there, but they constantly refused.

GETHSEMANE. See OLIVES, _Mount of_.

GIANT, נפל, Greek, γίγας, _a monster_, _a terrible man_, a chief who
beats and bears down other men. Scripture speaks of giants before the
flood: “Nephilim, mighty men who were of old, men of renown,” Gen. vi,
4. Aquila translates nephilim, ἐπιπίπτοντες, _men who attack_, who fall
with impetuosity on their enemies, which renders very well the force of
the term. Symmachus translates it βιαίοι, _violent men_, cruel, whose
only rule of action is violence. Scripture sometimes calls giants
Rephaim: Chedorlaomer beat the Rephaim at Ashteroth-Karnaim. The Emim,
ancient inhabitants of Moab, were of a gigantic stature, that is,
Rephaim. The Rephaim and the Perizzites are connected as old inhabitants
of Canaan. The Rephaim in some parts of Scripture signify spirits in the
invisible world, in a state of misery. Job says that the ancient Rephaim
groan under the waters; and Solomon, that the ways of a loose woman lead
to the Rephaim; that he who deviates from the ways of wisdom, shall
dwell in the assembly of Rephaim, that is, in hell, Prov. ii, 18; iv,
18; xxi, 16, &c; Gen. xiv, 5; Deut. ii, 11, 20; iii, 11, 13; Joshua xii,
4; xiii, 12; Job xxvi, 5. The Anakim, or the sons of Anak, were the most
famous giants of Palestine. They dwelt at Hebron and thereabouts. The
Israelites sent to view the promised land reported, that, in comparison,
they themselves were but grasshoppers, Num. xiii, 33.

2. As to the existence of giants, several writers, both ancient and
modern, have thought that the giants of Scripture were men famous for
violence and crime, rather than for strength or stature. But it cannot
be denied, that there have been races of men of a stature much above
that common at present; although their size has often been absurdly
magnified. The ancients considered persons whose stature exceeded seven
feet as gigantic. Living giants have certainly been seen who were
somewhat taller; but the existence of those who greatly surpassed it, or
were double the height, has been inferred only from remains discovered
in the earth, but not from the ocular testimony of credible witnesses.
Were we to admit what has been reported on the subject, there would be
no bounds to the dimensions of giants; the earth would seem unsuitable
for them to tread upon. History, however, acquaints us that, in the
reign of Claudius, a giant named Galbara, ten feet high was brought to
Rome from the coast of Africa. An instance is cited by Goropius, an
author with whom we are otherwise unacquainted, of a female of equal
stature. A certain Greek sophist, Proæresius, is said to have been nine
feet in height. Julius Capitolinus affirms that Maximinian, the Roman
emperor was eight feet and a half; there was a Swede, one of the life
guards of Frederick the Great, of that size. M. Le Cat speaks of a giant
exhibited at Rouen, measuring eight feet and some inches; and we believe
some have been seen in this country, within the last thirty years, whose
stature was not inferior. In Plott’s “History of Staffordshire,” there
is an instance of a man of seven feet and a half high, and another, in
Thoresby’s account of Leeds, of seven feet five inches high. Examples
may be found elsewhere of several individuals seven feet in height,
below which, after the opinion of the ancients, we may cease to consider
men gigantic. Entire families sometimes, though rarely, occur of six
feet four, or six feet six inches high. From all this we may conclude,
that there may have possibly been seen some solitary instances of men
who were ten feet in height; that those of eight feet are extremely
uncommon, and that even six feet and a half far exceeds the height of
men in Europe. We may reasonably understand that the gigantic nations of
Canaan were above the average size of other people, with instances among
them of several families of gigantic stature. This is all that is
necessary to suppose, in order to explain the account of Moses; but the
notion that men have gradually degenerated in size has no foundation.
There is no evidence whatever, that the modern tribes of mankind have
thus degenerated. The catacombs of ancient Egypt and Palestine; the
cenotaph, if it be truly such, in the great pyramid; the tomb of
Alexander the Great, are all calculated for bodies of ordinary
dimensions. The truth is still more satisfactorily established from the
mummies which are yet withdrawn from their receptacles in Egypt, and the
caverns of the Canary Islands. In the most ancient sepulchres of
Britain, those apparently anterior to the introduction of Christianity,
no remains are discovered which indicate the larger stature of the
inhabitants than our own. In every part of the world domestic implements
and personal ornaments, many centuries old, are obtained from tombs,
from bogs and mosses, or those cities overwhelmed by volcanic eruptions,
which would be ill adapted to a gigantic race of ancestors.

GIBEON, the capital city of the Gibeonites, who took advantage of the
oaths of Joshua, and of the elders of Israel, procured by an artful
representation of their belonging to a very remote country, Joshua ix.
Joshua and the elders had not the precaution to consult God on this
affair, but inconsiderately made a league with these people. They soon
discovered their mistake, and, without revoking their promise of saving
their lives, they condemned them to labour in carrying wood and water
for the tabernacle; and to other works, as slaves and captives; in which
state of servitude they remained, till the entire dispersion of the
Jewish nation, A. M. 2553; B. C. 1451. Three days after the Gibeonites
had surrendered to the Hebrews, the kings of Canaan being informed of
it, five of them came and besieged the city of Gibeon. The Gibeonites
sent to Joshua, and desired speedy help. Joshua attacked the five kings
early in the morning, put them to flight, and pursued them to Bethoron,
Josh. x, 3, &c. The Gibeonites were descended from the Hivites, the old
inhabitants of the country, and possessed four cities: Cephirah,
Beeroth, Kirjath-jearim, and Gibeon, their capital; all afterward given
to Benjamin, except Kirjath-jearim, which fell to Judah. The Gibeonites
continued subject to those burdens which Joshua imposed on them, and
were very faithful to the Israelites. Nevertheless, Saul destroyed a
great number of them, 2 Sam. xxi, 1; but God, in the reign of David,
sent a great famine, which lasted three years, A. M. 2983; B. C. 1021;
and the prophets told David that this calamity would continue while
Saul’s cruelty remained unavenged. David asked the Gibeonites what
satisfaction they desired. They answered, “Seven of Saul’s sons we will
put to death, to avenge the blood of our brethren.” The Gibeonites
crucified them. From this time there is no mention of the Gibeonites as
a distinct people. But they were probably included among the Nethinim,
appointed for the service of the temple, 1 Chron. ix, 2. Afterward,
those of the Canaanites who were subdued, and had their lives spared,
were added to the Gibeonites. We see in Ezra viii, 20; ii, 58; 1 Kings
ix, 20, 21, that David, Solomon, and the princes of Judah, gave many
such to the Lord; these Nethinim being carried into captivity with Judah
and the Levites, many of them returned with Ezra, Zerubbabel, and
Nehemiah, and continued, as before, in the service of the temple, under
the priests and Levites. We neither know when, nor by whom, nor on what
occasion, the tabernacle and altar of burnt sacrifices, made by Moses in
the wilderness, were removed to Gibeon; but this we certainly know,
that, toward the end of David’s reign, and in the beginning of
Solomon’s, they were there, 1 Chron. xxi, 29, 30. David, seeing an angel
of the Lord at Araunah’s threshing floor, was so terrified, that he had
not time or strength to go so far as Gibeon to offer sacrifice; but
Solomon, being seated on the throne, went to sacrifice at Gibeon, 1
Kings iii, 4.

GIDEON, the son of Joash, of the tribe of Manasseh; the same with
Jerubbaal, the seventh judge of Israel. He dwelt in the city of Ophra,
and was chosen by God in a very extraordinary manner to deliver the
Israelites from the oppression of the Midianites, under which they had
laboured for the space of seven years. See Judges vi, 14–27; viii, 1–24,
&c.

GIER EAGLE, רחם, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 17. As the root of this word
signifies _tenderness_ and _affection_, it is supposed to refer to some
bird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some have thought
that the pelican is to be understood; and Bochart endeavours to prove
that the golden vulture is meant; but there can be no doubt that it is
the _percnopterus_ of the ancients, the _ach-bobba_ of the Arabians,
particularly described by Bruce under the name of _rachamah_. He says,
“We know from Horus Apollo, that the _rachma_, or she vulture, was
sacred to Isis, and adorned the statue of the goddess; that it was the
emblem of parental affection; and that it was the hieroglyphic for an
affectionate mother.” He farther says, that “this female vulture, having
hatched her young ones, continues with them one hundred and twenty days,
providing them with all necessaries; and, when the stock of food fails
them, she tears off the fleshy part of her thigh, and feeds them with
that and the blood which flows from the wound.”

Hasselquist thus describes the Egyptian vulture: “The appearance of the
bird is as horrid as can well be imagined. The face is naked and
wrinkled, the eyes are large and black, the beak black and crooked, the
talons large, and extended ready for prey, and the whole body polluted
with filth. These are qualities enough to make the beholder shudder with
horror. Notwithstanding this, the inhabitants of Egypt cannot be enough
thankful to Providence for this bird. All the places round Cairo are
filled with the dead bodies of asses and camels; and thousands of these
birds fly about and devour the carcasses, before they putrify and fill
the air with noxious exhalations.” No wonder that such an animal should
be deemed unclean.

GIFT OF TONGUES, an ability given to the Apostles and others of readily
and intelligibly speaking a variety of languages which they had never
learned. This was a glorious and decisive attestation to the Gospel, as
well as a suitable, and, indeed, in their circumstances, a necessary
qualification for the mission for which the Apostles and their
coadjutors were designed. Nor is there any reason, with Dr. Middleton,
to understand it as merely an occasional gift, so that a person might
speak a language most fluently one hour, and be entirely ignorant of it
the next; which neither agrees with what is said of the abuse of it, nor
would it have been sufficient to answer the end proposed, Acts ii. Some
appear to have been gifted with one tongue, others with more. To St.
Paul this endowment was vouchsafed in a more liberal degree, than to
many others; for, as to the Corinthians, who had received the gift of
tongues, he says, “that he spake with tongues more than they all.”

GIFTS. The practice of making presents is very common in oriental
countries. The custom probably had its origin among those men who first
sustained the office of kings or rulers, and who, from the novelty and
perhaps the weakness attached to their situation, chose, rather than
make the hazardous attempt of exacting taxes, to content themselves with
receiving those presents which might be freely offered, 1 Sam. x, 27.
Hence it passed into a custom, that whoever approached the king should
come with a gift. This was the practice and the expectation. The custom
of presenting gifts was subsequently extended to other great men; to men
who were inferior to the king, but who were, nevertheless, men of
influence and rank; it was also extended to those who were equals, when
they were visited, Proverbs xviii, 16. Kings themselves were in the
habit of making presents, probably in reference to the custom in
question and the feelings connected with it, to those individuals, their
inferiors in point of rank, whom they wished to honour, and also to
those who, like themselves, were clothed with the royal authority. These
presents, namely, such as were presented by the king as a token of the
royal esteem and honour, are almost invariably denominated in the
Hebrew, שחד and ברכה, 1 Kings xv, 19; 2 Kings xvi, 8; xviii, 14; Isaiah
xxxvi, 16. The more ancient prophets did not deem it discreditable to
them to receive presents, nor unbecoming their sacred calling, except
when, as was sometimes the case, they refused by way of expressing their
dissatisfaction or indignation, 2 Kings v, 15; viii, 9. In later times,
when false prophets, in order to obtain money, prophesied without truth
and without authority, the true prophets, for the purpose of keeping the
line of distinction as broad as possible, rejected every thing that
looked like reward. Gifts of this kind, that have now been described,
are not to be confounded with those which are called שחד, and which were
presented to judges, not as a mark of esteem and honour, but for
purposes of bribery and corruption. The former was considered an honour
to the giver, but a gift of the latter kind has been justly reprobated
in every age, Exod. xxii, 8; Deut. x, 17; xvi, 19; xxvii, 25; Psalm xv,
5; xxvi, 10; Isaiah i, 23; v, 23; xxxiii, 15. The giver was not
restricted as to the kind of present which he should make. He might
present not only silver and gold, but clothes and arms, also different
kinds of food, in a word any thing which could be of benefit to the
recipient, Gen. xliii, 11; 1 Sam. ix, 7; xvi, 20; Job xiii, 11. It was
the custom anciently, as it is at the present time in the east, for an
individual when visiting a person of high rank, to make some presents of
small value to the servants or domestics of the person visited, 1 Sam.
xxv, 27. It was the usual practice among kings and princes to present to
their favourite officers in the government, to ambassadors from foreign
courts, to foreigners of distinction, and to men eminent for their
learning, garments of greater or less value, Genesis xiv, 22, 23; Esther
viii, 15. The royal wardrobe, in which a large number of such garments
was kept, is denominated in Hebrew בגדים 2 Chronicles xxxiv, 22. It was
considered an honour of the highest kind, if a king or any person in
high authority thought it proper, as a manifestation of his favour, to
give away to another the garment which he had previously worn himself, 1
Sam. xviii, 4. In the east, at the present day, it is expected, that
every one who has received a garment from the king will immediately
clothe himself in it, and promptly present himself and render his homage
to the giver; otherwise he runs the hazard of exciting the king’s
displeasure, Matt. xxii, 11, 12. It was sometimes the case, that the
king, when he made a feast, presented vestments to all the guests who
were invited, with which they clothed themselves before they sat down to
it, 2 Kings x, 22; Gen. xlv, 22; Rev. iii, 5. In oriental countries, the
presents which are made to kings and princes are to this day carried on
beasts of burden, are attended with a body of men, and are escorted with
much pomp. It matters not how light or how small the present may be, it
must either be carried on the back of a beast of burden, or by a man,
who must support it with both his hands, Judges iii, 18; 2 Kings viii,
9.

GIHON, the name of one of the four rivers the source of which was in
paradise, Genesis ii, 13. (See _Eden_.) Reland, Calmet, &c, think that
Gihon is the Araxes, which has its source, as well as the Tigris and
Euphrates, in the mountains of Armenia, and, running with almost
incredible rapidity, falls into the Caspian Sea. Gihon was also the name
of a fountain to the west of Jerusalem, at which Solomon was anointed
king by the high priest Zadok, and the Prophet Nathan, 1 Kings i, 33.

GILBOA, MOUNT, a ridge of mountains on the north of Bethshan, or
Scythopolis, forming in that part the boundary of the plain of Jordan to
the west. It is memorable from the defeat of Saul by the Philistines;
when his three sons were slain, and he himself died by his own hand, his
armourbearer refusing to kill him, 1 Sam. xxxi.

GILEAD, the name given to the monument erected by Laban and Jacob, in
testimony of a mutual covenant and agreement, Gen. xxxi, 47, 48. Hence
the hill upon which it was erected, was called Mount Gilead, Cant. iv,
1; vi, 5; Jer. 1, 19. The mountains of Gilead were part of that ridge of
mountains which extend from Mount Lebanon southward, on the east of the
Holy land; they gave their name to the whole country which lies on the
east of the sea of Galilee, and included the mountainous region called
in the New Testament Trachonitis. The Scripture speaks of the balm of
Gilead, Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8. The merchants who bought Joseph
came from Gilead, and were carrying balm into Egypt, Gen. xxxvii, 25.
See BALM.

GILGAL, a celebrated place situated on the west of Jordan, where the
Israelites encamped some time after their passage over that river, and
where Joshua pitched twelve stones taken out of Jordan as a memorial. A
considerable city was afterward built there, which became renowned for
many events recorded in the history of the Jews. Gilgal was about a
league from Jordan, and at an equal distance from Jericho. It received
its name from the circumstance of the Hebrews being there circumcised;
for when by divine command that rite had been performed upon them, the
Lord said, “This day have I rolled away from off you the reproach of
Egypt,” Joshua v, 2–4, &c.--The word Gilgal signifies _rolling_. Here
the ark was long stationed, and consequently the place was much resorted
to by the Israelites. It seems to have been the place in which Jeroboam
or some of the kings of Israel instituted idolatrous worship; and hence
the allusions to it by the prophets, Hosea iv, 15; Amos iv, 4. It is
probable that there were idols at Gilgal as early as the days of Ehud,
who was one of the judges; for it is said that, having delivered his
presents to the king, “Ehud went away, but returned again from the
quarries that were by Gilgal,” Judges iii, 19. The margin of our Bibles
reads, “the graven images,” or idols set up by the Moabites, the viewing
of which, it is thought, stirred up Ehud to revenge the affront thereby
offered to the God of Israel. At this same place, the people met to
confirm the kingdom to Saul, 1 Sam. xi, 14, 15. It was at Gilgal, too,
that Saul incurred the divine displeasure, in offering sacrifice before
Samuel arrived, 1 Sam. xiii; and there also it was that he received the
sentence of his rejection for disobeying the divine command, and sparing
the king of Amalek with the spoils which he had reserved, 1 Sam. xv.

It has been supposed that the setting up of stones, as at Gilgal and
other places, gave rise to the rude stone circular temples of the
Druids, and other Heathens. The idea, however, appears fanciful, and
there is an essential difference between stones erected for memorials,
and those used to mark sacred, or supposed sacred, places for worship.

GIRDLE. The girdle is an indispensable article in the dress of an
oriental: it has various uses; but the principal one is to tuck up their
long flowing vestments, that they may not incommode them in their work,
or on a journey. The Jews, according to some writers, wore a double
girdle, one of greater breadth, with which they girded their tunic when
they prepared for active exertions: the other they wore under their
shirt, around their loins. This under girdle they reckon necessary to
distinguish between the heart and the less honourable parts of the human
frame. The upper girdle was sometimes made of leather, the material of
which the girdle of John the Baptist was made; but it was more commonly
fabricated of worsted, often very artfully woven into a variety of
figures, and made to fold several times about the body; one end of which
being doubled back, and sewn along the edges, serves them for a purse,
agreeably to the acceptation of ζώνη, in the Scriptures, which is
translated _purse_, in several places of the New Testament, Matt. x, 9;
Mark vi, 8. The ancient Romans, in this, as in many other things,
imitated the orientals; for their soldiers, and probably all classes of
the citizens, used to carry their money in their girdles. Whence, in
Horace, _qui zonam perdidit_, means one who had lost his purse; and
Aulus Gellius, C. Gracchus is introduced, saying, “Those girdles which I
carried out full of money when I went from Rome, I have, at my return
from the province, brought again empty.” The Turks make a farther use of
these girdles, by fixing their knives and poinards in them; while the
writers and secretaries suspend in them their ink-horns; a custom as old
as the Prophet Ezekiel, who mentions “a person clothed in white linen,
with an ink-horn upon his loins,” Ezek. ix, 2. That part of the
ink-holder which passes between the girdle and the tunic, and receives
their pens, is long and flat; but the vessel for the ink, which rests
upon the girdle, is square, with a lid to clasp over it.

2. To loose the girdle and give it to another was, among the orientals,
a token of great confidence and affection. Thus, to ratify the covenant
which Jonathan made with David, and to express his cordial regard for
his friend, among other things, he gave him his girdle. A girdle
curiously and richly wrought was among the ancient Hebrews a mark of
honour, and sometimes bestowed as a reward of merit; for this was the
recompense which Joab declared he meant to bestow on the man who put
Absalom to death: “Why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and
I would have given thee ten shekels of silver, and a girdle,” 2 Samuel
xviii, 11. The reward was certainly meant to correspond with the
importance of the service which he expected him to perform, and the
dignity of his own station as commander in chief: we may, therefore,
suppose that the girdle promised was not a common one of leather, or
plain worsted, but of costly materials and richly adorned; for people of
rank and fashion in the east wear very broad girdles, all of silk, and
superbly ornamented with gold and silver, and precious stones, of which
they are extremely proud, regarding them as the tokens of their superior
station and the proof of their riches. “To gird up the loins” is to
bring the flowing robe within the girdle, and so to prepare for a
journey, or for some vigorous exercise.

GLASS, ὕαλος. This word occurs Rev. xxi, 18, 21; and the adjective
ὑάλινος, Rev. iv, 6; xv, 2. Parkhurst says that in the later Greek
writers, and in the New Testament, ὕαλος denotes the artificial
substance, _glass_; and that we may either with Mintert derive it from
ἕλη, _splendour_, or immediately from the Hebrew הל, _to shine_. There
seems to be no reference to glass in the Old Testament. The art of
making it was not known. Our translators have rendered the Hebrew word
מראת, in Exodus xxxviii, 8, and Job xxxvii, 18, “looking-glass.” But the
making mirrors of glass coated with quicksilver, is an invention quite
modern. The word _looking-glass_ occurs in our version of Ecclesiasticus
xii, 11, “Never trust thine enemy; for like as iron rusteth, so is his
wickedness. Though he humble himself, and go crouching, yet take good
heed and beware of him, and thou shalt be unto him as if thou hadst
washed a looking-glass, and thou shalt know that his rust hath not been
altogether wiped away.” This passage proves, by its mention of rust,
that mirrors were then made of polished metal. The word ἔσοπτρον, or
_mirror_, occurs in 1 Cor. xiii, 12, and James i, 23. Dr. Pearce thinks
that in the former place it signifies any of those transparent
substances which the ancients used in their windows, and through which
they saw external objects obscurely. But others are of opinion that the
word denotes a mirror of polished metal; as this, however, was liable to
many imperfections, so that the object before it was not seen clearly or
fully, the meaning of the Apostle is, that we see things as it were by
images reflected from a mirror, which shows them very obscurely and
indistinctly. In the latter place, a mirror undoubtedly is meant; “For
if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man
beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and
goeth his way, and straightway he forgetteth what manner of man he was:”
but in the former, 1 Cor. xiii, 12, semi-transparent glass such as that
which we see in the ancient glass vases of the Romans is obviously
intended. Specimens of Roman glass may be seen in collections of
antiquities, and some have been dug up at Pompeii; but in all it is
cloudy and dull, and objects can only be seen through it with
indistinctness. From this we may fully perceive the force of the
Apostle’s words, “now we see through a glass darkly.”

GLEAN. To glean is properly to gather ears of corn, or grapes, left by
the reapers, &c. The Jews were not allowed to glean their fields, but
were to leave this to the poor, Lev. xix, 10; xxiii, 22; Deut. xxiv, 21;
Ruth ii, 3.

GLORIFY, to make glorious or honourable, or to cause to appear so, John
xii, 28; xiii, 31, 32; xv, 8; xvii, 4, 5; xxi, 19; Acts iii, 13. In this
view it particularly refers to the resurrection of Christ, and his
ascension to the right hand of God, John vii, 39; xii, 16. It also
expresses that change which shall pass upon believers at the general
resurrection, and their admission into heaven.

GLORY, splendour, magnificence. The glory of God in the writings of
Moses, denotes, generally, the divine presence; as when he appeared on
Mount Sinai; or, the bright cloud which declared his presence, and
descended on the tabernacle of the congregation, Exod. xxiv, 9, 10, 16,
17. Moses, with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, went
up to Mount Sinai, and “saw the glory of the Lord.” Now “the glory of
the Lord was, as it were, a burning fire on the mountain; and under his
feet was, as it were, the brightness of the sapphire stone, resembling
heaven itself in clearness.” The glory of the Lord appeared to Israel in
the cloud also, when he gave them manna and quails, Exod. xvi, 7, 10.
Moses having earnestly begged of God to show his glory to him, God said,
“Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. And
the Lord said, There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put
thee in the cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I
pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts:” (the train, the fainter rays of the glory:) “but my face shall
not be seen,” Exod. xxxiii, 18. The ark of God is called the glory of
Israel; and the glory of God, 1 Samuel iv, 21, 22; Psalm xxvi, 8. The
priestly ornaments are called “garments of glory,” Exod. xxviii, 2, 40;
and the sacred vessels, “vessels of glory,” 1 Macc. ii, 9, 12. Solomon
“in all his glory,” in all his lustre, in his richest ornaments, was not
so beautifully arrayed as a lily, Matt. vi, 29; Luke xii, 27. When the
prophets describe the conversion of the Gentiles, they speak of the
“glory of the Lord” as filling the earth; that is, his knowledge shall
universally prevail, and he shall be every where worshipped and
glorified. The term “glory” is used also of the Gospel dispensation by
St. Paul; and to express the future felicity of the saints in heaven.
When the Hebrews required an oath of any man, they said, “Give glory to
God:” confess the truth, give him glory, confess that God knows the most
secret thoughts, the very bottom of your hearts, Joshua vii, 19; John
ix, 24.

GNAT, κώνωψ, Matt. xxiii, 24, a small-winged insect, comprehending a
genus of the order of _diptera_. In those hot countries, as Servius
remarks, speaking of the east, gnats and flies are very apt to fall into
wine, if it be not carefully covered; and passing the liquor through a
strainer, that no gnat or part of one might remain, became a proverb for
exactness about little matters. This may help us to understand that
passage, Matt. xxiii, 24, where the proverbial expression of carefully
straining out a little fly from the liquor to be drunk, and yet
swallowing a camel, intimates, that the scribes and Pharisees affected
to scruple little things, and yet disregarded those of the greatest
moment.

GNOSTICS, from γνώσις, “knowledge,” men of science and wisdom,
_illuminati_; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of
Greece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in
the Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so
properly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who,
forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be “wise above what
is written,” to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the
philosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which
never were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is
called, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were,
however, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to
in the apostolic epistles are doubtless of a character very similar to
some branches of the Gnostic system. (See _Cabbala_.) Cerinthus, against
whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the
Revelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all
early Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as
afterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the
Gnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I
must begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace
the causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and
distinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system.
Thus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that
every thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial
archetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic
jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion
of the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two
independent coëternal principles, the one the author of good, the other
of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms
which must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some
form or other, of _æon_, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into
all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that
knowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them
to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was
mystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the
corruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being,
suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.

2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they
held matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could
not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator
of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the
Author of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of
them to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him
was Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles
supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in
most systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked
upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some,
again, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all
were agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it
was eternal, and remained inactive, till

                    _Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
            Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit._
                                                     OVID.

[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced
it, when separated, into elements.]

The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a _pleroma_ of
inaccessible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first
Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable
nature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or
by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes,
from whom, by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to
different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called
_æons_, from the periods of their existence before time was, or
_emanations_, from the mode of their production. These successive _æons_
or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and
their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might
account for the creation of the world without making God the author of
evil. These _æons_ lived through countless ages with their first father;
but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric
circles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and
nearer to the extremity of the _pleroma_. Beyond this _pleroma_ was
matter, inert and powerless, though coëternal with the supreme God, and
like him without beginning. At length, one of the _æons_ passed the
limits of the _pleroma_, and, meeting with matter, created the world,
after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the
_pleroma_ or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that
inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the
intermediate _æons_ be as many as the wildest imagination could devise,
still God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added
to which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without
the knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against
him. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine
of two principles, good and evil, or light and darkness. The two
principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been
conceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God
could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to
reduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the
Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always
endeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so
largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of
their _æons_ were evidently taken from terms which they found in the
Gospel. Thus we meet with _Logos_, _Monogenes_, _Zoe_, _Ecclesia_, all
of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in
the _pleroma_. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two
of the last _æons_ which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world
to remedy the evil which the creative _æon_ or Demiurgus had caused. He
was to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil
principle; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto
unknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to
enter the divine _pleroma_. To give this knowledge, was the end and
object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and
believers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In
all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with
the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence
of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real
connection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to
be the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was
notorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a
human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the
difficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a
real body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or,
granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents,
they believed that one of the _æons_, called Christ, quitted the
_pleroma_, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism.

3. We have seen that the God who was the father or progenitor of Christ,
was not considered to be the creator of the world. Neither was he the
God of the Old Testament, and the giver of the Mosaic law. This notion
was supported by the same argument which infidels have often urged, that
the God of the Jews is represented as a God of vengeance and of cruelty;
but it was also a natural consequence of their fundamental principle,
that the author of good cannot in any manner be the author of evil. In
accordance with this notion, we find all the Gnostics agreed in
rejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or, at least, in treating them with
contempt. Since they held that the supreme God was revealed for the
first time to mankind by Christ, he could not have been the God who
inspired the prophets; and yet, with that strange inconsistency which we
have already observed in them, they appealed to these very Scriptures in
support of their own doctrines. They believed the prophets to have been
inspired by the same creative _æon_, or the same principle of evil,
which acted originally upon matter; and if their writings had come down
to us, we should perhaps find them arguing, that, though the prophets
were not inspired by the supreme God, they still could not help giving
utterance to truth.

4. Their same abhorrence of matter, and their same notion concerning
that purity of knowledge which Christ came upon earth to impart, led
them to reject the Christian doctrines of a future resurrection and a
general judgment. They seem to have understood the Apostles as preaching
literally a resurrection of the body; and it is certain that the fathers
insisted upon this very strongly as an article of belief. But to imagine
that the body, a mass of created and corruptible matter, could ever
enter into heaven, into that _pleroma_ which was the dwelling of the
supreme God, was a notion which violated the fundamental principle of
the Gnostics. According to their scheme, no resurrection was necessary,
much less a final judgment. The Gnostic, the man who had attained to
perfect knowledge, was gradually emancipated from the grossness of
matter; and, by an imperceptible transition, which none but a Gnostic
could comprehend, he was raised to be an inhabitant of the divine
_pleroma_. If we would know the effect which the doctrines of the
Gnostics had upon their moral conduct, we shall find that the same
principle led to two very opposite results. Though the fathers may have
exaggerated the errors of their opponents, it seems undeniable, that
many Gnostics led profligate lives, and maintained upon principle that
such conduct was not unlawful. Others, again, are represented as
practising great austerities, and endeavouring, by every means, to
mortify the body and its sensual appetites. Both parties were actuated
by the same common notion, that matter is inherently evil. The one
thought that the body, which is compounded of matter, ought to be kept
in subjection; and hence they inculcated self-denial, and the practice
of moral virtue: while others, who had persuaded themselves that
knowledge was every thing, despised the distinctions of the moral law,
which was given, as they said, not by the supreme God, but by an
inferior _æon_, or a principle of evil, who had allied himself with
matter.

5. With respect to the origin of this system the same author observes:
There is no system of philosophy which has been traced to a greater
number of sources than that which we are now discussing; and the variety
of opinions seems to have arisen from persons either not observing the
very different aspects which Gnosticism assumed, or from wishing to
derive it from one exclusive quarter. Thus, some have deduced it from
the eastern notion of a good and evil principle, some from the Jewish
Cabbala, and others from the doctrines of the later Platonists. Each of
these systems is able to support itself by alleging very strong
resemblances; and those persons have taken the most natural and probably
the truest course, who have concluded that all these opinions
contributed to build up the monstrous system, which was known by the
name of Gnosticism.

GOAT, עו. There are other names or appellations given to the goat, as,
1. השופ, 1 Kings xx, 27, which means the _ram-goat_, or leader of the
flock. 2. עתודים, a word which never occurs but in the plural, and
means, _the best prepared_, or choicest of the flock; and metaphorically
_princes_, as, Zech. x, 3, “I will visit the goats, saith the Lord,”
that is, I will begin my vengeance with the princes of the people. “Hell
from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth
up the dead for thee, even all the great goats of the earth,” Isaiah
xiv, 9; all the kings, all the great men. And Jeremiah, speaking of the
princes of the Jews, says, “Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and be
as the he-goats before the flocks,” Jer. 1, 8. 3. צפיר, a name for the
goat, of Chaldee origin, and found only in Ezra vi, 17; viii, 35; Daniel
viii, 5, 21. 4. עואול, from עו, _a goat_, and אול, _to wander about_,
Leviticus xvi, 8, “the scape-goat.” 5. שער, _hairy_, or _shaggy_, whence
שעירים, “_the shaggy ones_.” In Lev. xvii, 7, it is said, “And they
shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils,” (_seirim_, “hairy
ones,”) “after whom they have gone a whoring.” The word here means
idolatrous images of goats, worshipped by the Egyptians. It is the same
word that is translated _satyrs_, in Isaiah xiii, 21; where the LXX
render it δαιμόνια, _demons_. But here they have ματαιοίς, _to vain
things_ or _idols_, which comes to the same sense. What gives light to
so obscure a passage is what we read in Maimonides, that the Zabian
idolaters worshipped demons under the figure of goats, imagining them to
appear in that form, whence they called them by the names of _seirim_;
and that this custom, being spread among other nations, gave occasion to
this precept. In like manner we learn from Herodotus, that the Egyptians
of Mendes held goats to be sacred animals, and represented the god Pan
with the legs and head of that animal. From those ancient idolaters the
same notion seems to have been derived by the Greeks and Romans, who
represented their Pan, their fauns, satyrs, and other idols, in the form
of goats: from all which it is highly probable, that the Israelites had
learned in Egypt to worship certain demons, or sylvan deities, under the
symbolical figure of goats. Though the phrase, “after whom they have
gone a whoring,” is equivalent in Scripture to that of committing
idolatry, yet we are not to suppose that it is not to be taken in a
literal sense in many places, even where it is used in connection with
idolatrous acts of worship. It is well known that Baal-peor and
Ashtaroth were worshipped with unclean rites, and that public
prostitution formed a grand part of the worship of many deities among
the Egyptians, Moabites, Canaanites, &c.

The goat was one of the clean beasts which the Israelites might both eat
and offer in sacrifice. The kid, גרי is often mentioned as a food, in a
way that implies that it was considered as a delicacy. The אקו, or _wild
goat_, mentioned Deut. xiv, 5, and no where else in the Hebrew Bible, is
supposed to be the _tragelaphus_, or “goat-deer.” Schultens conjectures
that this animal might have its name, _ob fugacitatem_, from its
shyness, or running away. The word יעל, occurs 1 Sam. xxiv, 3; Job
xxxix, 1; Psalm civ, 18; Prov. v, 19: and various have been the
sentiments of interpreters on the animal intended by it. Bochart insists
that it is the _ibex_, or “rock-goat.” The root whence the name is
derived, signifies _to ascend_, _to mount_; and the ibex is famous for
clambering, climbing, and leaping, on the most craggy precipices. The
Arab writers attribute to the _jaal_ very long horns, bending backward;
consequently it cannot be the chamois. The horns of the _jaal_ are
reckoned among the valuable articles of traffic, Ezek. xxvii, 15. The
ibex is finely shaped, graceful in its motions, and gentle in its
manners. The female is particularly celebrated by natural historians for
tender affection to her young, and the incessant vigilance with which
she watches over their safety; and also for ardent attachment and
fidelity to her mate.

GOD, an immaterial, intelligent, and free Being; of perfect goodness,
wisdom, and power; who made the universe, and continues to support it,
as well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Philologists have
hitherto considered the word God as being of the same signification with
good; and this is not denied by M. Hallenberg. But he thinks that both
words originally denoted _unity_; and that the root is אתד, _unus_;
whence the Syriac _Chad_ and _Gada_; the Arabic _Ahd_ and _Gahd_; the
Persic _Choda_ and _Chuda_; the Greek ἀγαθὸς and γάθος; the Teutonic
_Gud_; the German _Gott_; and our Saxon _God_. The other names of God,
this author thinks, are referable to a similar origin.

2. By his immateriality, intelligence, and freedom, God is distinguished
from Fate, Nature, Destiny, Necessity, Chance, _Anima Mundi_, and from
all the other fictitious beings acknowledged by the Stoics, Pantheists,
Spinosists, and other sorts of Atheists. The knowledge of God, his
nature, attributes, word, and works, with the relations between him and
his creatures, makes the subject of the extensive science called
theology. In Scripture God is defined by, “I am that I am; Alpha and
Omega; the Beginning and End of all things.” Among philosophers, he is
defined a Being of infinite perfection; or in whom there is no defect of
any thing which we conceive may raise, improve, or exalt his nature. He
is the First Cause, the First Being, who has existed from the beginning,
has created the world, or who subsists necessarily, or of himself.

3. The plain argument, says Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir I.
Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries,” for the existence of the Deity,
obvious to all, and carrying irresistible conviction with it, is from
the evident contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we
meet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice
or subtle reasonings in this matter; a manifest contrivance immediately
suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful
reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our
belief. No person, for example, that knows the principles of optics, and
the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill
in that science; or that the ear was formed without the knowledge of
sounds; or that the male and female in animals were not formed for each
other, and for continuing the species. All our accounts of nature are
full of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful structure of
things for final causes, exalts our idea of the Contriver; the unity of
design shows him to be one. The great motions in the system performed
with the same facility as the least, suggest his almighty power, which
gave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies with equal ease as to
the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the
internal parts of bodies, shows that his influence penetrates the inmost
recesses of things, and that he is equally active and present every
where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the
excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and
the beauty which adorns the works of nature, far superior to any thing
in art, suggest his consummate wisdom. The usefulness of the whole
scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with
the internal disposition and moral structure of these beings themselves,
shows his unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are sufficiently
open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same
time they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the
learned. The Deity’s acting and interposing in the universe, show that
he governs as well as formed it; and the depth of his counsels, even in
conducting the material universe, of which a great part surpasses our
knowledge, keeps up an inward veneration and awe of this great Being,
and disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us
concerning him. It has been justly observed, that some of the laws of
nature now known to us must have escaped us if we had wanted the sense
of seeing. It may be in his power to bestow upon us other senses, of
which we have at present no idea; without which it may be impossible for
us to know all his works, or to have more adequate ideas of himself. In
our present state, we know enough to be satisfied of our dependency upon
him, and of the duty we owe to him, the Lord and Disposer of all things.
He is not the object of sense; his essence, and, indeed, that of all
other substances, are beyond the reach of all our discoveries; but his
attributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We know that the
highest conceptions we are able to form of them, are still beneath his
real perfections; but his power and dominion over us, and our duty
toward him, are manifest.

4. Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself, says Mr. Locke,
yet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed
with, he hath not left himself without a witness; since we have sense,
perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as
we carry ourselves about us. To show, therefore, that we are capable of
knowing, that is, of being certain that there is a God, and how we may
come by this certainty, I think we need go no farther than ourselves,
and that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence. I think it is
beyond question, that man has a clear perception of his own being; he
knows certainly that he exists, and that he is something. In the next
place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no
more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles.
If, therefore, we know there is some real Being, it is an evident
demonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what
was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be
produced by something else. Next it is evident, that what has its being
from another must also have all that which is in, and belongs to, its
being from another too; all the powers it has must be owing to, and
derived from, the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being
must be also the source and original of all power; and so this eternal
Being must be also the most powerful. Again: man finds in himself
perception and knowledge: we are certain, then, that there is not only
some Being, but some knowing, intelligent Being, in the world. There was
a time, then, when there was no knowing Being, or else there has been a
knowing Being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when that
eternal Being had no knowledge, I reply, that then it is impossible
there should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impossible that
things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any
perception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impossible that a
triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones.
Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in
our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this
certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and
knowing Being, which, whether any one will call God, it matters not. The
thing is evident; and from this idea, duly considered, will easily be
deduced all those other attributes we ought to ascribe to this eternal
Being. From what has been said, it is plain to me, that we have a more
certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our
senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say
that we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is any
thing else without us. When I say we _know_, I mean, there is such a
knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply
our minds to that as we do to several other inquiries. It being then
unavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude that something has
existed from eternity, let us next see what kind of thing that must be.
There are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or
conceives; such as are purely material without sense or perception, and
sensible, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. These two
sorts we shall call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our
present purpose are better than material and immaterial. If, then, there
must be something eternal, it is very obvious to reason that it must be
a cogitative being; because it is as impossible to conceive that bare
incogitative matter should ever produce a thinking, intelligent being,
as that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any
parcel of matter eternal, we shall find it in itself unable to produce
any thing. Let us suppose its parts firmly at rest together, if there
were no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a
dead inactive lump? Is it possible to conceive that it can add motion to
itself, or produce any thing? Matter, then, by its own strength cannot
produce in itself so much as motion. The motion it has must also be from
eternity, or else added to matter by some other being, more powerful
than matter. But let us suppose motion eternal too, yet matter,
incogitative matter, and motion could never produce thought: knowledge
will still be as far beyond the power of nothing to produce. Divide
matter into as minute parts as you will, vary its figure and motion as
much as you please, it will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of
proportionable bulk, than it did before this division. The minutest
particles of matter knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the
greater do; so that if we suppose nothing eternal, matter can never
begin to be; if we suppose bare matter without motion eternal, motion
can never begin to be; if we suppose only matter and motion to be
eternal, thought can never begin to be; for it is impossible to conceive
that matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and
from itself, sense, perception, and knowledge, as is evident from hence,
that then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally
inseparable from matter, and every particle of it. Since, therefore,
whatsoever is the first eternal Being must necessarily be cogitative;
and whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it,
and actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after
exist, it necessarily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be
matter. If, therefore, it be evident that something must necessarily
exist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must
necessarily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impossible that
incogitative matter should produce a cogitative Being, as that nothing,
or the negation of all being, should produce a positive Being or matter.

This discovery of the necessary existence of an eternal mind
sufficiently leads us to the knowledge of God. For it will hence follow,
that all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend upon
him, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he
gives them; and therefore if he made those, he made also the less
excellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his
omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence
all his other attributes necessarily follow.

5. In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God;
such an attempt would have been entirely useless, because the fact was
universally admitted. The error of men consisted, not in denying a God,
but in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to
demonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however,
are employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded
in the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always
victorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and
true God, Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to
them, and uniformly unsuccessful when they revolted from him to serve
other gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that
there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty
and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions
delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and
of empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their
power, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God
ruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of
promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the
attributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning; they are
simply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular
deduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles,
we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional
expressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God.
These circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures,
considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers,
generally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do
not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to
rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what
might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission,
and armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions.

6. In three distinct ways do the sacred writers furnish us with
information on this great and essential subject, the existence and the
character of God; from the _names_ by which he is designated; from the
_actions_ ascribed to him; and from the _attributes_ with which he is
invested in their invocations and praises; and in those lofty
descriptions of his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, they have recorded for the instruction of the world. These
attributes will be considered under their respective heads; but the
impression of the general view of the divine character, as thus
revealed, is too important to be omitted.

7. The _names_ of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of
overwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness
with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals,
the divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though
ONE he is אלהים, ELOHIM, GODS, _persons adorable_. He is יהוה, JEHOVAH,
self-_existing_; אל, EL, _strong_, _powerful_; אהיה, EHIEH, _I am_, _I
will be_, _self-existence_, _independency_, _all-sufficiency_,
_immutability_, _eternity_; שדי, SHADDAI, _almighty_, _all-sufficient_;
אדן, ADON, _Supporter_, _Lord_, _Judge_. These are among the adorable
appellatives of God which are scattered throughout the revelation that
he has been pleased to make of himself: but on one occasion he was
pleased more particularly to declare his _name_, that is, such of the
qualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most
interested in knowing; and to unfold, not only his natural, but also
those of his moral attributes by which his conduct toward his creatures
is regulated. “And the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord
God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and
truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression,
and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s
children, unto the third and fourth generation,” Exodus xxxiv. This is
the most ample and particular description of the character of God, as
given by himself in the sacred records; and the import of the several
titles by which he has thus in his infinite condescension manifested
himself, has been thus exhibited. He is not only JEHOVAH,
_self-existent_, and EL, _the strong or mighty God_; but he is, says Dr.
A. Clarke, “רחום, ROCHUM, _the merciful Being_, who is full of
tenderness and compassion; חנון, CHANUN, _the gracious One_, he whose
nature is goodness itself, the loving God. ארך פים, EREC APAYIM,
_long-suffering_, the Being who, because of his tenderness, is not
easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind; דב RAB, _the great or
mighty One_: חסד, CHESED, _the bountiful Being_, he who is exuberant in
his beneficence; אפת, EMETH, _the Truth_, or _True One_, he alone who
can neither deceive nor be deceived; נצר חסד, NOTSER CHESED, _the
Preserver of bountifulness_, he whose beneficence never ends, keeping
mercy for thousands of generations, showing compassion and mercy while
the world endures; נשא עון ופשע וחטאה, NOSE AVON VAPESHA VECHATAAH, _he
who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin_; properly the
_Redeemer_, the _Pardoner_, the _Forgiver_, the Being whose prerogative
it is to forgive sin, and save the soul; נקה לא ינקה, NAKEH LO YINNAKEH,
_the righteous Judge_, who distributes justice with an impartial hand;
and פקד עין, PAKED AVON, &c, _he who visits iniquity_, he who punishes
transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape; the God of
retributive and vindictive justice.”

8. The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge
of God, is by the _actions_ which they ascribe to him. They contain,
indeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which
is comprehended within the limit of the sacred history; and, by
prophetic declaration, they also exhibit the principles on which he will
govern the world to the end of time: so that the whole course of the
divine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly
illustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their
abstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have
been just quoted. The first act ascribed to God is that of creating the
heavens and the earth out of nothing; and by his fiat alone arranging
their parts, and peopling them with living creatures. By this were
manifested--his _eternity and self-existence_, as he who creates must be
before all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself
derive it from none:--his _almighty power_, shown both in the act of
creation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced:--his
_wisdom_, in their arrangement, and in their fitness to their respective
ends:--and his _goodness_, as the whole tended to the happiness of
_sentient_ beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government
are also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of
nothing he had an absolute right and prerogative: it awaited his
ordering, and was completely at his disposal; so that to alter or
destroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent
and rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which
none can question. Thus on the one hand his character of _Lord_ or
_Governor_ is established, and on the other our duty of lowly _homage_
and absolute _obedience_.

9. Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, he was placed under a
rule of conduct. Obedience was to be followed with the continuance of
the divine favour; transgression, with death. The event called forth new
manifestations of the character of God. His tender _mercy_, in the
compassion showed to the fallen pair; his _justice_, in forgiving them
only in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his
justice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his _love_ to
that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the
fulness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his
_holiness_, in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the
means of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image
of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine
_mercy_ are traced from age to age, in his establishing his own worship
among men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national
offences in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in
dependence upon the typified or actually offered universal
sacrifice:--of his _condescension_, in stooping to the cases of
individuals; in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by
showing respect to the poor and humble; and, principally, by the
incarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting men into familiar
and friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to
be their patron and advocate, until they should be received unto the
same glory, “and so be for ever with the Lord:”--of his strictly
_righteous government_, in the destruction of the old world, the cities
of the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their
“filling up the measure of their iniquities;” and, to show that “he will
by no means clear the guilty;” in the numerous and severe punishments
inflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham, because of their
transgressions:--of his _long-suffering_, in frequent warnings, delays,
and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before
sentence of utter excision and destruction:--of _faithfulness_ and
_truth_, in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were
given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession of the
land of Canaan by his seed, and in all the “promises made to the
fathers” respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices
of the “Christ,” the Saviour of the world:--of his _immutability_, in
the constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which
remain to this day precisely the same, in every thing universal, as when
first promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places
as well as through all time:--of his _prescience_ of future events,
manifested by the predictions of Scripture:--and of the depth and
stability of his _counsel_, as illustrated in that plan and purpose of
bringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, which we find
steadily kept in view in the Scriptural history of the acts of God in
former ages; which is still the end toward which all his dispensations
bend, however wide and mysterious their sweep; and which they will
finally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the
future, contained in the Old and New Testaments.

Thus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age
been a manifestation of the divine character, continually receiving new
and stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian
revelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and
still placing itself in brighter light and more impressive aspects as
the scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the
acts of God as recorded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he alone
is God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things;
that his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power
irresistible; that he is holy, just, and good; the Lord and the Judge,
but the Father and the Friend, of man.

10. More at large do we learn what God is, from the declarations of the
inspired writings. As to his _substance_, that “God is a Spirit.” As to
his _duration_, that “from everlasting to everlasting he is God;” “the
King, eternal, immortal, invisible.” That, after all the manifestations
he has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of
his nature, _incomprehensible_: “Lo, these are but parts of his ways,
and how little a portion is heard of him!” “Touching the Almighty, we
cannot find him out.” That he is _unchangeable_: “The Father of Lights,
with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” That “he
is the fountain of life,” and the only independent Being in the
universe: “Who only hath immortality.” That every other being, however
exalted, has its existence from him: “For by him were all things
created, which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or
invisible.” That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no
creature being for a moment independent of his support: “By him all
things consist;” “upholding all things by the word of his power.” That
he is _omnipresent_: “Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence,
saith the Lord?” That he is _omniscient_: “All things are naked and open
before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” That he is the absolute
Lord and _Owner_ of all things: “The heavens, even the heaven of
heavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:” “The earth is thine, and
the fulness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein:” “He doeth
according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth.” That his _providence_ extends to the minutest objects:
“The hairs of your head are all numbered:” “Are not two sparrows sold
for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without
your Father.” That he is a Being of unspotted _purity_ and perfect
_rectitude_: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts!” “A God of truth, and
in whom is no iniquity:” “Of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” That
he is _just_ in the administration of his government: “Shall not the
Judge of the whole earth do right?” “Clouds and darkness are round about
him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.” That his
_wisdom_ is unsearchable: “O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”
And, finally, that he is _good_ and _merciful_: “Thou art good, and thy
mercy endureth for ever:” “His tender mercy is over all his works:”
“God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ:”
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them:” “God hath given to us eternal life, and
this life is in his Son.”

11. Under these deeply awful but consolatory views, do the Scriptures
present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they
dwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and
beauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration.
Nor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions
of the most enlightened of Pagans, without feeling how much reason we
have for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation so explicit, and so
comprehensive, should have been made to us on a subject which only a
revelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that
Christian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the
Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine, in
language so clear, and with conceptions so noble; in a manner too so
equable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time
they approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail
to mingle with it some essentially erroneous or grovelling conception.
“By the Word of God,” says Dr. Barrow, “we mean a Being of infinite
wisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things,
to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience
and immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and
veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of
dominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound
submission and obedience are due.” “Our notion of Deity,” says Bishop
Pearson, “doth expressly signify a Being or Nature of infinite
perfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in
this, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary; an actual Being
of itself; and potential, or causative of all beings beside itself,
independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by
which all things else are governed.” “God is a Being,” says Lawson, “and
not any kind of being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other
beings. And not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are
perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely,
fully, and every way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits,
above angels, who are perfect comparatively. God’s infinite perfection
includes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all
dependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality,
contingency, ignorance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all
imperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency,
perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most
perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, and all
these in the highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this
eternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can
proceed no farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can
understand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason
itself dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it
can inform us of.” To these we may add an admirable passage from Sir
Isaac Newton: “The word GOD frequently signifies _Lord_; but every lord
is not God; it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that
constitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; feigned,
the false god. From such true dominion it follows, that the true God is
living, intelligent, and powerful; and from his other perfections, that
he is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite;
omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to
eternity; and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all
things that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not
eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or
space, but he endures and is present; he endures always, and is present
every where; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also
substantially; for power without substance cannot subsist. All things
are contained and move in him, but without any mutual passion; he
suffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any
resistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed, that God exists
necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where.
Hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all
the power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner
not at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a
manner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body, and all bodily
shape; and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched; nor ought he to
be worshipped under the representation of any thing corporeal. We have
ideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even
any thing; we see only the figures and colours of bodies, hear only
sounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odours, and taste
tastes; and do not, cannot, by any sense, or reflex act, know their
inward substances; and much less can we have any notion of the substance
of God. We know him by his properties and attributes.”

12. Many able works in proof of the existence of God have been written,
the arguments of which are too copious for us even to analyze. It must
be sufficient to say that they all proceed, as it is logically termed,
either _à priori_, from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and
most satisfactory mode, _à posteriori_, from the effect to the cause.
The irresistible argument from the marks of _design_ with which all
nature abounds, to one great intelligent, designing Cause, is by no
writers brought out in so clear and masterly a manner as by Howe, in his
“Living temple,” and Paley, in his “Natural Theology.”

GODS, in the plural, is used of the false deities of the Heathens, many
of which were only creatures to whom divine honours and worship were
superstitiously paid. The Greeks and Latins, it is observable, did not
mean, by the name _God_, an all-perfect being, whereof eternity,
infinity, omnipresence, &c, were essential attributes: with them the
word only implied an excellent and superior nature; and, accordingly,
they give the appellation _gods_ to all beings of a rank or class,
higher or more perfect than that of men, and especially to those who
were inferior agents in the divine administration, all subject to the
one Supreme. Thus men themselves, according to their system, might
become gods after death, inasmuch as their souls might attain to a
degree of excellence superior to what they were capable of in life. The
first idols, or false gods, that are said to have been adored were the
stars, sun, moon, &c, on account of the light, heat, and other benefits
which we derive from them. (See _Idolatry_.) Afterward the earth came to
be deified, for furnishing fruits necessary for the subsistence of men
and animals: then fire and water became objects of divine worship, for
their usefulness to human life. In process of time, and by degrees, gods
became multiplied to infinity; and there was scarce any thing but the
weakness or caprice of some devotee or other, elevated into the rank of
deity: things useless or even destructive not excepted. The principal of
the ancient gods, whom the Romans called _dii majorum gentium_, and
Cicero celestial gods, Varro select gods, Ovid _nobiles deos_, others
_consentes deos_, were Jupiter, Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana,
Venus, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Vulcan, and Apollo. Jupiter is considered
as the god of heaven; Neptune, as god of the sea; Mars, as the god of
war; Apollo, of eloquence, poetry, and physic; Mercury, of thieves;
Bacchus, of wine; Cupid, of love, &c. A second sort of gods, called
demi-gods, _semi-dii_, _dii minorum gentium_, _indigetes_, or gods
adopted, were men canonized and deified. As the greater gods had
possession of heaven by their own right, these secondary deities had it
by merit and donation, being translated into heaven because they had
lived as gods upon earth.

2. The Heathen gods may be all reduced to the following classes: (1.)
Created spirits, angels, or demons, whence good and evil gods; Genii,
Lares, Lemures, Typhones, guardian gods, infernal gods, &c. (2.)
Heavenly bodies; as, the sun, moon, and other planets; also, the fixed
stars, constellations, &c. (3.) Elements; as air, earth, ocean, Ops,
Vesta; the rivers, fountains, &c. (4.) Meteors. Thus the Persians adored
the wind: thunder and lightning were honoured under the name of Geryon;
and several nations of India and America have made themselves gods of
the same. Castor, Pollux, Helena, and Iris, have also been preferred
from meteors to be gods; and the like has been practised in regard to
comets: witness that which appeared at the murder of Cæsar. (5.) They
erected minerals or fossils into deities. Such was the Bætylus. The
Finlanders adored stones; the Scythians, iron; and many nations, silver
and gold. (6.) Plants have been made gods. Thus leeks and onions were
deities in Egypt; the Sclavi, Lithuanians, Celtæ, Vandals, and
Peruvians, adored trees and forests; the ancient Gauls, Britons, and
Druids, paid a particular devotion to the oak; and it was no other than
wheat, corn, seed, &c, that the ancients adored under the names of Ceres
and Proserpina. (7.) They took themselves gods from among the waters.
The Syrians and Egyptians adored fishes; and what were the Tritons, the
Nereids, Syrens, &c, but fishes? Several nations have adored serpents;
particularly the Egyptians, Prussians, Lithuanians, Samogitians, &c.
(8.) Insects, as flies and ants, had their priests and votaries. (9.)
Among birds, the stork, raven, sparrowhawk, ibis, eagle, grisson, and
lapwing have had divine honours; the last in Mexico, the rest in Egypt
and at Thebes. (10.) Four-footed beasts have had their altars; as the
bull, dog, cat, wolf, baboon, lion, and crocodile, in Egypt and
elsewhere; the hog in the island of Crete; rats and mice in the Troas,
and at Tenedos; weasels at Thebes; and the porcupine throughout all
Zoroaster’s school. (11.) Nothing was more common than to place men
among the number of deities; and from Belus or Baal, to the Roman
emperors before Constantine, the instances of this kind are innumerable:
frequently they did not wait so long as their deaths for the apotheosis.
Nebuchadnezzar procured his statue to be worshipped while living; and
Virgil shows that Augustus had altars and sacrifices offered to him; as
we learn from other hands that he had priests called _Augustales_, and
temples at Lyons, Narbona, and several other places, and he must be
allowed the first of the Romans in whose behalf idolatry was carried to
such a pitch. The Ethiopians deemed all their kings gods: the Velleda of
the Germans, the Janus of the Hungarians, and the Thaut, Woden, and Assa
of the northern nations, were indisputably men. (12.) Not men only, but
every thing that relates to man, has also been deified; as labour, rest,
sleep, youth, age, death, virtues, vices, occasion, time, place,
numbers, among the Pythagoreans; the generative power, under the name of
Priapus. Infancy alone had a cloud of deities; as, Vagetanus, Levana,
Rumina, Edufa, Potina, Cuba, Cumina, Carna, Ossilago, Statulinus,
Fabulinus, &c. They also adored the gods Health, Fever, Fear, Love,
Pain, Indignation, Shame, Impudence, Opinion, Renown, Prudence, Science,
Art, Fidelity, Felicity, Calumny, Liberty, Money, War, Peace, Victory,
Triumph, &c. Lastly, Nature, the universe, or τὸ ϖὰν, was reputed a
great god.

3. Hesiod has a poem under the title of Θεογονία, that is, “The
Generation of the Gods,” in which he explains their genealogy and
descent, sets forth who was the first and principal, who next descended
from him, and what issue each had: the whole making a sort of system of
Heathen theology. Beside this popular theology, each philosopher had his
system, as may be seen from the “Timæus” of Plato, and Cicero “_De
Natura Deorum_.” Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Felix,
Lactantius, Eusebius, St. Augustine, and Theodoret, show the vanity of
the Heathen gods. It is very difficult to discover the real sentiments
of the Heathens with respect to their gods: they are exceedingly
intricate and confused, and even frequently contradictory. They admitted
so many superior and inferior gods, who shared the empire, that every
place was full of gods. Varro reckons up no less than thirty thousand
adored within a small extent of ground, and yet their number was every
day increasing. In modern oriental Paganism they amount to many
millions, and are, in fact, innumerable.

4. The name of God, in Hebrew, _Elohim_, is very ambiguous in Scripture.
The true God is often called so, as are sometimes angels, judges, and
princes, and sometimes idols and false gods; for example: “God created
the heaven and the earth,” Gen. i, 1. The Hebrew _Elohim_ denotes, in
this place, the true God. “He who sacrificeth unto any god, (_Elohim_,)
shall be put to death,” Exodus xxii, 20. And again: “Among the gods
there is none like unto thee,” Psalm lxxxvi, 8. Princes, magistrates,
and great men are called gods in the following passages: “If a slave is
desirous to continue with his master, he shall be brought to the
judges,” Exod. xxi, 6, in the original, to the _gods_. Again: “If the
thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto
the judges,” Exod. xxii, 8, in the original, to the gods; and in the
twenty-eighth verse of the same chapter, “Thou shalt not speak evil of
the gods;” that is, of the judges or great men. The Psalmist says that
the Lord “judgeth among the gods,” Psalm lxxxii, 1. And again, God says
to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,” Exod. vii, 1. The pious
Israelites had so great an aversion and such an extreme contempt for
strange gods, that they scorned even to mention them; they disguised and
disfigured their names by substituting in the room of them some term of
contempt; for example, instead of _Elohim_, they called them _Elilim_,
“nothings, gods of no value;” instead of _Mephibaal_, _Meribaal_, and
_Jerubaal_, they said “Mephibosheth, Meribosheth, and Jeribosheth.”
_Baal_ signifies master, husband; and _bosheth_, something to be ashamed
of, something apt to put one in confusion. God forbade the Israelites to
swear by strange gods, and to pronounce the names of them in their
oaths, Exod. xxiii, 13.

GODLINESS, strictly taken, signifies right worship, or devotion; but, in
general, it imports the whole of practical religion, 1 Tim. iv, 8; 2
Peter i, 6.

GOEL, גאל, the avenger of blood. The inhabitants of the east, it is well
known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If,
therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent
hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to
avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with
unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force
or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have
been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening
to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the
country, saying, “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?” Gen.
xxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the
murderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine;
and Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any
expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would
therefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the
blood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the
_goel_ was in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled
by the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a
mortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life
through a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made
various enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and
countries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being
asylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would
flee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and
intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death,
Exod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer
was enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were
appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was
enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual
might meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If the
_goel_ overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to
death, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer
had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an
inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and
asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour’s death
undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was
judicially delivered to the _goel_, who might put him to death in
whatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in
the place of refuge until the high priest’s death, when he might return
home in perfect security. If, however, the _goel_ found him without the
city, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of
blood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and
prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the
receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation,
Numbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or
if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty
of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus
we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and
that Solomon, in obedience to his father’s dying entreaty, actually
discharged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi,
28–34. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi,
17, 18.

The following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people
adhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and
friends:--“Among the Circassians,” says Pallas, “all the relatives of
the murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to
revenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and
occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless
pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two
families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding
generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to
the family of the deceased, this tribute is called _thlil-uasa_, or,
‘the price of blood;’ but neither princes nor usdens accept such
compensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for
blood.” “The Nubians,” observes Light, “possess few traces among them of
government, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the
cashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress
of injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood,
extends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood.
On this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and
in this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys
are armed.” “If one Nubian,” remarks Burckhardt, “happen to kill
another, he is obliged to pay the debt of blood to the family of the
deceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven
sheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has
its stated fine, consisting of sheep and _dhourra_, but varying in
quantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.” “When a man or
woman is murdered,” says Malcolm, “the moment the person by whom the act
was perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands
vengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be
established, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as
he chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of
money as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few
years ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons
delivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had
murdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they
put them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the
most importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab
the murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of
those who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that
could hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan.
When they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the
murderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told,
were delighted to become his executioners.”

GOG AND MAGOG. Moses speaks of Magog, son of Japheth, but says nothing
of Gog, Gen. x, 2. According to Ezekiel, Gog was prince of Magog, Ezek.
xxxviii, 2, 3, &c; xxxix, 1, 2, &c. Magog signifies the country or
people, and Gog the king of that country; the general name of the
northern nations of Europe and Asia, or the districts north of the
Caucasus, or Mount Taurus. The prophecy of Ezekiel, xxxix, 1–22, seems
to be revived in the Apocalypse, where the hosts of Gog and Magog are
represented as coming to invade “the beloved city,” and perishing with
immense slaughter likewise in Armageddon, “the mount of Mageddo,” or
Megiddo, Rev. xvi, 14–16; xx, 7–10.

GOLD, זהב, Gen. xxiv, 22, and very frequently in all other parts of the
Old Testament; χρυσος, Matt. xxiii, 16, 17, &c; the most perfect and
valuable of the metals. In Job xxviii, 15–18, 19, gold is mentioned five
times, and four of the words are different in the original: 1. סגור,
which may mean “gold in the mine,” or “shut up,” as the root signifies,
“in the ore.” 2. כתם, _kethem_, from כתם, _catham_, “to sign,” “seal,”
or “stamp;” gold made current by being coined; standard gold, exhibiting
the stamp expressive of its value. 3. זהב, wrought gold, pure, highly
polished gold. 4. פז, denoting solidity, compactness, and strength;
probably gold formed into different kinds of plate, or vessels. Jerom,
in his comment on Jer. x, 9, writes “_Septem dominibus apud Hebræos
appellatur aurum_.” The seven names, which he does not mention, are as
follows, and thus distinguished by the Hebrews: 1. _Zahab_, gold in
general. 2. _Zahab tob_, good gold, of a more valuable kind, Gen. ii,
12. 3. _Zahab Ophir_, gold of Ophir, 1 Kings ix, 28, such as was brought
by the navy of Solomon. 4. _Zahab muphaz_, solid gold, pure, wrought
gold, translated, 1 Kings x, 18, “the best gold.” 5. _Zahab shachut_,
beaten gold, 2 Chron. ix, 15. 6. _Zahab segor_, shut up gold; either as
mentioned above, gold in the ore, or as the rabbins explain it, “gold
shut up in the treasuries,” gold in bullion. 7. _Zahab parvaim_, 2
Chron. iii, 6. To these Buxtorf adds three others: 1. כתם, pure gold of
the circulating medium. 2. לצר, gold in the treasury. 3. חרצז, choice,
fine gold. Arabia had formerly its golden mines. “The gold of Sheba,”
Psalm lxxii, 15, is, in the Septuagint and Arabic versions, “the gold of
Arabia.” Sheba was the ancient name of Arabia Felix. Mr. Bruce, however,
places it in Africa, at Azab. The gold of Ophir, so often mentioned,
must be that which was procured in Arabia, on the coast of the Red Sea.
We are assured by Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Eusebius, and by
Herodotus, that the Phenicians carried on a considerable traffic with
this gold even before the days of Job, who speaks of it, xxii, 24.

GOLIATH, a famous giant of the city of Gath, who was slain by David, 1
Sam. xvii, 4, 5, &c. See GIANTS.

GOMER, the eldest son of Japheth, by whom a great part of Asia Minor was
first peopled, and particularly that extensive tract which was called
Phrygia, including the sub-divisions of Mysia, Galatia, Bithynia,
Lycaonia, &c. The colonies of Gomer extended into Germany, Gaul, (in
both of which traces of the name are preserved,) and Britain, which was
undoubtedly peopled from Gaul. Among the descendants of the ancient
inhabitants of this island, namely, the Welsh, the words _Kumero_ and
_Kumeraeg_, the names of the people and the language, sufficiently point
out their origin. In fact, under the names of Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymrig,
Cumbri, Umbri, and Cambri, the tribes of Gomerians extended themselves
from the Euxine to the Atlantic, and from Italy to the Baltic; having
added to their original names those of Celts, Gauls, Galatæ, and Gaels,
superadded.

GOMORRAH, one of the five cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire,
Genesis xix, 24, &c. See DEAD SEA.

GOSHEN. This was the most fertile pasture ground in the whole of Lower
Egypt; thence called Goshen, from _gush_, in Arabic, signifying “a
heart,” or whatsoever is choice or precious. There was also a Goshen in
the territory of the tribe of Judah, so called for the same reason,
Joshua x, 41. Hence Joseph recommended it to his family as “the best of
the land,” Gen. xlvii, 11, and “the fat of the land,” Gen. xlv, 18. The
land of Goshen lay along the most easterly branch of the Nile, and on
the east side of it; for it is evident that, at the time of the exode,
the Israelites did not cross the Nile. In ancient times, the fertile
land was considerably more extensive, both in length and breadth, than
at present, in consequence of the general failure of the eastern
branches of the Nile; the main body of the river verging more and more
to the west continually, and deepening the channels on that side.

GOSPEL, a history of the life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension,
and doctrine of Jesus Christ. The word is Saxon, and of the same import
with the Latin term _evangelium_, or the Greek εὐαγγέλιον, which
signifies “glad tidings,” or “good news;” the history of our Saviour
being the best history ever published to mankind. This history is
contained in the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St.
John, who from thence are called evangelists. The Christian church never
acknowledged any more than these four Gospels as canonical:
notwithstanding which, several apocryphal gospels are handed down to us,
and others are entirely lost. The four Gospels contain each of them the
history of our Saviour’s life and ministry; but we must remember, that
no one of the evangelists undertook to give an account of all the
miracles which Christ performed, or of all the instructions which he
delivered. They are written with different degrees of conciseness; but
every one of them is sufficiently full to prove that Jesus was the
promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, who had been predicted by a
long succession of prophets, and whose advent was expected at the time
of his appearance, both by Jews and Gentiles.

2. That all the books which convey to us the history of events under the
New Testament were written and immediately published by persons
contemporary with the events, is most fully proved by the testimony of
an unbroken series of authors, reaching from the days of the evangelists
to the present times; by the concurrent belief of Christians of all
denominations; and by the unreserved confession of avowed enemies to the
Gospel. In this point of view the writings of the ancient fathers of the
Christian church are invaluable. They contain not only frequent
references and allusions to the books of the New Testament, but also
such numerous professed quotations from them, that it is demonstratively
certain that these books existed in their present state a few years
after the conclusion of Christ’s ministry upon earth. No unbeliever in
the apostolic age, in the age immediately subsequent to it, or, indeed,
in any age whatever, was ever able to disprove the facts recorded in
these books; and it does not appear that in the early times any such
attempt was made. The facts, therefore, related in the New Testament
must be admitted to have really happened. But if all the circumstances
of the history of Jesus, that is, his miraculous conception in the womb
of the virgin, the time at which he was born, the place where he was
born, the family from which he was descended, the nature of the
doctrines which he preached, the meanness of his condition, his
rejection, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, with many other
minute particulars; if all these various circumstances in the history of
Jesus exactly accord with the predictions of the Old Testament relative
to the promised Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be
blessed, it follows that Jesus was that Messiah. And again: if Jesus
really performed the miracles as related in the Gospels, and was
perfectly acquainted with the thoughts and designs of men, his divine
mission cannot be doubted. Lastly: if he really foretold his own death
and resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, its miraculous effects,
the sufferings of the Apostles, the call of the Gentiles, and the
destruction of Jerusalem, it necessarily follows that he spake by the
authority of God himself. These, and many other arguments, founded in
the more than human character of Jesus, in the rapid propagation of the
Gospel, in the excellence of its precepts and doctrines, and in the
constancy, intrepidity, and fortitude of its early professors,
incontrovertibly establish the truth and divine origin of the Christian
religion, and afford to us, who live in these latter times, the most
positive confirmation of the promise of our Lord, that “the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.”

3. The Gospels recount those wonderful and important events with which
the Christian religion and its divine Author were introduced into the
world, and which have produced so great a change in the principles, the
manners, the morals, and the temporal as well as spiritual condition of
mankind. They relate the first appearance of Christ upon earth, his
extraordinary and miraculous birth, the testimony borne to him by his
forerunner, John the Baptist, the temptation in the wilderness, the
opening of his divine commission, the pure, the perfect, and sublime
morality which he taught, especially in his inimitable sermon on the
mount, the infinite superiority which he showed to every other moral
teacher, both in the matter and manner of his discourses, more
particularly by crushing vice in its very cradle, in the first risings
of wicked desires and propensities in the heart, by giving a decided
preference to the mild, gentle, passive, conciliating virtues, before
that violent, vindictive, high-spirited, unforgiving temper, which has
been always too much the favourite character of the world; by requiring
us to forgive our very enemies, and to do good to them that hate us; by
excluding from our devotions, our alms, and all our virtues, all regard
to fame, reputation, and applause; by laying down two great general
principles of morality, love to God, and love to mankind, and deducing
from thence every other human duty; by conveying his instructions under
the easy, familiar, and impressive form of parables; by expressing
himself in a tone of dignity and authority unknown before; by
exemplifying every virtue that he taught in his own unblemished and
perfect life and conversation; and, above all, by adding those awful
sanctions, which he alone, of all moral instructers, had the power to
hold out, eternal rewards to the virtuous, and eternal punishments to
the wicked. The sacred narratives then represent to us the high
character that he assumed; the claim he made to a divine original; the
wonderful miracles he wrought in proof of his divinity; the various
prophecies which plainly marked him out as the Messiah, the great
Deliverer of the Jews; the declarations he made that he came to offer
himself a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind; the cruel indignities,
sufferings, and persecutions to which, in consequence of this great
design, he was exposed; the accomplishment of it, by the painful and
ignominious death to which he submitted, by his resurrection after three
days from the grave, by his ascension into heaven, by his sitting there
at the right hand of God, and performing the office of a Mediator and
Intercessor for the sinful sons of men, till he shall come a second time
in his glory to sit in judgment on all mankind, and decide their final
doom of happiness or misery for ever. These are the momentous, the
interesting, truths on which the Gospels principally dwell.

4. We find in the ancient records a twofold order, in which the
evangelists are arranged. They stand either thus, Matthew, John, Luke,
Mark; or thus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first is made with
reference to the character and the rank of the persons, according to
which the Apostles precede their assistants and attendants (ἀκολουθοις,
_comitibus_.) It is observed in the oldest Latin translations and in the
Gothic; sometimes also in the works of Latin teachers; but among all the
Greek MSS. only in that at Cambridge. But the other, namely, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, is, in all the old translations of Asia and
Africa, in all catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek MSS. in
general, the customary and established one as it regarded not personal
circumstances, but as it had respect to chronological; which is to us a
plain indication what accounts concerning the succession of the
evangelists, the Asiatic, and Greek churches, and also those of Africa,
had before them, when the Christian books were arranged in collections.
It is a considerable advantage, says Michaëlis, that a history of such
importance as that of Jesus Christ has been recorded by the pens of
separate and independent writers, who, from the variations which are
visible in these accounts, have incontestably proved that they did not
unite with a view of imposing a fabulous narrative on mankind. That St.
Matthew had never seen the Gospel of St. Luke, nor St. Luke the Gospel
of St. Matthew, is evident from a comparison of their writings. The
Gospel of St. Mark, which was written later, must likewise have been
unknown to St. Luke; and that St. Mark had ever read the Gospel of St.
Luke, is at least improbable, because their Gospels so frequently
differ. It is a generally received opinion, that St. Mark made use of
St. Matthew’s Gospel in the composition of his own; but this is an
unfounded hypothesis. The Gospel of St. John, being written after the
other three, supplies what they had omitted. Thus have we four distinct
and independent writers of one and the same history; and, though
trifling variations may seem to exist in their narratives, yet these
admit of easy solutions; and in all matters of consequence, whether
doctrinal or historical, there is such a manifest agreement between them
as is to be found in no other writings whatever. Though we have only
four original writers of the life of Jesus, the evidence of the history
does not rest on the testimony of four men. Christianity had been
propagated in a great part of the world before any of them had written,
on the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands, who had been
witnesses of the great facts which they have recorded; so that the
writing of these particular books is not to be considered as the cause,
but rather the effect, of the belief of Christianity; nor could those
books have been written and received as they were, namely, as authentic
histories, of the subject of which all persons of that age were judges,
if the facts they have recorded had not been well known to be true.

5. The term Gospel is often used in Scripture to signify the whole
Christian doctrine: hence, “preaching the Gospel” is declaring all the
truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity. This is
termed, “the Gospel of the grace of God,” because it flows from God’s
free love and goodness, Acts xx, 24; and when truly and faithfully
preached, is accompanied with the influences of the divine Spirit. It is
called, “the Gospel of the kingdom,” because it treats of the kingdom of
grace, and shows the way to the kingdom of glory. It is styled, “the
Gospel of Christ,” because he is the Author and great subject of it,
Romans i, 16; and “the Gospel of peace and salvation,” because it
publishes peace with God to the penitent and believing, gives, to such,
peace of conscience and tranquillity of mind, and is the means of their
salvation, present and eternal. As it displays the glory of God and of
Christ, and ensures to his true followers eternal glory, it is entitled,
“the glorious Gospel,” and, “the everlasting Gospel,” because it
commenced from the fall of man, is permanent throughout all time, and
produces effects which are everlasting.

GOVERNMENT OF THE HEBREWS. The posterity of Jacob, while remaining in
Egypt, maintained, notwithstanding the augmentation of their numbers,
that patriarchal form of government which is so prevalent among the
nomades. Every father of a family exercised a father’s authority over
those of his own household. Every tribe obeyed its own _prince_, נשיא,
who was originally the first-born of the founder of the tribe, but who,
in process of time, appears to have been elected. As the people
increased in numbers, various heads of families united together, and
selected some individual from their own body, who was somewhat
distinguished, for their leader. Perhaps the choice was made merely by
tacit consent; and, without giving him the title of ruler in form, they
were willing, while convinced of his virtues, to render submission to
his will. Such a union of families was denominated “the house of the
father;” and “the house of the father of the families,” Num. iii, 24,
30, 35. In other instances, although the number varied, being sometimes
more and sometimes less than a thousand, it was denominated, אלף אלפים,
_a thousand_. “Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your
tribes, and by your _thousands_;” “the thousands of Judah;” “the
thousands of Israel,” &c, 1 Sam. x, 19; xxiii, 23; Judges vi, 15; Num.
xxvi, 5–50. The heads of these united families were designated “heads of
thousands,” Num. i, 16; x, 4. They held themselves in subjection to the
“princes of the tribes.” Both the princes and heads of families are
mentioned under the common names of זקננים, _seniors_ or _senators_, and
ראשי שבטים _heads of tribes_. Following the law of reason, and the rules
established by custom, they governed with a paternal authority the
tribes and united families; and, while they left the minor concerns to
the heads of individual families, aimed to superintend and promote the
best interests of the community generally. Originally, it fell to the
princes of the tribes themselves to keep genealogical tables:
subsequently, they employed scribes especially for this purpose, who, in
the progress of time, acquired so great authority, that under the name
of שוטרים, translated, in the English version, _officers_, they were
permitted to exercise a share in the government of the nation. It was by
magistrates of this description that the Hebrews were governed while
they remained in Egypt; and the Egyptian kings made no objection to it,
Exod. iii, 16; v, 1, 14, 15, 19.

2. The posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were set apart and
destined to the great object of preserving and transmitting the true
religion, Gen. xviii, 16–20; xvii, 9–14; xii, 3; xxii, 18; xxviii, 14.
Having increased in numbers, it appeared very evident that they could
not live among nations given to idolatry without running the hazard of
becoming infected with the same evil. They were, therefore, in the
providence of God, assigned to a particular country, the extent of which
was so small, that they were obliged, if they would live independently
of other nations, to give up in a great measure the life of shepherds,
and devote themselves to agriculture. Farther: very many of the Hebrews
during their residence in Egypt had fallen into idolatrous habits. These
were to be brought back again to the knowledge of the true God, and all
were to be excited to engage in those undertakings which should be found
necessary for the support of the true religion. All the Mosaic
institutions aim at the accomplishment of these objects. The fundamental
principle, therefore, of those institutions was this,--that the true
God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, and none other, ought to
be worshipped. To secure this end the more certainly, God became king to
the Hebrews. Accordingly, the land of Canaan, which was destined to be
occupied by them, was declared to be the land of Jehovah, of which he
was to be the king, and the Hebrews merely the hereditary occupants. God
promulgated, from the clouds of Mount Sinai, the prominent laws for the
government of his people, considered as a religious community, Exod. xx.
These laws were afterward more fully developed and illustrated by Moses.
The rewards which should accompany the obedient, and the punishments
which should be the lot of the transgressor, were at the same time
announced, and the Hebrews promised by a solemn oath to obey, Exodus
xxi-xxiv; Deut. xxvii-xxx.

3. In order to keep the true nature of the community fully and
constantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to
God, not only as the Sovereign of the universe, but as the King of the
people. The people were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only
the temple of Jehovah, but the palace of their King; that the priests
were the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but
to secular affairs, and were to receive, as their salary, the first
tithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider a part of
that revenue which was due to God, their immediate Sovereign. Other
things of a less prominent and important nature had reference to the
same great end. Since, therefore, God was the Sovereign, in a civil
point of view as well as others, of Palestine and its inhabitants, the
commission of idolatry by any inhabitant of that country, even a
foreigner, was a defection from the true King. It was, in fact, treason;
was considered a crime equal in aggravation to that of murder; and was,
consequently, attended with the severest punishment. Whoever invited or
exhorted to idolatry was considered seditious, and was obnoxious to the
same punishment. Incantations also, necromancy, and other practices of
this nature, were looked upon as arts of a kindred aspect with idolatry
itself; and the same punishment was to be inflicted upon the
perpetrators of them as upon idolaters. The same rigour of inquiry after
the perpetrators of idolatry was enforced, that was exhibited in respect
to other crimes of the deepest aggravation; and the person who knew of
the commission of idolatry in another was bound by the law to complain
of the person thus guilty before the judge, though the criminal
sustained the near relationship of a wife or a brother, a daughter or a
son.

4. Many things in the administration of the government remained the same
under the Mosaic economy, as it had been before. The authority which
they had previously possessed, was continued in the time of Moses and
after his time, to the princes of the tribes, to the heads of families
and combinations of families, and to the genealogists, Num. xi, 16;
Deut. xvi, 18; xx, 5; xxxi, 28. Yet Moses, by the advice of Jethro, his
father-in-law, increased the number of rulers by the appointment of an
additional number of judges; some to judge over ten, some over fifty,
some over a hundred, and some over a thousand, men, Exodus xviii, 13–26.
These judges were elected by the suffrages of the people from those who,
by their authority and rank, might be reckoned among the rulers or
princes of the people. The inferior judges, that is, those who
superintended the judicial concerns of the smaller numbers, were
subordinate to the superior judges, or those who judged a larger number;
and cases, accordingly, of a difficult nature went up from the inferior
to the superior judges. Those of a very difficult character, so much so
as to be perplexing to the superior judges, were appealed to Moses
himself, and in some cases from Moses to the high priest. The judges, of
whom we have now spoken, sustained a civil as well as a judicial
authority, and were included in the list of those who are denominated
the elders and princes of Israel: that is to say, supposing they were
chosen from the elders and princes, they did not forfeit their seat
among them by accepting a judicial office; and, on the contrary, the
respectability attached to their office, supposing they were not chosen
from them, entitled them to be reckoned in their number, Deut. xxxi, 28;
Joshua viii, 33; xxiii, 2; xxiv, 1. The various civil officers that have
been mentioned, namely, judges, heads of families, genealogists, elders,
princes of the tribes, &c, were dispersed, as a matter of course, in
different parts of the country. Those of them, accordingly, who dwelt in
the same city, or the same neighbourhood, formed the _comitia_, senate
or legislative assembly of their immediate vicinity, Deut. xix, 12; xxv,
8, 9; Judges viii, 14; ix, 3–46; xi, 5; 1 Sam. viii, 4; xvi, 4. When all
that dwelt in any particular tribe were convened, they formed the
legislative assembly of the tribe; and when they were convened in one
body from all the tribes, they formed in like manner the legislative
assembly of the nation, and were the representatives of all the people,
Joshua xxiii, 1, 2; xxiv, 1. The priests, who were the learned class of
the community, and beside were hereditary officers in the state, being
set apart for civil as well as religious purposes, had, by the divine
command, a right to a sitting in this assembly, Exod. xxxii, 29; Num.
xxxvi, 15; viii, 5–26. Being thus called upon to sustain very different
and yet very important offices, they became the subjects of that envy
which would naturally be excited by the honour and the advantages
attached to their situation. In order to confirm them in the duties
which devolved upon them, and to throw at the greatest distance the mean
and lurking principle just mentioned, God, after the sedition of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, sanctioned the separation of the whole tribe, which
had been previously made to the service of religion and the state, by a
most evident and striking miracle, Num. xvi, 1–7.

5. Each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and consequently to a
certain extent constituted a civil community, independent of the other
tribes, Judges xx, 11–46; 2 Sam. ii, 4; Judges i, 21. If any affair
concerned the whole or many of the tribes, it was determined by them in
conjunction in the legislative assembly of the nation, Judges xi, 1–11;
1 Chron. v, 10, 18, 19; 2 Sam. iii, 17; 1 Kings xii, 1–24. If one tribe
found itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might
connect itself with another, or even a number of the other tribes,
Judges i, 1–3, 22; iv, 10; vii, 23, 24; viii, 1–3. But, although in many
things each tribe existed by itself, and acted separately, yet in others
they were united, and formed but one community: for all the tribes were
bound together, so as to form one church and one civil community, not
only by their common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only by
the common promises which they had received from those ancestors; not
only by the need in which they stood of mutual counsel and assistance;
but also by the circumstance that God was their common King, and that
they had a common tabernacle for his palace, and a common sacerdotal and
Levitical order for his ministers. Accordingly, every tribe exerted a
sort of inspection over the others, as respected their observance of the
law. If any thing had been neglected, or any wrong had been done, the
particular tribe concerned was amenable to the others; and, in case
justice could not be secured in any other way, might be punished with
war, Joshua xxii, 9–34; Judges xx, 1, &c.

6. When we remember that God was expressly chosen the King of the
people, and that he enacted laws and decided litigated points of
importance, Numbers xvii, 1–11; xxvii, 1–11; xxxvi, 1–10; when we
remember also that he answered and solved questions proposed, Num. xv,
32–41; Joshua vii, 16–22; Judges i, 1, 2; xx, 18, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv,
37; xxiii, 9–12; xxx, 8; 2 Sam. ii, 1; that he threatened punishment,
and that, in some instances, he actually inflicted it upon the hardened
and impenitent, Num. xi, 33–35; xii, 1–15; xvi, 1–50; Lev. xxvi, 3–46;
Deut. xxvi-xxx; when, finally, we take into account, that he promised
prophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors, Deut. xviii, and
afterward sent them according to his promise, and that, in order to
preserve the true religion, he governed the whole people by a striking
and peculiar providence, we are at liberty to say, that God was, in
fact, the Monarch of the people, and that the government was a
theocracy. But, although the government of the Jews was a theocracy, it
was not destitute of the usual forms which exist in civil governments
among men. God, it is true, was the King, and the high priest, if we may
be allowed so to speak, was his minister of state; but still the
political affairs were in a great measure under the disposal of the
elders, princes, &c. It was to them that Moses gave the divine commands,
determined expressly their powers; and submitted their requests to the
decision of God, Num. xiv, 5; xvi, 4, &c; xxvii, 5; xxxvi, 5, 6. It was
in reference to the great power possessed by these men, who formed the
legislative assembly of the nation, that Josephus pronounced the
government to be aristocratical. But from the circumstance that the
people possessed so much influence, as to render it necessary to submit
laws to them for their ratification, and that they even took upon
themselves sometimes to propose laws or to resist those which were
enacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation
had not the power of laying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated
and enforced by God himself, independently of the legislature, Lowman
and Michaëlis are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a
democracy. In support of their opinion such passages are exhibited as
the following, Exodus xix, 7, 8; xxiv, 3–8; Deut. xxix, 9–14; Joshua ix,
18, 19; xxiii, 1, &c; xxiv, 2, &c; 1 Samuel x, 24; xi, 14, 15; Num.
xxvii, 1–8; xxxvi, 1–9. The truth seems to lie between these two
opinions. The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical
feature, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a
democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.

7. From what has been said, it is clear, that the Ruler and supreme Head
of the political community in question was God, who, with the design of
promoting the good of his subjects, condescended to exhibit his visible
presence in the tabernacle, wherever it travelled and wherever it dwelt.
If, in reference to the assertion, that God was the Ruler of the Jewish
state, it should be inquired what part was sustained by Moses, the
answer is, that God was the Ruler, the people were his subjects, and
Moses was the mediator or internuncio between them. But the title most
appropriate to Moses, and most descriptive of the part he sustained, is
that of legislator of the Israelites and their deliverer from the
Egyptians. If the same question should be put in respect to Joshua, the
answer would be, that he was not properly the successor of Moses, and
that, so far from being the ruler of the state, he was designated by the
ruler to sustain the subordinate office of military leader of the
Israelites in their conquest of the land of Canaan.

8. But, although the Hebrew state was so constituted, that beside God,
the invisible King, and his visible servant, the high priest, there was
no other general ruler of the commonwealth, yet it is well known that
there were rulers of a high rank, appointed at various times, called
ושפט, a word which not only signifies a _judge_ in the usual sense of
the term, but any governor, or administrator of public affairs, 1 Sam.
viii, 20; Isaiah xi, 4; 1 Kings iii, 9. The power lodged in these
rulers, who are called judges in the Scriptures, seems to have been in
some respects paramount to that of the general _comitia_ of the nation,
and we find that they declared war, led armies, concluded peace; and
that this was not the whole, if indeed it was the most important part,
of their duties. For many of the judges, for instance, Jair, Ibzan,
Elon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel, ruled the nation in peace. They might
appropriately enough be called the supreme executive, exercising all the
rights of sovereignty, with the exception of enacting laws, and imposing
taxes. They were honoured, but they bore no external badges of
distinction; they were distinguished, but they enjoyed no special
privileges themselves, and communicated none to their posterity. They
subserved the public good without emolument, that the state might be
prosperous, that religion might be preserved, and that God alone might
be King in Israel. It ought to be observed, however, that not all the
judges ruled the whole nation: some of them presided over only a few
separate tribes.

9. God, in the character of King, had governed the Israelites for
sixteen ages. He ruled them, on the terms which he himself, through the
agency of Moses, had proposed to them, namely, that if they observed
their allegiance to him, they should be prosperous; if not, adversity
and misery would be the consequence, Exod. xix, 4, 5; xxiii, 20–33; Lev.
xxvi, 3–46; Deut. xxviii-xxx. We may learn from the whole book of
Judges, and from the first eight chapters of Samuel, how exactly the
result, from the days of Joshua down to the time of Samuel, agreed with
these conditions. But in the time of Samuel, the government, in point of
form, was changed into a monarchy. The election of king, however, was
committed to God, who chose one by lot: so that God was still the Ruler,
and the king the vicegerent. The terms of the government, as respected
God, were the same as before, and the same duties and principles were
inculcated on the Israelites as had been originally, 1 Sam. viii, 7; x,
17–23; xii, 14, 15, 20–22, 24, 25. In consequence of the fact, that Saul
did not choose at all times to obey the commands of God, the kingdom was
taken from him and given to another, 1 Sam. xiii, 5–14; xv, 1–31. David,
through the agency of Samuel, was selected by Jehovah for king, who thus
gave a proof that he still retained, and was disposed to exercise, the
right of appointing the ruler under him, 1 Samuel xvi, 1–3. David was
first made king over Judah; but as he received his appointment from God,
and acted under his authority, the other eleven tribes submitted to him,
2 Sam. v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xxviii, 4–6. David expressly acknowledged God as
the Sovereign, and, as having a right to appoint the immediate ruler of
the people, 1 Chron. xxviii, 7–10; he religiously obeyed his statutes,
the people adhered firmly to God, and his reign was prosperous. The
paramount authority of God, as the King of the nation, and his right to
appoint one who should act in the capacity of his vicegerent, are
expressly recognized in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

10. On the subversion of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus, the founder of
the Persian monarchy, (B. C. 543,) he authorized the Jews, by an edict,
to return into their own country, with full permission to enjoy their
laws and religion, and caused the city and temple of Jerusalem to be
rebuilt. In the following year, part of the Jews returned under
Zerubbabel, and renewed their sacrifices: but the reërection of the city
and temple being interrupted for several years by the treachery and
hostility of the Samaritans or Cutheans, the avowed enemies of the Jews,
the completion and dedication of the temple did not take place until the
year B. C. 511, six years after the accession of Cyrus. The rebuilding
of Jerusalem was accomplished, and the reformation of their
ecclesiastical and civil polity was effected, by the two divinely
inspired and pious governors, Ezra and Nehemiah; but the theocratic
government does not appear to have been restored. The new temple was
not, as formerly, God’s palace; and the cloud of his presence did not
take possession of it. After their death the Jews were governed by their
high priests, in subjection however to the Persian kings, to whom they
paid tribute, Ezra iv, 13; vii, 24, but with the full enjoyment of their
other magistrates, as well as their liberties, civil and religious.
Nearly three centuries of uninterrupted prosperity ensued, until the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were most cruelly
oppressed, and compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the
able conduct of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the
Jews maintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five
successive kings of Syria; and after destroying upward of two hundred
thousand of their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the
independence of their own country and the aggrandizement of their
family. This illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and
pontifical dignity in their own persons, administered the affairs of the
Jews during a period of one hundred and twenty-six years; until,
disputes arising between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the
latter was defeated by the Romans under Pompey, who captured Jerusalem,
and reduced Judea to dependence, B. C. 59.

GOVERNOR. Judea having been reduced into a province by the Romans, they
sent governors thither, who were subject not only to the emperors, but
also to the governors of Syria, whereof Judea made a part.

GOURD, קיקון, Jonah iv, 6, 7, 9, 10. Michaëlis, in his remarks on this
subject, says, “Celsius appears to me to have proved that it is the
_kiki_ of the Egyptians.” He refers it to the class of the _ricinus_,
the great _catapucus_. According to Dioscorides, it is of rapid growth,
and bears a berry from which an oil is expressed. In the Arabic version
of this passage, which is to be found in Avicenna, it is rendered, “from
thence is pressed the oil which they call oil of _kiki_, which is the
oil of Alkeroa.” So Herodotus says: “The inhabitants of the marshy
grounds in Egypt make use of an oil, which they term the _kiki_,
expressed from the Sillicyprian plant. In Greece this plant springs
spontaneously, without any cultivation; but the Egyptians sow it on the
banks of the river and of the canals; it there produces fruit in great
abundance, but of a very strong odour. When gathered, they obtain from
it, either by friction or pressure, an unctuous liquid, which diffuses
an offensive smell, but for burning it is equal in quality to the oil of
olives.” This plant rises with a strong herbaceous stalk to the height
of ten or twelve feet; and is furnished with very large leaves, not
unlike those of the plane tree. Rabbi Kimchi says that the people of the
east plant them before their shops for the sake of the shade, and to
refresh themselves under them. Niebuhr says, “I saw, for the first time
at Basra, the plant _ei-keroa_, mentioned in Michaëlis’s ‘Questions.’ It
has the form of a tree. The trunk appeared to me rather to resemble
leaves than wood; nevertheless, it is harder than that which bears the
Adam’s fig. Each branch of the keroa has but one large leaf, with six or
seven foldings in it. This plant was near to a rivulet, which watered it
amply. At the end of October, 1765, it had risen in five months’ time
about eight feet, and bore at once flowers and fruit, ripe and unripe.
Another tree of this species, which had not had so much water, had not
grown more in a whole year. The flowers and leaves of it which I
gathered withered in a few minutes; as do all plants of a rapid growth.
This tree is called at Aleppo, _palma Christi_. An oil is made from it
called _oleum de keroa_; _oleum cicinum_; _oleum ficus infernalis_. The
Christians and Jews of Mosul (Nineveh) say, it was not the _keroa_ whose
shadow refreshed Jonah, but a sort of gourd, _el-kera_, which has very
large leaves, very large fruit, and lasts but about four months.” The
epithet which the prophet uses in speaking of the plant, “son of the
night it was, and, as a son of the night it died,” does not compel us to
believe that it grew in a single night, but, either by a strong oriental
figure that it was of rapid growth, or akin to night in the shade it
spread for his repose. The figure is not uncommon in the east, and one
of our own poets has called the rose “child of the summer.” Nor are we
bound to take the expression “on the morrow,” as strictly importing the
very next day, since the word has reference to much more distant time,
Exod. xiii, 14; Deut. vi, 20; Joshua iv, 6. It might be simply taken as
_afterward_. But the author of “Scripture Illustrated” justly remarks,
“As the history in Jonah expressly says, _the_ Lord prepared this plant,
no doubt we may conceive of it as an extraordinary one of its kind,
remarkably rapid in its growth, remarkably hard in its stem, remarkably
vigorous in its branches, and remarkable for the extensive spread of its
leaves and the deep gloom of their shadow; and, after a certain
duration, remarkable for a sudden withering, and a total uselessness to
the impatient prophet.”

2. We read of the wild gourd in 2 Kings iv, 39; that Elisha, being at
Gilgal during a great famine, bade one of his servants prepare something
for the entertainment of the prophets who were in that place. The
servant, going into the field, found, as our translators render it, some
_wild gourds_, gathered a lapful of them, and, having brought them with
him, cut them in pieces and put them into a pot, not knowing what they
were. When they were brought to table, the prophets, having tasted them,
thought they were mortal poison. Immediately, the man of God called for
flour, threw it into the pot, and desired them to eat without any
apprehensions. They did so, and perceived nothing of the bitterness
whereof they were before sensible. This plant or fruit is called in
Hebrew פקיעות and פקעים. There have been various opinions about it.
Celsius supposes it the _colocynth_. The leaves of the plant are large,
placed alternate; the flowers white, and the fruit of the gourd kind, of
the size of a large apple, which, when ripe, is yellow, and of a
pleasant and inviting appearance, but, to the taste intolerably bitter,
and proves a drastic purgative. It seems that the fruit, whatever it
might have been, was early thought proper for an ornament in
architecture. It furnished a model for some of the carved work of cedar
in Solomon’s temple, 1 Kings vi, 18; vii, 24.

GRACE. This word is understood in several senses: for beauty, graceful
form, and agreeableness of person, Prov. i, 9; iii, 22. For favour,
friendship, kindness, Gen. vi, 8; xviii, 3; Rom. xi, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9. For
pardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offences, Eph. ii, 5; Col. i, 6.
For certain gifts of God, which he bestows freely, when, where, and on
whom, he pleases; such are the gifts of miracles, prophecy, languages,
&c, Rom. xv, 15; 1 Cor. xv, 10; Eph. iii, 8, &c. For the Gospel
dispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law, Rom. vi, 14; 1
Peter v, 12. For a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. viii, 7.
For eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter i, 13. In theological
language grace also signifies divine influence upon the soul; and it
derives the name from this being the effect of the great grace or favour
of God to mankind. Austin defines inward actual grace to be the
inspiration of love, which prompts us to practise according to what we
know, out of a religious affection and compliance. He says, likewise,
that the grace of God is the blessing of God’s sweet influence, whereby
we are induced to take pleasure in that which he commands, to desire and
to love it; and that if God does not prevent us with this blessing, what
he commands, not only is not perfected, but is not so much as begun in
us. Without the inward grace of Jesus Christ, man is not able to do the
least thing that is good. He stands in need of this grace to begin,
continue, and finish all the good he does, or rather, which God does in
him and with him, by his grace. This grace is free; it is not due to us:
if it were due to us, it would be no more grace; it would be a debt,
Rom. xi, 6; it is in its nature an assistance so powerful and
efficacious, that it surmounts the obstinacy of the most rebellious
human heart, without destroying human liberty. There is no subject on
which Christian doctors have written so largely, as on the several
particulars relating to the grace of God. The difficulty consists in
reconciling human liberty with the operation of divine grace; the
concurrence of man with the influence and assistance of the Almighty.
And who is able to set up an accurate boundary between these two things?
Who can pretend to know how far the privileges of grace extend over the
heart of man, and what that man’s liberty exactly is, who is prevented,
enlightened, moved, and attracted by grace?

GRAPE, ענב, the fruit of the vine. There were fine vineyards and
excellent grapes in the promised land. The bunch of grapes which was cut
in the valley of Eshcol, and was brought upon a staff between two men to
the camp of Israel at Kadeshbarnea, Num. xiii, 23, may give us some
idea, of the largeness of the fruit in that country. It would be easy to
produce a great number of witnesses to prove that the grapes in those
regions grow to a prodigious size. By Calmet, Scheuchzer, and Harmer,
this subject has been exhausted. Doubdan assures us, that in the valley
of Eshcol were clusters of grapes to be found of ten or twelve pounds.
Moses, in the law, commanded that when the Israelites gathered their
grapes, they should not be careful to pick up those that fell, nor be so
exact as to leave none upon the vines: what fell, and what were left
behind, the poor had liberty to glean, Lev. xix, 10; Deut. xxiv, 21, 22.
For the same beneficent purpose the second vintage was reserved: this,
in those warm countries, was considerable, though never so good nor so
plentiful as the former. The wise son of Sirach says, “I waked up last
of all, as one that gleaneth after grape gatherers. By the blessing of
the Lord, I profited, and filled my wine-press like a gatherer of
grapes,” Ecclus. xxxiii, 16. It is frequent in Scripture to describe a
total destruction by the similitude of a vine, stripped in such a
manner, that there was not a bunch of grapes left for those who came to
glean. The prophecy, “He shall wash his clothes in wine, and his
garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix, 11, means that he shall
reside in a country where grapes were in abundance. The vineyards of
Engedi and of Sorek, so famous in Scripture, were in the tribe of Judah;
and so was the valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought those
extraordinary clusters. “It appears,” says Manti, “that the cultivation
of the vine was never abandoned in this country. The grapes, which are
white, and pretty large, are, however, not much superior in size to
those of Europe. This peculiarity seems to be confined to those in this
neighbourhood; for at the distance of only six miles to the south, is
the rivulet and valley called Escohol, celebrated in Scripture for its
fertility, and for producing very large grapes. In other parts of Syria,
also, I have seen grapes of such an extraordinary size, that a bunch of
them would be a sufficient burden for one man. It is not at all
surprising, therefore, that when the spies, sent by Moses to reconnoitre
the promised land, returned to give him an account of its fertility, it
required two of them to carry a bunch of grapes, which they brought with
them suspended from a pole placed upon their shoulders.” Many eye
witnesses assure us, that in Palestine the vines, and bunches of grapes,
are almost of an incredible size. “At Beidtdjin,” says Schultz, a
“village near Ptolemais, we took our supper under a large vine, the stem
of which was nearly a foot and a half in diameter, the height about
thirty feet, and covered with its branches and shoots (for the shoots
must be supported) a hut of more than fifty feet long and broad. The
bunches of these grapes are so large that they weigh from ten to twelve
pounds, and the grapes may be compared to our plumbs. Such a bunch is
cut off and laid on a board, round which they seat themselves, and each
helps himself to as many as he pleases.” Forster, in his Hebrew
Dictionary, (under the word Eshcol,) says, that he knew at Nurnburg, a
monk of the name of Acacius, who had resided eight years in Palestine,
and had also preached at Hebron, where he had seen bunches of grapes
which were as much as two men could conveniently carry.

The wild grapes, אבשים, are the fruit of the wild or bastard vine; sour
and unpalatable, and good for nothing but to make verjuice. In Isaiah v,
2–4, the Lord complains that he had planted his people as a choice vine,
excellent as that of Sorek; but that its degeneracy had defeated his
purpose, and disappointed his hopes: when he expected that it should
bring forth choice fruit, it yielded only such as was bad; not merely
useless and unprofitable grapes, but clusters offensive and noxious. By
the force and intent of the allegory, says Bishop Lowth, “good grapes”
ought to be opposed “to fruit of a dangerous and pernicious quality,”
as, in the application of it, to judgment is opposed tyranny, and to
righteousness oppression. Hasselquist is inclined to believe that the
prophet here means the _solanum incanum_, “hoary nightshade,” because it
is common in Egypt and Palestine, and the Arabian name agrees well with
it. The Arabs call it _aneb el dib_, “wolf’s grapes.” The prophet could
not have found a plant more opposite to the vine than this; for it grows
much in the vineyards, and is very pernicious to them. It is likewise a
vine. Jeremiah uses the same image, and applies it to the same purpose,
in an elegant paraphrase of this part of Isaiah’s parable, in his
flowing and plaintive manner: “I planted thee a Sorek, a scion perfectly
genuine. How then art thou changed, and become to me the degenerate
shoot of a strange vine!” Jer. ii, 21. From some sort of poisonous
fruits of the grape kind, Moses, Deut. xxxii, 32, 33, has taken those
strong and highly poetical images with which he has set forth the future
corruption and extreme degeneracy of the Israelites, in an allegory
which has a near relation, both in its subject and imagery, to this of
Isaiah:--

                 “Their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
                 And from the fields of Gomorrah.
                 Their grapes are grapes of gall;
                 And their clusters are bitter.
                 Their wine is the poison of dragons,
                 And the deadly venom of aspics.”

GRASS, דשא, Gen. i, 11, the well known vegetable upon which flocks and
herds feed, and which decks our fields, and refreshes our sight with its
grateful verdure. Its feeble frame and transitory duration are mentioned
in Scripture as emblematic of the frail condition and fleeting existence
of man. The inspired poets draw this picture with such inimitable beauty
as the laboured elegies on mortality of ancient and modern times have
never surpassed. See Psalm xc, 6, and particularly Isaiah xl, 6–8: “The
voice said, Cry! And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and
all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth
upon it. Verily this people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” As, in their
decay, the herbs of the fields strikingly illustrate the shortness of
human life, so, in the order of their growth, from seeds dead and
buried, they give a natural testimony to the doctrine of a resurrection.
The Prophet Isaiah, and the Apostle Peter, both speak of bodies rising
from the dead, as of so many seeds springing from the ground to
renovated existence and beauty, although they do not, as some have
absurdly supposed, consider the resurrection as in any sense analogous
to the process of vegetation, Isaiah xxvi, 19; 1 Peter i, 24, 25.

It is a just remark of Grotius, that the Hebrews ranked the whole
vegetable system under two classes, עץ, and עשב. The first is rendered
ξύλον, or δένδρον, _tree_: to express the second, the LXX have adopted
χόρτος, as their common way to translate one Hebrew word by one Greek
word, though not quite proper, rather than by a circumlocution. It is
accordingly used in their version of Genesis i, 11, where the
distinction first occurs, and in most other places. Nor is it with
greater propriety rendered _grass_ in English than χόρτος in Greek. The
same division occurs in Matt. vi, 30, and Rev. viii, 7, where our
translators have in like manner had recourse to the term _grass_. Dr.
Campbell prefers and uses the word _herbage_, as coming nearer the
meaning of the sacred writer. Under the name _herb_ is comprehended
every sort of plant which has not, like trees and shrubs, a perennial
stalk. That many, if not all, sorts of shrubs were included by the
Hebrews under the denomination, _tree_, is evident from Jotham’s
apologue of the trees choosing a king, Judges ix, 7, where the bramble
is mentioned as one. See HAY.

GRASSHOPPER, חגב, Lev. xi, 22; Num. xiii, 33; 2 Chron. vii, 13; Eccles.
xii, 5; Isaiah xl, 22; 2 Esdras iv, 24; Wisdom xvi, 9; Eccles. xliii,
17. Bochart supposes that this species of the locust has its name from
the Arabic verb _hajaba_, “to veil,” because, when they fly, as they
often do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. “But
I presume,” says Parkhurst, “this circumstance is not peculiar to any
particular kind of locust: I should rather, therefore, think it denotes
the _cucullated_ species, so denominated by naturalists from the
_cucullus_, “cowl” or “hood,” with which they are furnished, and which
distinguishes them from the other kinds. In Scheuchzer may be seen
several of this sort; and it will appear that this species nearly
resemble our grasshopper.” Our translators render the Hebrew word
_locust_ in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, 2
Chron. vii, 13, and with propriety. But it is rendered _grasshopper_, in
Eccles. xii, 5, where Solomon, describing the infelicities of old age,
says, “The grasshopper shall be a burden.” “To this insect,” says Dr.
Smith, “the preacher compares a dry, shrunk, shrivelled, crumpling,
craggy old man; his backbone sticking out, his knees projecting forward,
his arms backward, his head downward, and the apophyses or bunching
parts of the bones in general enlarged. And from this exact likeness,
without all doubt, arose the fable of Tithonus, who, living to extreme
old age, was at last turned into a grasshopper.” Dr. Hodgson, referring
it to the custom of eating locusts, supposes it to imply that luxurious
gratification will become insipid; and Bishop Reynolds, that the
lightest pressure of so small a creature shall be uncomfortable to the
aged, as not being able to bear any weight. Other commentators suppose
the reference to the chirping noise of the grasshopper, which must be
disagreeable to the aged and infirm, who naturally love quiet, and are
commonly unable to bear much noise. It is probable that here, also, a
kind of locust is meant; and these creatures are proverbially
loquacious. They make a loud, screaking, and disagreeable noise with
their wings. If one begins, others join, and the hateful concert becomes
universal. A pause then ensues, and, as it were, on a signal given, it
again commences; and in this manner they continue squalling for two or
three hours without intermission. The Prophet Isaiah contrasts the
grandeur and power of God, and every thing reputed great in this world,
by a very expressive reference to this insect: Jehovah sitteth on the
circle of the earth, and the inhabitants are to him as grasshoppers,
Isaiah xl, 22. What atoms and inanities are they all before him, who
sitteth on the circle of the immense heavens, and views the potentates
of the earth in the light of grasshoppers, those poor insects that
wander over the barren heath for sustenance, spend the day in
insignificant chirpings, and take up their contemptible lodging at night
on a blade of grass! See LOCUST.

GRECIA, or GREECE, both names occurring in the English Scriptures. The
boundaries of the country which received this name differed under the
different governments which ruled over it. Thus the Greece of the Old
Testament is not exactly the same as that of the New: the former
including Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Hellas or Greece Proper, and the
Peloponnesus or Morea; while the latter excludes Macedonia, Thessaly,
and Epirus. But the Romans, in the time of the Apostles, had, in fact,
made two divisions of these countries. The first, which was that of
Macedonia, included also Thessaly and Epirus; and the other, that of
Achaia, all the rest of Greece, which is, properly speaking, the Greece
of the New Testament. But the term _Greek_ admits of a larger
interpretation, and applies not only to the inhabitants of Greece
Proper, but to those of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, over nearly the
whole of the former of which countries, and great part of the two
latter, Grecian colonies and the Grecian language had extended
themselves. In fact, in the two books of the Maccabees, and in those of
the New Testament, the word _Greek_ commonly implies a Gentile.

2. The Scripture has but little reference to Greece till the time of
Alexander, whose conquests extended into Asia, where Greece had hitherto
been of no importance. Yet that some intercourse was maintained with
these countries from Jerusalem, may be inferred from the desire of
Baasha to shut up all passage between Jerusalem and Joppa, which was its
port, by the building of Ramah; and the anxiety of Asa to counteract his
scheme, 1 Kings xv, 2, 17. Greece was certainly intended by the Prophet
Daniel under the symbol of the single-horned goat; and it is probable
that when he calls Greece Chittim, he spoke the language of the Hebrew
nation, rather than that of the Persian court. After the establishment
of the Grecian dynasties in Asia, Judea could not but be considerably
affected by them; and the books of the Maccabees afford proofs of this.
The Roman power, superseding the Grecian establishments, yet left traces
of Greek language, customs, &c, to the days of the Herods, when the
Gospel history commences. By the activity of the Apostles, and
especially by that of St. Paul, the Gospel was propagated in those
countries which used the Grecian dialects: hence, we are interested in
the study of this language. Moreover as Greece, like all other
countries, had its peculiar manners, we are not able to estimate
properly an epistle written to those who dwell where they prevailed,
without a competent acquaintance with the manners themselves, with the
sentiments and reasonings of those who practised them, and with the
arguments employed in their defence by those who adhered to them.

GREEK LANGUAGE. It was because of the wide diffusion of this language
that the New Testament was written in Greek. Its diction is not,
however, that of the classical Greek, but it was chosen, no doubt, with
a view to greater usefulness. In the age which succeeded Alexander the
Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double
nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, ἡ κοινὴ
διαλεκτὸς, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with
not a few provincialisms; but a language of popular intercourse was also
formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes,
heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together, while the
Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language
constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the LXX, the writers of
the Apocrypha, and of the New Testament. The style of the New Testament
has a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version which
was executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to
the idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew
phraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New
Testament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions
with those which are properly Greek. Hence it has, by some philologers,
been termed _Hebraic Greek_, and (from the Jews having acquired the
Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in
whose countries they resided in large communities) _Hellenistic Greek_.
The propriety of this appellation was severely contested toward the
close of the seventeenth, and in the early part of the eighteenth,
century; and numerous publications were written on both sides of the
question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the
controversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting
to the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere “strife of words;”
and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently
correct for the purpose of characterizing the language of the New
Testament, it is now generally adopted. A large proportion, however, of
the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that
is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in
Macedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman history. It should
farther be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that
express both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the
Greeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretations from
those which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. It contains examples
of all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the Æolic,
Bœtic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which, being most
generally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the
New Testament.

2. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New
Testament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the
language most generally understood both by writers and readers; being
spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire,
and particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the
Greek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and
the circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and
commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through
various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated
the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New
Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the
Greek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus,
had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at
least there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the
Gospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that
many of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also
certain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly
of that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every
church, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of
tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn
the Apostles’ Greek epistles into the language of the church to which
they were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who
read the Apostle’s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public
assemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew
language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And
with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native
language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for
their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in
the Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that
all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language,
because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and
explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more
advantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in
one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been
expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were
sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to
write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally
understood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of
all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be
preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would
be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage
none of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles’ days could pretend
to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused;
and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be
preserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles’ letters as were composed
in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.

GREEK CHURCH. As the Gospel spread in the first ages both east and west,
the first Christian churches were so denominated. From the languages
respectively used in their devotions, they were also called the Greek
and Latin or Roman churches. For the first seven centuries these
churches preserved a friendly communion with each other, notwithstanding
they disagreed as to the time of keeping Easter, and some other points.
But about the middle of the eighth century, disputes arose, which
terminated in a schism, that continues to this day. It arose out of a
controversy respecting the use of images in the churches. It happened
that at this time both churches were under prelates equally dogmatical
and ambitious. The patriarch of Constantinople insisted on putting down
the use of all images and pictures, not only in his own church, but at
Rome also, which the pope resented with equal violence and asperity.
They mutually excommunicated each other; and the pope of Rome
excommunicated not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but the emperor
also. The controversy respecting images engendered another, no less
bitter, respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father
and the Son, which the Greeks flatly denied, and charged the Romans with
interpolating the word _filioque_ into the ancient creeds. These
controversies occupied the eighth and ninth centuries, after which some
intervals of partial peace occurred; but in the eleventh century, the
flame broke out afresh, and a total separation took place. At that time,
the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who was desirous to free himself from
the papal authority, published an invective against the Latin church,
and accused its members of maintaining various errors. Pope Leo retorted
the charge, and sent legates from Rome to Constantinople. The Greek
patriarch refused to see them; upon which they excommunicated him and
his adherents, publicly, in the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 1054. The
Greek patriarch excommunicated those legates, with all their adherents
and followers, in a public council; and procured an order of the emperor
for burning the act of excommunication which they had pronounced against
the Greeks. Thus the separation was completed, and at this day a very
considerable part of the world profess the religion of the Greek or
eastern church. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds, with the exception of
the words above-mentioned, are the symbols of their faith.

2. The principal points which distinguish the Greek church from the
Latin, are as follows: they maintain that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father only, and not from the Father and Son. They disown the
authority of the pope, and deny that the church of Rome is the only true
catholic church. They do not affect the character of infallibility, and
utterly disallow works of supererogation, and indulgences. They admit of
prayers and services for the dead, as an ancient and pious custom; but
they will not admit the doctrine of purgatory, nor determine any thing
dogmatically concerning the state of departed souls. In baptism they
practise triune immersion, or dip three times; but some, as the
Georgians, defer the baptism of their children till they are three,
four, or more years of age. The chrism, or baptismal unction,
immediately follows baptism. This chrism, solemnly consecrated on
Maunday Thursday, is called the unction with ointment, and is a mystery
peculiar to the Greek communion, holding the place of confirmation in
that of the Roman: it is styled, “the seal of the gift of the Holy
Ghost.” They administer the Lord’s Supper in both kinds, dipping the
bread in the cup of wine, in which a small portion of warm water is also
inserted. They give it both to the clergy and laity, and to children
after baptism. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction out of the
number of sacraments; but they use the holy oil, which is not confined
to persons in the close of life, like extreme unction, but is
administered, if required, to all sick persons. Three priests, at least,
are required to administer this sacrament, each priest, in his turn,
anointing the sick person, and praying for his recovery. They deny
auricular confession to be a divine command; but practise confession
attended with absolution, and sometimes penance. Though they believe in
transubstantiation, or rather consubstantiation, they do not worship the
elements. They pay a secondary kind of adoration to the virgin and other
saints. They do not admit of images or figures in bas-relief, or
embossed work; but use paintings and silver shrines. They admit
matrimony to be a sacrament, and celebrate it with great formality.
Their secular clergy, under the rank of bishops, are allowed to marry
once, and laymen twice; but fourth marriages they hold in abomination.
They observe a great number of holy days, and keep four fasts in the
year more solemn than the rest, of which Good Friday is the chief.

3. The service of the Greek church is too long and complicated to be
particularly described in this work; the greater part consists in psalms
and hymns. Five orders of priesthood belong to the Greek church; namely,
bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, and readers; which last includes
singers, &c. The episcopal order is distinguished by the titles of
metropolitan, archbishops, and bishops. The head of the Greek church,
the patriarch of Constantinople, is elected by twelve bishops, who
reside nearest that famous capital. This prelate calls councils by his
own authority to govern the church. The other patriarchs are those of
Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all nominated by the patriarch of
Constantinople, who enjoys a most extensive jurisdiction. For the
administration of ecclesiastical affairs, a synod, convened monthly, is
composed of the heads of the church resident in Constantinople. In this
assembly, the patriarch of Constantinople presides, with those of
Antioch and Jerusalem, and twelve archbishops. In regard to discipline
and worship, the Greek church has the same division of the clergy into
regular and secular, the same spiritual jurisdiction of bishops and
their officials, the same distinction of ranks and offices, with the
church of Rome.

4. The Greek church comprehends a considerable part of Greece, the
Grecian isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, Lybia,
Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, and Palestine; Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem; the whole of the Russian empire in Europe; great part of
Siberia in Asia, Astrachan, Casan, and Georgia.

GRIND. See MILL.

GROVE. It is proper to observe, that in order the more effectually to
guard the Israelites from idolatry, the blessed God, in instituting the
rites of his own worship, went directly counter to the practice of the
idolatrous nations. Thus, because they worshipped in groves, he
expressly forbade “the planting a grove of trees near his altar,” Deut.
xvi, 21. Nor would he suffer his people to offer their sacrifices on the
tops of hills and mountains, as the Heathens did, but ordered that they
should be brought to one altar in the place which he appointed, Deut.
xii, 13, 14. And as for the groves, which the Canaanites had planted,
and the idols and altars which they had erected on the tops of high
mountains and hills for the worship of their gods, the Israelites are
commanded utterly to destroy them, Deut. xii, 2, 3. The groves and high
places do not seem to have been different, but the same places, or
groves planted on the tops of hills, probably round an open area, in
which the idolatrous worship was performed, as may be inferred from the
following words of the Prophet Hosea: “They sacrifice upon the tops of
mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks, and poplars, and
elms,” Hosea iv, 13. The use of groves for religious worship is
generally supposed to have been as ancient as the patriarchal ages; for
we are informed, that “Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called
there on the name of the Lord,” Gen. xxi, 33. However, it is not
expressly said, nor can it by this passage be proved, that he planted
the grove for any religious purpose; it might only be designed to shade
his tent. And this circumstance perhaps is recorded to intimate his
rural way of living, as well as his religious character; that he dwelt
in a tent, under the shade of a grove, or tree, as the word אשל,
_eshel_, may more properly be translated; and in this humble habitation
led a very pious and devout life. The reason and origin of planting
sacred groves is variously conjectured; some imagining it was only
hereby intended to render the service more agreeable to the worshippers,
by the pleasantness of the shade; whereas others suppose it was to
invite the presence of the gods. The one or the other of these reasons
seems to be intimated in the fore-cited passage of Hosea: “They burn
incense under oaks, and poplars, and elms, because the shade thereof is
good,” Hosea iv, 13. Others conceive their worship was performed in the
midst of groves, because the gloom of such a place is apt to strike a
religious awe upon the mind; or else, because such dark concealments
suited the lewd mysteries of their idolatrous worship. Another
conjecture, which seems as probable as any, is, that this practice began
with the worship of demons, or departed souls. It was an ancient custom
to bury the dead under trees, or in woods. “Deborah was buried under an
oak, near Bethel,” Genesis xxxv, 8; and the bones of Saul and Jonathan
under a tree at Jabesh, 1 Samuel xxxi, 13. Now an imagination prevailing
among the Heathen, that the souls of the deceased hover about their
graves, or at least delight to visit their dead bodies, the idolaters,
who paid divine honours to the souls of their departed heroes, erected
images and altars for their worship in the same groves where they were
buried; and from thence it grew into a custom afterward to plant groves,
and build temples, near the tombs of departed heroes, 2 Kings xxiii, 15,
16, and to surround their temples and altars with groves and trees; and
these sacred groves being constantly furnished with the images of the
heroes or gods that were worshipped in them, a grove and an idol came to
be used as convertible terms, 2 Kings xxiii, 6.


HABAKKUK, the author of the prophecy bearing his name, Habakkuk i, 1,
&c. Nothing is certainly known concerning the tribe or birth place of
Habakkuk. He is said to have prophesied about B. C. 605, and to have
been alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar. It is generally believed that he remained and died in
Judea. The principal predictions contained in this book are, the
destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the Jews by the Chaldeans
or Babylonians; their deliverance from the oppressor “at the appointed
time;” and the total ruin of the Babylonian empire. The promise of the
Messiah is confirmed; the overruling providence of God is asserted; and
the concluding prayer, or rather hymn, recounts the wonders which God
had wrought for his people, when he led them from Egypt into Canaan, and
expresses the most perfect confidence in the fulfilment of his promises.
The style of Habakkuk is highly poetical, and the hymn in the third
chapter is perhaps unrivalled for sublimity, simplicity, and power.

HABITS. The dress of oriental nations, to which the inspired writers
often allude, has undergone almost no change from the earliest times.
Their stuffs were fabricated of various materials; but wool was
generally used in their finer fabrics; and the hair of goats, camels,
and even of horses, was manufactured for coarser purposes, especially
for sackcloth, which they wore in time of mourning and distress.
Sackcloth of black goat’s hair was manufactured for mournings; the
colour and the coarseness of which being reckoned more suitable to the
circumstances of the wearer, than the finer and more valuable texture
which the hair of white goats supplied. This is the reason why a clouded
sky is represented, in the bold figurative language of Scripture, as
covered with sackcloth and blackness, the colour and dress of persons in
affliction. In Egypt and Syria, they wore also fine linen, cotton, and
byssus, probably fine muslin from India, in Hebrew כוצ, the finest cloth
known to the ancients. In Canaan, persons of distinction were dressed in
fine linen of Egypt; and according to some authors, in silk, and rich
cloth, shaded with the choicest colours, or, as the Vulgate calls it,
with feathered work, embroidered with gold. The beauty of their clothes
consisted in the fineness and colour of the stuffs; and it seems, the
colour most in use among the Israelites, as well as among the Greeks and
Romans, was white, not imparted and improved by the dyer’s art, but the
native colour of the wool. The general use of this colour seems to be
recognized by Solomon in his direction: “Let thy garments be always
white,” Eccles. ix, 8. But garments in the native colour of the wool
were not confined to the lower orders; they were also in great esteem
among persons of superior station, and are particularly valued in
Scripture, as the emblem of knowledge and purity, gladness and victory,
grace and glory. The priests of Baal were habited in black; a colour
which appears to have been peculiar to themselves, and which few others
in those countries, except mourners, would choose to wear. Blue was a
colour in great esteem among the Jews, and other oriental nations. The
robe of the ephod, in the gorgeous dress of the high priest, was made
all of blue; it was a prominent colour in the sumptuous hangings of the
tabernacle; and the whole people of Israel were required to put a fringe
of blue upon the border of their garments, and on the fringe a riband of
the same colour. The palace of Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was
furnished with curtains of this colour, on a pavement of red, and blue,
and white marble; a proof that it was not less esteemed in Persia than
on the Jordan. And from Ezekiel we learn, that the Assyrian nobles were
habited in robes of this colour: “She doated on the Assyrians, her
neighbours, which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of
them desirable young men.”

2. The Jewish nobles and courtiers, upon great and solemn occasions,
appeared in scarlet robes, dyed, not as at present with madder, with
cochineal, or with any modern tincture, but with a shrub, whose red
berries give an orient tinge to the cloth. Crimson or vermilion, a
colour, as the name imports, from the blood of the worm, was used in the
temple of Solomon, and by many persons of the first quality; sometimes
they wore purple, the most sublime of all earthly colours, says Mr.
Harmer, having the gaudiness of red, of which it retains a shade,
softened with the gravity of blue. This was chiefly dyed at Tyre, and
was supposed to take the tincture from the liquor of a shell fish,
anciently found in the adjacent sea; though Mr. Bruce, in his Travels,
inclines to the opinion, that the murex, or purple fish at Tyre, was
only a concealment of their knowledge of cochineal, as, if the whole
city of Tyre had applied to nothing else but fishing, they would not
have coloured twenty yards of cloth in a year. The children of wealthy
and noble families were dressed in vestments of different colours. This
mark of distinction may be traced to the patriarchal age; for Joseph was
arrayed, by his indulgent and imprudent father, in a coat of many
colours. A robe of divers colours was anciently reserved for the kings’
daughters who were virgins; and in one of these was Tamar, the virgin
daughter of David, arrayed, when she was met by her brother.

3. In these parts of the world, the fashion is in a state of almost
daily fluctuation, and different fashions are not unfrequently seen
contending for the superiority; but in the east, where the people are by
no means given to change, the form of their garments continues nearly
the same from one age to another. The greater part of their clothes are
long and flowing, loosely cast about the body, consisting only of a
large piece of cloth, in the cutting and sewing of which very little art
or industry is employed. They have more dignity and gracefulness than
ours, and are better adapted to the burning climates of Asia. From the
simplicity of their form, and their loose adaptation to the body, the
same clothes might be worn, with equal ease and convenience, by many
different persons. The clothes of those Philistines whom Samson slew at
Askelon required no altering to fit his companions; nor the robe of
Jonathan, to answer his friend. The arts of weaving and fulling seem to
have been distinct occupations in Israel, from a very remote period, in
consequence of the various and skilful operations which were necessary
to bring their stuffs to a suitable degree of perfection; but when the
weaver and the fuller had finished their part, the labour was nearly at
an end; no distinct artizan was necessary to make them into clothes;
every family seems to have made their own. Sometimes, however, this part
of the work was performed in the loom; for they had the art of weaving
robes with sleeves all of one piece: of this kind was the coat which our
Saviour wore during his abode with men. The loose dresses of these
countries, when the arm is lifted up, expose its whole length: to this
circumstance the Prophet Isaiah refers: “To whom is the arm of the Lord
revealed?” that is, uncovered: who observes that he is about to exert
the arm of his power?

4. The chosen people were not allowed to wear clothes of any materials
or form they chose; they were forbidden by their law to wear a garment
of woollen and linen. This law did not prevent them from wearing many
different substances together, but only these two; nor did the
prohibition extend to the wool of camels and goats, (for the hair of
these animals they called by the same name,) but only to that of sheep.
It was lawful for any man who saw an Israelite dressed in such a garment
to fall upon him and put him to death. In the opinion of Maimonides,
this was principally intended as a preservative from idolatry; for the
Heathen priests of those times wore such mixed garments of woollen and
linen, in the superstitious hope, it was imagined, of having the
beneficial influence of some lucky conjunction of the planets or stars,
to bring down a blessing upon their sheep and their flax. The second
restraint referred to the sexes, of which one was not to wear the dress
appropriated to the other. This practice is said to be an abomination to
the Lord; which plainly intimates that the law refers to some idolatrous
custom, of which Moses and the prophets always spoke in terms of the
utmost abhorrence. Nothing, indeed, was more common among the Heathen,
in the worship of some of their false deities, than for the males to
assist in women’s clothes, and the females in the dress appropriated to
men; in the worship of Venus, in particular, the women appeared before
her in armour, and the men in women’s apparel; and thus the words
literally run in the original Scriptures, “Women shall not put on the
armour of a man, nor a man the stole of a woman.” Maimonides says he
found this precept in an old magical book, “That men ought to stand
before the star of Venus in the flowered garments of women, and women to
put on the armour of men before the star of Mars.” But whatever there
may be in these observations, it is certain that, if there were no
distinction of sexes made by their habits, there would be danger of
involving mankind in all manner of licentiousness and impurity.

5. The ancient Jews very seldom wore any covering upon the head, except
when they were in mourning, or worshipping in the temple, or in the
synagogue. To pray with the head covered, was, in their estimation, a
higher mark of respect for the majesty of heaven, as it indicated the
conscious unworthiness of the suppliant to lift up his eyes in the
divine presence. To guard themselves from the wind or the storm, or from
the still more fatal stroke of the sun-beam, to which the general custom
of walking bare headed particularly exposed them, they wrapped their
heads in their mantles, or upper garments. But during their long
captivity in Babylon, the Jews began to wear turbans, in compliance with
the customs of their conquerors; for Daniel informs us, that his three
friends were cast into the fiery furnace with their hats, or, as the
term should be rendered, their turbans. It is not, however, improbable,
that the bulk of the nation continued to follow their ancient custom;
and that the compliance prevailed only among those Jews who were
connected with the Babylonish court; for many ages after that, we find
Antiochus Epiphanes introducing the habits and fashions of the Grecians
among the Jews; and as the history of the Maccabees relates, he brought
the chief young men under his subjection, and made them wear a hat, or
turban. Their legs were generally bare; and they never wore any thing
upon the feet, but soles fastened in different ways, according to the
taste or fancy of the wearer.

HADAD, son to the king of East Edom, was carried into Egypt by his
father’s servants, when Joab, general of David’s troops, extirpated the
males of Edom. Hadad was then a child. The king of Egypt gave him a
house, lands, and every necessary subsistence, and married him to the
sister of Tahpenes, his queen. By her he had a son, named Genubath, whom
Queen Tahpenes educated in Pharaoh’s house with the king’s children.
Hadad being informed that David was dead, and that Joab was killed,
desired leave to return into his own country. Pharaoh wished to detain
him, but at last permitted his return to Edom. Here he began to raise
disturbances against Solomon; but the Scripture does not mention
particulars. Josephus says, that Hadad did not return to Edom till long
after the death of David, when Solomon’s affairs began to decline, by
reason of his impieties. He also observes, that, not being able to
engage the Edomites to revolt, because of the strong garrisons which
Solomon had placed there, Hadad got together such people as were
willing, and carried them to Razon, then in rebellion against Hadadezer,
king of Syria. Razon received Hadad with joy, and assisted him in
conquering part of Syria, where he reigned, and from whence he insulted
Solomon’s territories.

HAGAR. After ten years’ residence in the land of Canaan, Abram, by the
persuasion of his wife, who had been barren heretofore, and now
despaired of bearing children herself when she was seventy-five years
old, took, as a second wife, or concubine, her handmaid, Hagar, an
Egyptian. When Hagar conceived, she despised her mistress, who dealt
hardly with her, Abram giving her up to his wife’s discretion; so that
she fled toward Egypt from the face of her mistress, but was stopped in
her flight by the angel of the Lord, who foretold that she should bear a
son called Ishmael, because the Lord heard her affliction, and that his
race should be numerous, warlike, and unconquered; a prediction, as seen
under the article _Arabia_, remarkably fulfilled to the present day.
Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael. When Isaac was
weaned, Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was now about fifteen years of
age, offended Sarah by some mockery or ill treatment of Isaac; the
original word signifies elsewhere, “to skirmish,” or “fight,” 2 Samuel
ii, 14; and St. Paul represents Ishmael as “persecuting” him, Gal. iv,
29. Sarah therefore complained to Abraham, and said, “Cast out this
bond-woman and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir
with my son Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight,
because of his son Ishmael;” but God approved of Sarah’s advice, and
again excluded Ishmael from the special covenant of grace: “For in Isaac
shall thy seed be called: nevertheless, the son of the bond-woman will I
make a nation also, because he is thy seed.” God renewed this promise
also to Hagar, during her wanderings in the wilderness of Beersheba,
when she despaired of support: “Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in
thine hands, for I will make him a great nation. And God was with the
lad, and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and became an
archer. And his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.” See
ABRAHAM and ISHMAEL.

We do not know when Hagar died. The rabbins say she was Pharaoh’s
daughter; but Chrysostom asserts that she was one of those slaves which
Pharaoh gave to Abraham, Gen. xii, 16. The Chaldee paraphrasts, and many
of the Jews, believe Hagar and Keturah to be the same person; but this
is not credible. Philo thinks that Hagar embraced Abraham’s religion,
which is very probable. The Mussulmans and Arabians, who are descended
from Ishmael, the son of Hagar, speak mightily in her commendation. They
call her in eminency, Mother Hagar, and maintain that she was Abraham’s
lawful wife; the mother of Ishmael, his eldest son; who, as such,
possessed Arabia, which very much exceeds, say they, both in extent and
riches, the land of Canaan, which was given to his younger son Isaac.

HAGARENES, the descendants of Ishmael: called also Ishmaelites and
Saracens, or Arabians, from their country. Their name, Saracens, is not
derived, as some have thought, from Sarah, Abraham’s wife, but from the
Hebrew _sarak_, which signifies “to rob” or “to steal;” because they
mostly carry on the trade of thieving: or from Sahara, the desert;
Saracens, inhabitants of the desert. But some writers think Hagarene
imports _south_, conformably to the Arabic; hence Hagar, that is, the
southern woman; and Mount Sinai is called Hagar, that is, the southern
mountain, Gal. iv, 25. But there seems also to have been a particular
tribe who bore this name more exclusively, as the Hagarenes are
sometimes mentioned in Scripture distinct from the Ishmaelites, Psalm
lxxxiii, 6; 1 Chron. v, 19.

HAGGAI was one of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem in
consequence of the edict of Cyrus; and it is believed that he was born
during the captivity, and that he was of the sacerdotal race. His
prophecy consists of four distinct revelations, all which took place in
the second year of Darius, king of Persia, B. C. 520. The prophet
reproves the people for their delay in building the temple of God, and
represents the unfruitful seasons which they had experienced as a divine
punishment for this neglect. He exhorts them to proceed in the important
work; and by way of encouragement predicts, that the glory of the second
temple, however inferior in external magnificence, shall exceed that of
the first; which was accomplished by its being honoured with the
presence of the Saviour of mankind. He farther urges the completion of
the temple by promises of divine favour, and under the type of
Zerubbabel he is supposed by some to foretel the great revolutions which
shall precede the second advent of Christ. The style of Haggai is in
general plain and simple; but in some passages it rises to a
considerable degree of sublimity.

HAIR. The eastern females wear their hair, which the prophet
emphatically calls the “instrument of their pride,” very long, and
divided into a great number of tresses. In Barbary, the ladies all
affect to have their hair hang down to the ground, which, after they
have collected into one lock, they bind and plait with ribands. Where
nature has been less liberal in its ornaments, the defect is supplied by
art, and foreign is procured to be interwoven with the natural hair. The
Apostle’s remark on this subject corresponds entirely with the custom of
the east, as well as with the original design of the Creator: “Does not
even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a
shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for
her hair is given her for a covering,” 1 Cor. xi, 14. The men in the
east, Chardin observes, are shaved; the women nourish their hair with
great fondness, which they lengthen by tresses, and tufts of silk down
to the heels. But among the Hebrews the men did not shave their heads;
they wore their natural hair, though not long; and it is certain that
they were, at a very remote period, initiated in the art of cherishing
and beautifying the hair with fragrant ointments. The head of Aaron was
anointed with a precious oil, compounded after the art of the
apothecary; and in proof that they had already adopted the practice, the
congregation were prohibited, under pain of being cut off, to make any
other like it, after the composition of it, Exod. xxx, 32, 33. The royal
Psalmist alludes to the same custom in the twenty-third Psalm: “Thou
anointest my head with oil.” We may infer from the direction of Solomon,
that the custom had at least become general in his time: “Let thy
garments be always white, and let thy head lack no ointment,” Eccles.
ix, 8. After the hair is plaited and perfumed, the eastern ladies
proceed to dress their heads, by tying above the lock into which they
collect it, a triangular piece of linen, adorned with various figures in
needlework. This, among persons of better fashion, is covered with a
_sarmah_, as they call it, which is made in the same triangular shape,
of thin flexible plates of gold or silver, carefully cut through, and
engraven in imitation of lace, and might therefore answer to השהרנים,
the moonlike ornament mentioned by the prophet in his description of the
toilette of a Jewish lady, Isaiah iii, 18. Cutting off the hair was a
sign of mourning, Jer. vii, 29; but sometimes in mourning they suffered
it to grow long. In ordinary sorrows they neglected their hair; and in
violent paroxysms they plucked it off with their hands.

John Baptist was clothed in a garment made of camel’s hair, not with a
camel’s skin, as painters and sculptors represent him, but with coarse
camlet made of camel’s hair. The coat of the camel in some places yields
very fine silk, of which are made stuffs of very great price; but in
general this animal’s hair is hard, and scarcely fit for any but coarse
habits, and a kind of hair cloth. Some are of opinion that camlet
derives its name from the camel, being originally composed of the wool
and hair of camels; but at present there is no camel’s hair in the
composition of it, as it is commonly woven and sold among us.

HAM, or CHAM, חם, son of Noah, and brother to Shem and Japheth, is
believed to have been Noah’s youngest son. Ham, says Dr. Hales,
signifies _burnt_ or _black_, and this name was peculiarly significant
of the regions allotted to his family. To the Cushites, or children of
his eldest son, Cush, were allotted the hot southern regions of Asia,
along the coasts of the Persian Gulf, Susiana or Chusistan, Arabia, &c;
to the sons of Canaan, Palestine and Syria; to the sons of Misraim,
Egypt and Libya, in Africa. The Hamites, in general, like the Canaanites
of old, were a sea-faring race, and sooner arrived at civilization and
the luxuries of life than their simpler pastoral and agricultural
brethren of the other two families. The first great empires of Assyria
and Egypt were founded by them; and the republics of Tyre, Sidon, and
Carthage, were early distinguished for their commerce: but they sooner
also fell to decay; and Egypt, which was one of the first, became the
last and “basest of the kingdoms,” Ezek. xxix, 15; and has been
successively in subjection to the Shemites, and Japhethites; as have
also the settlements of the other branches of the Hamites. See CANAAN.

HAMAN, son of Hammedatha, the Amalekite, of the race of Agag; or,
according to other copies, son of Hamadath the Bugean or Gogean, that
is, of the race of Gog; or it may be read, Haman the son of Hamadath,
which Haman was Bagua or Bagoas, eunuch, that is, officer to the king of
Persia. We have no proof of Haman’s being an Amalekite; but Esther iii,
1, reads of the race of Agag. In the apocryphal Greek, Esther ix, 24,
and the Latin, Esther xvi, 10, he is called a Macedonian, _animo et
gente Macedo_. King Ahasuerus, having taken him into favour, promoted
him above all the princes of his court, who bent the knee to him
(probably prostrated themselves wholly before him, as to a deity) when
he entered the palace: this Mordecai the Jew declined, for which slight,
Haman plotted the extirpation of the whole Jewish nation; which was
providentially prevented. He was hanged on a gibbet fifty cubits high,
which he had prepared for Mordecai; his house was given to Queen Esther;
and his employments to Mordecai. His ten sons were likewise executed.
See ESTHER.

HAMATH, a city of Syria, capital of a province of the same name, lying
upon the Orontes, Joshua xiii, 5; Judges iii, 3; 2 Kings xiv, 25; 2
Chron. vii, 8. The king of Hamath cultivated a good understanding with
David, 2 Sam. viii, 9. This city was taken by the kings of Judah, and
afterward retaken by the Syrians, and recovered from them by Jeroboam
the Second, 2 Kings xiv, 28.

HAND sometimes denotes the vengeance of God: “The hand of the Lord was
heavy upon them of Ashdod,” after they had taken the ark, 1 Samuel v, 6,
7. To pour water on any one’s hands, signifies to serve him, 2 Kings
iii, 11. To wash one’s hands, denotes innocence: Pilate washed his hands
to denote his being innocent of the blood of Jesus, Matthew xxvii, 24.
To kiss one’s hand, is an act of adoration, 1 Kings xix, 18. “If I
beheld the sun when it shined, and my mouth hath kissed my hand,” Job
xxxi, 27. To fill one’s hands, is to take possession of the priesthood,
to perform the functions of that office; because in this ceremony, those
parts of the victim which were to be offered, were put into the hand of
the newly created priest, Judges xvii, 5, 12; 1 Kings xiii, 33. To lean
upon any one’s hand, is a mark of familiarity and superiority. The king
of Israel had a confident on whom he thus leaned, 2 Kings vii, 17. The
king of Syria leaned on the hand or arm of Naaman when he went up to the
temple of Rimmon, 2 Kings v, 18. To lift up one’s hand, is a way of
taking an oath which has been in use among all nations. To give one’s
hand, signifies to grant peace, to swear friendship, to promise entire
security, to make alliance, 2 Kings x, 15. The Jews say, they were
obliged to give the hand to the Egyptians and Assyrians, that they might
procure bread, 2 Macc. xiii, 22; that is, to surrender to them, to
submit. To stretch out one’s hand, signifies to chastise, to exercise
severity or justice, Ezek. xxv, 7. God delivered his people with a high
hand, and arm stretched out; by performing many wonders, and inflicting
many chastisements, on the Egyptians. To stretch out one’s hand,
sometimes denotes mercy: “I have spread out my hands,” entreated, “all
the day unto a rebellious people,” Isaiah lxv, 2. Hand is also
frequently taken for the power and impression of the Holy Spirit felt by
a prophet: “The hand of the Lord was on Elijah,” 1 Kings xviii, 46. It
is said that God gave his law by the hand of Moses, that he spoke by the
hand of prophets, &c; that is, by their means, by them, &c. The right
hand denotes power, strength. The Scripture generally imputes to God’s
right hand all the effects of his omnipotence: “Thy right hand, O Lord,
hath dashed in pieces the enemy,” Exodus xv, 6. The Son of God is often
represented as sitting at the right hand of his heavenly Father: “The
Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,” Psalm cx, 1; thou hast
done thy work upon earth, now take possession of that sovereign kingdom
and glory which by right belongeth unto thee; do thou rule with
authority and honour, as thou art Mediator. The right hand commonly
denotes the south, as the left does the north; for the Hebrews speak of
the quarters of the world, in respect of themselves, having their faces
turned to the east, their backs to the west, their right hands to the
south, and their left to the north. For example: “Doth not David hide
himself with us in strong holds, in the woods, in the hill of Hachilah,
which is on the south of Jeshimon?” in Hebrew, “on the _right hand_ of
Jeshimon.” The accuser was commonly at the right hand of the accused:
“Let Satan stand at his right hand,” Psalm cix, 6. And in Zech. iii, 1,
Satan was at the right hand of the high priest Joshua, to accuse him.
Often, in a contrary sense, to be at one’s right hand signifies to
defend, to protect, to support him: “I have set the Lord always before
me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved,” Psalm xvi, 8.
To turn from the law of God, neither to the right hand nor to the left,
is a frequent Scripture expression, the meaning of which is, that we
must not depart from it at all. Our Saviour, in Matt, vi, 3, to show
with what privacy we should do good works, says that our left hand
should not know what our right hand does. Above all things, we should
avoid vanity and ostentation in all the good we undertake to do, and
should not think that thereby we merit any thing. Laying on hands, or
imposition of hands, is understood in different ways both in the Old and
New Testament. It is often taken for ordination and consecration of
priests and ministers, as well among the Jews as Christians, Num. viii,
10; Acts vi, 6; xiii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 14. It is sometimes also made use of
to signify the establishment of judges and magistrates, on whom it was
usual to lay hands when they were entrusted with these employments.
Thus, when Moses constituted Joshua his successor, God appointed him to
lay his hands upon him, Numbers xxvii, 18. Jacob laid his hands on
Ephraim and Manasseh, when he gave them his last blessing, Gen. xlviii,
14. The high priest stretched out his hands to the people, as often as
he recited the solemn form of blessing, Lev. ix, 22. The Israelites, who
presented sin offerings at the tabernacle, confessed their sins while
they laid their hands upon them, Lev. i, 4. This testified that the
person acknowledged himself worthy of death, that he laid his sins upon
the sacrifice, that he trusted in Christ for the expiation of his sins,
and that he devoted himself to God. Witnesses laid their hands upon the
head of the accused person, as it were to signify that they charged upon
him the guilt of his blood, and freed themselves from it, Deut. xiii, 9;
xvii, 7. Our Saviour laid his hands upon the children that were
presented to him, and blessed them, Mark x, 16. And the Holy Ghost was
conferred on those who were baptized by the laying on of the hands of
the Apostles, Acts viii, 17; xix, 6.

HANNAH. See SAMUEL.

HARAN, the eldest son of Terah, and brother to Abraham and Nahor. He was
the father of Lot, Milcah, and Iscah, Gen. xi, 26, &c. Haran died before
his father Terah.

2. HARAN, otherwise called Charran, in Mesopotamia, a city celebrated
for having been the place to which Abraham removed first, after he left
Ur, Gen. xi, 31, 32, and where Terah was buried. Thither it was likewise
that Jacob repaired to Laban, when he fled from Esau, Gen. xxvii, 43;
xxviii, 10, &c. Haran was situated in the north-western part of
Mesopotamia on a river of the same name running into the Euphrates. Mr.
Kinneir says, that Haran, which is still so called, or rather Harran, is
now peopled by a few families of wandering Arabs, who have been led
thither by a plentiful supply of good water from several small streams.
It is situated in 36° 52´ north latitude, and 39° 5´ east longitude; in
a flat and sandy plain. Some think that it was built by Terah, or by
Haran, his eldest son.

HARE, ארנבת, Arabic _arneb_, Lev. xi, 6; Deut. xiv, 7. This name is
derived, as Bochart and others suppose, from ארה, _to crop_, and ניב,
_the produce of the ground_; these animals being remarkable for
devouring young plants and herbage. This animal resembles the rabbit,
but is larger, and somewhat longer in proportion to its thickness. The
hare in Syria, says Dr. Russel, is distinguished into two species,
differing considerably in point of size. The largest is the Turkman
hare, and chiefly haunts the plains; the other is the common hare of the
desert: both are abundant. The difficulty as to this animal is, that
Moses says the _arnabeth_ chews the cud, which our hares do not: but
Aristotle takes notice of the same circumstance, and affirms that the
structure of its stomach is similar to that of ruminating animals. The
animal here mentioned may then be a variety of the species.

HAROSHETH OF THE GENTILES, a city supposed to be situated near Hazor, in
the northern parts of Canaan, called afterward Upper Galilee, or Galilee
of the Gentiles, for the same reason that this place probably obtained
that title, namely, from being less inhabited by Jews, and being near
the great resorts of the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon. This is said to have
been the residence of Sisera, the general of the armies of Jabin, king
of Canaan, who reigned at Hazor.

HARP, a stringed musical instrument. The Hebrew word _kinaor_, which is
translated “harp” in our English version, very probably denoted all
stringed instruments. By the Hebrews, the harp was called the _pleasant_
harp; and it was employed by them, not only in their devotions, but also
at their entertainments and pleasures. It is probable, that the harp was
nearly the earliest, if not the earliest, instrument of music. David
danced when he played on the harp: the Levites did the same. Hence it
appears, that it was light and portable, and that its size was
restricted within limits which admitted of that service, and of that
manner of using it.

HART, איל, Deut. xii, 15; xiv, 5; Psalm xlii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 6, the
stag, or male deer. Dr. Shaw considers its name in Hebrew as a generic
word including all the species of the deer kind; whether they are
distinguished by round horns, as the stag; or by flat ones, as the
fallow deer; or by the smallness of the branches, as the roe. Mr. Good
observes that the hind and roe, the hart and the antelope, were held,
and still continue to be, in the highest estimation in all the eastern
countries, for the voluptuous beauty of their eyes, the delicate
elegance of their form, or their graceful agility of action. The names
of these animals were perpetually applied, therefore, to persons,
whether male or female, who were supposed to be possessed of any of
their respective qualities. In 2 Sam. i, 19, Saul is denominated “the
roe of Israel;” and in the eighteenth verse of the ensuing chapter, we
are told that “Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe:” a phraseology
perfectly synonymous with the epithet _swift-footed_, which Homer has so
frequently bestowed upon his hero Achilles. Thus again: “Her princes are
like harts which find no pasture; they are fled without strength before
their pursuers,” Lam. i, 6. “The Lord Jehovah is my strength; he will
make my feet like hinds’ feet; he will cause me to tread again on my own
hills,” Hab. iii, 19. See HIND.

HARVEST. Three months intervened between the seed time and the first
reaping, and a month between this and the full harvest. Barley is in
full ear all over the Holy Land, in the beginning of April; and about
the middle of the same month, it begins to turn yellow, particularly in
the southern districts; being as forward near Jericho in the latter end
of March, as it is in the plains of Acre a fortnight afterward. The
reaping continues till the middle of Sivan, or till about the end of May
or beginning of June, which, as the time of wheat harvest, finishes this
part of the husbandman’s labours.

2. The reapers in Palestine and Syria make use of the sickle in cutting
down their crops, and, according to the present custom in this country,
“fill their hand” with the corn, and those who bind up the sheaves,
their “bosom,” Psalm cxxix, 7; Ruth ii, 5. When the crop is thin and
short, which is generally the case in light soils, and with their
imperfect cultivation, it is not reaped with the sickle, but plucked up
by the root with the hand. By this mode of reaping, they leave the most
fruitful fields as naked as if nothing had ever grown on them; and as no
hay is made in the east, this is done, that they may not lose any of the
straw, which is necessary for the sustenance of their cattle. The
practice of plucking up with the hand is perhaps referred to in these
words of the Psalmist, to which reference has already been made: “Let
them be as the grass upon the house tops, which withereth afore it
groweth up; wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that
bindeth sheaves his bosom.” The tops of the houses in Judea are flat,
and, being covered with plaster of terrace, are frequently grown over
with grass. As it is but small and weak, and from its elevation exposed
to the scorching sun, it is soon withered. A more beautiful and striking
figure, to display the weak and evanescent condition of wicked men,
cannot easily be conceived.

3. The reapers go to the field very early in the morning, and return
home betimes in the afternoon. They carry provisions along with them,
and leathern bottles, or dried bottle gourds, filled with water. They
are followed by their own children, or by others, who glean with much
success, for a great quantity of corn is scattered in the reaping, and
in their manner of carrying it. The greater part of these circumstances
are discernible in the manners of the ancient Israelites. Ruth had not
proposed to Naomi, her mother-in-law, to go to the field, and glean
after the reapers; nor had the servant of Boaz, to whom she applied for
leave, so readily granted her request, if gleaning had not been a common
practice in that country. When Boaz inquired who she was, his overseer,
after informing him, observes, that she came out to the field in the
morning; and that the reapers left the field early in the afternoon, as
Dr. Russel states, is evident from this circumstance, that Ruth had time
to beat out her gleanings before evening. They carried water and
provisions with them; for Boaz invited her to come and drink of the
water which the young men had drawn; and at meal-time, to eat of the
bread, and dip her morsel in the vinegar. And so great was the
simplicity of manners in that part of the world, and in those times,
that Boaz himself, although a prince of high rank in Judah, sat down to
dinner in the field with his reapers, and helped Ruth with his own hand.
Nor ought we to pass over in silence the mutual salutation of Boaz and
his reapers, when he came to the field, as it strongly marks the state
of religious feeling in Israel at the time, and furnishes another proof
of the artless, the happy, and unsuspecting simplicity, which
characterized the manners of that highly favoured people. “And, behold,
Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with
you. And they answered him, The Lord bless thee,” Ruth ii, 4.

4. It appears from the beautiful history of Ruth, that, in Palestine,
the women lent their assistance in cutting down and gathering in the
harvest; for Boaz commands her to keep fast by his maidens. The women in
Syria shared also in the labours of the harvest; for Dr. Russel informs
us, they sang the _ziraleet_, or song of thanks, when the passing
stranger accepted their present of a handful of corn, and made a
suitable return. It was another custom among the Jews to set a
confidential servant over the reapers, to see that they executed their
work properly, that they had suitable provisions, and to pay them their
wages: the Chaldees call him _rab_, the master, ruler, or governor of
the reapers. Such was the person who directed the labours of the reapers
in the field of Boaz. The right of the poor in Israel to glean after the
reapers was secured by a positive law, couched in these words: “And when
ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners
of thy land; neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And
thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape
of thy vineyard: thou shalt leave them to the poor and the stranger: I
am the Lord your God,” Lev. xix, 9. It is the opinion of some writers,
that, although the poor were allowed the liberty of gleaning, the
Israelitish proprietors were not obliged to admit them immediately into
the field, as soon as the reapers had cut down the corn, and bound it up
in sheaves, but when it was carried off: they might choose, also, among
the poor, whom they thought most deserving, or most necessitous. These
opinions receive some countenance from the request which Ruth presented
to the servant of Boaz, to permit her to glean “among the sheaves;” and
from the charge of Boaz to his young men, “Let her glean even among the
sheaves;” a mode of speaking which seems to insinuate that though they
could not legally hinder Ruth from gleaning in the field, they had a
right, if they chose to exercise it, to prohibit her from gleaning among
the sheaves, or immediately after the reapers.

HATE. To hate is not always to be understood rigorously, but frequently
signifies merely a less degree of love. “If a man have two wives, one
beloved and another hated,” Deut. xxi, 15; that is, less beloved. Our
Saviour says that he who would follow him must hate father and mother;
that is, he must love them less than Christ, less than his own
salvation, and not prefer them to God. “Jacob have I loved, and Esau
have I hated;” that is, have deprived of the privileges of his
primogeniture, through his own profanity; and visited him with severe
judgment on account of his sins.

HAURAN. The tract of country of this name is mentioned only twice in
Scripture, Ezek. xlvii, 16, 18. It was probably of small extent in the
time of the Jews; but was enlarged under the Romans, by whom it was
called Auranitis. At present it extends from about twenty miles south of
Damascus to a little below Bozra, including the rocky district of El
Ledja, the ancient Trachonitis, and the mountainous one of the Djebel
Haouran. Within its limits are also included, beside Trachonitis, Ituræa
or Ittur, now called Djedour, and part of Batanæa or Bashan. It is
represented by Burckhardt as a volcanic region, consisting of a porous
tufa, pumice, and basalt, with the remains of a crater on the Tel Shoba,
on its eastern side. It produces, however, crops of corn, and has many
patches of luxuriant herbage, which are frequented in the summer by the
Arab tribes for pasturage. It abounds, also, with many interesting
remains of cities, scattered over its surface, with Grecian
inscriptions. The chief of these are Bozra, Ezra, Medjel, Shoba, Shakka,
Souerda, Kanouat, Hebran, Zarle, Oerman, and Aatyl; with Messema, Berak,
and Om Ezzeitoun, in the Ledja.

HAVILAH, the son of Cush, Genesis x, 7. There must have been other, and
perhaps many, Havilahs beside the original one, a part of the numerous
and wide-spread posterity of Cush. By one and the first of these, it is
probable that the western shores of the Persian Gulf were peopled; by
another, the country of Colchis; and by another, the parts about the
southern border of the Dead Sea and the confines of Judea, the country
afterward inhabited by the Amalekites.

HAWK, נץ, from the root נצה, _to fly_, because of the rapidity and
length of flight for which this bird is remarkable, Lev. xi, 16; Deut.
xiv, 15; Job xxxix, 26. _Naz_ is used generically by the Arabian writers
to signify both falcon and hawk; and the term is given in both these
senses by Meninski. There can be little doubt that such is the real
meaning of the Hebrew word, and that it imports various species of the
falcon family, as jer-falcon, goshawk, and sparrow-hawk. As this is a
bird of prey, cruel in its temper, and gross in its manners, it was
forbidden as food, and all others of its kind, in the Mosaic ritual. The
Greeks consecrated the hawk to Apollo; and among the Egyptians no animal
was held in so high veneration as the ibis and the hawk. Most of the
species of hawk, we are told; are birds of passage. The hawk, therefore,
is produced, in Job xxxix, 26, as a specimen of that astonishing
instinct which teaches birds of passage to know their times and seasons,
when to migrate out of one country into another for the benefit of food,
or a warmer climate, or both. The common translation does not give the
full force of the passage: “Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom?” The real
meaning is, “Doth she know, through thy skill or wisdom, the precise
period for taking flight, or migrating and stretching her wings toward a
southern or warmer climate?” The passage is well rendered by Sandys:--

               “Doth the wild haggard tower into the sky,
               And to the south by thy direction fly?”

Her migration is not conducted by the wisdom and prudence of man, but by
the superintending and upholding providence of the only wise God.

HAY, חציר. In the two places where this word occurs, Prov. xxvii, 25,
and Isaiah xv, 16, our translators have very improperly rendered it
“hay.” But in those countries they made no hay; and, if they did, it
appears from inspection that hay could hardly be the meaning of the word
in either of those texts. The author of “Fragments,” in continuation of
Calmet, has the following remarks: “There is a gross impropriety in our
version of Prov. xxvii, 25: ‘The hay appeareth, and the tender grass
showeth itself, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered.’ Now,
certainly, if the tender grass is but just beginning to show itself, the
hay, which is grass cut and dried after it has arrived at maturity,
ought by no means to be associated with it, still less ought it to be
placed before it. And this leads me to observe, that none of the
dictionaries which I have seen seem to me to give the accurate import of
the word, which, I apprehend, means _the first shoots_, _the rising_,
_budding_, _spires of grass_. So, in the present passage, גלה חציר, ‘the
tender shoots of the grass rise up; and the buddings of grass,’ grass in
its early state, as is the peculiar import of רשא, ‘appear; and the
tufts of grass,’ proceeding from the same root, ‘collect themselves
together, and, by their union, begin to clothe the mountain tops with a
pleasing verdure.’” Surely, the beautiful progress of vegetation, as
described in this passage, must appear too poetical to be lost; but what
must it be to an eastern beholder! to one who had lately witnessed all
surrounding sterility, a grassless waste!

HAZAEL. Elisha coming to Damascus, the capital of Syria, Benhadad, the
reigning monarch, being then indisposed, sent Hazael, who was one of his
principal officers, to wait upon the prophet, and consult him as to the
issue of his disorder, 2 Kings viii, 7–13. The prophet told Hazael that
certainly his master might recover, because his complaint was not
mortal; yet he was very well assured that he would not recover; and,
looking him steadfastly in the face, Elisha burst into tears. Surprised
at this conduct, Hazael inquired the cause. “Because I know,” said the
prophet, “the evil that thou wilt do to the children of Israel: their
strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay
with the sword, and wilt dash their infants against the stones, and rip
up their women with child.” Hazael indignantly exclaimed, “Is thy
servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” Elisha merely
answered, “The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria,”
2 Kings viii, 7–13. On his return home, Hazael concealed from his master
Benhadad the prophet’s answer, and inspired him with hopes of recovery;
but on the following day, he took effectual means to prevent it, by
stifling the king with a thick cloth dipped with water; and, as Benhadad
had no son, and Hazael was a man much esteemed in the army, he was,
without difficulty declared his successor, A. M. 3120. Hazael soon
inflicted upon Israel all the cruelties which Elisha had foretold. For
when Jehu broke up the siege of Ramoth-Gilead, and came with his army to
Samaria, Hazael took advantage of his absence to fall upon his
territories beyond Jordan, destroying all the land of Gilead, Gad,
Reuben, and Manasseh, from Aroer to Bashan, 2 Kings x, 32. Some years
passed after this before Hazael undertook any thing against the kingdom
of Judah, it being remote from Damascus; but in the reign of Joash, the
son of Jehoahaz, A. M. 3165, he besieged the city of Gath, and, having
taken it, marched against Jerusalem, 2 Kings xii, 17, 18. But Joash,
conscious of his inferiority, bribed him at the price of all the money
he could raise, to evacuate Judea, with which he for the moment
complied; yet, in the following year, the army of Hazael returned,
entered the territories of Judah, and the city of Jerusalem, slew all
the princes of the people, and sent a valuable booty to their royal
master, 2 Kings xiii, 22; 2 Chron. xxiv, 23.

HEAD. This word has several significations, beside its natural one,
which denotes the head of a man. It is sometimes used in Scripture for
the whole man: “Blessings are upon the head of the just,” Prov. x, 6;
that is, upon their persons. God says of the wicked, “I will recompense
their way upon their head,” Ezek. ix, 10. It signifies a chief or
capital city: “The head of Syria is Damascus,” Isaiah vii, 8. It denotes
a chief or principal members in society: “The Lord will cut off from
Israel head and tail. The ancient and honourable he is the head,” Isaiah
ix, 14, 15. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the
serpent,” Gen. iii, 15; that is, Christ Jesus, the blessed seed of the
woman, shall overthrow the power, policy, and works of the devil. The
river in paradise was divided into four heads or branches. In times of
grief, the mourners covered their heads: they cut and plucked off their
hair. Amos, speaking of unhappy times, says, “I will bring baldness upon
every head,” Amos viii, 10. In prosperity, they anointed their heads
with sweet oils: “Let thy head lack no” perfumed “ointment,” Eccles. ix,
8. To shake the head at any one, expresses contempt: “The virgin, the
daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the
daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee,” Isaiah xxxvii, 22.

Head is taken for one that hath rule and preëminence over others. Thus
God is the head of Christ; as Mediator, from him he derives all his
dignity and authority. Christ is the only spiritual head of the church,
both in respect of eminence and influence; he communicates life, motion,
and strength to every believer. Also the husband is the head of his
wife, because by God’s ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen. iii, 16;
also in regard to preëminence of sex, 1 Peter iii, 7, and excellency of
knowledge, 1 Cor. xiv, 35. The Apostle mentions this subordination of
persons in 1 Cor. xi, 3: “But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head
of Christ is God.” “The stone which the builders rejected was made the
head of the corner,” Psalm cxviii, 22. It was the first in the angle,
whether it were disposed at the top of that angle to adorn and crown it,
or at the bottom to support it. This, in the New Testament, is applied
to Christ, who is the strength and beauty of the church, to unite the
several parts of it, namely both Jews and Gentiles together.

HEAR, HEARING. This word is used in several senses in Scripture. In its
obvious and literal acceptation, it denotes the exercise of that bodily
sense of which the ear is the organ; and as hearing is a sense by which
instruction is conveyed to the mind, and the mind is excited to
attention and to obedience, so the ideas of attention and obedience are
also grafted on the expression or sense of hearing. God is said,
speaking after the manner of men, to hear prayer, that is, to attend to
it, and comply with the requests it contains: “I love the Lord, because
he hath heard,” hath attended to, hath complied with, “the voice of my
supplication,” Psalm cxvi, 1. On the contrary, God is said not to hear,
that is, not to comply with, the requests of sinners, John ix, 31. Men
are said to hear, when they attend to, or comply with, the request of
each other, or when they obey the commands of God: “He who is of God
heareth,” obeyeth, practiseth, “God’s words,” John viii, 47. “My sheep
hear my voice,” and show their attention to it, by following me, John x,
27. “This is my beloved Son: hear ye him,” Matt. xvii, 5. This seems to
be an allusion to Deut. xviii, 15, 18, 19: “The Lord shall raise up unto
you a prophet; him shall ye hear;” which is also expressly applied in
Acts iii, 22. The other senses which may be attached to the word “hear,”
seem to rise from the preceding, and may be referred to the same ideas.

HEART. The Hebrews regarded the heart as the source of wit,
understanding, love, courage, grief, and pleasure. Hence are derived
many modes of expression. “An honest and good heart,” Luke viii, 15, is
a heart studious of holiness, being prepared by the Spirit of God to
receive the word with due affections, dispositions, and resolutions. We
read of a broken heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, a liberal heart.
To “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers,” Mal. iv, 6, signifies to cause them to be
perfectly reconciled, and that they should be of the same mind. To want
heart, sometimes denotes to want understanding and prudence: “Ephraim is
like a silly dove, without heart,” Hosea vii, 11. “O fools, and slow of
heart,” Luke xxiv, 25; that is, ignorant, and without understanding.
“This people’s heart is waxed gross, lest they should understand with
their heart,” Matt. xiii, 15; their heart is become incapable of
understanding spiritual things; they resist the light, and are proof
against all impressions of truth. “The prophets prophesy out of their
own heart,” Ezekiel xiii, 2; that is, according to their own
imagination, without any warrant from God.

The heart is said to be dilated by joy, contracted by sadness, broken by
sorrow, to grow fat, and be hardened by prosperity. The heart melts
under discouragement, forsakes one under terror, is desolate in
affliction, and fluctuating in doubt. To speak to any one’s heart is to
comfort him, to say pleasing and affecting things to him. The heart
expresses also the middle part of any thing: “Tyre is in the heart of
the seas,” Ezekiel xxvii, 4; in the midst of the seas. “We will not fear
though the mountains be carried into the heart (middle) of the sea,”
Psalm xlvi, 2.

The heart of man is naturally depraved and inclined to evil, Jer. xvii,
9. A divine power is requisite for its renovation, John iii, 1–11. When
thus renewed, the effects will be seen in the temper, conversation, and
conduct at large. Hardness of heart is that state in which a sinner is
inclined to, and actually goes on in, rebellion against God.

HEATH, ערער, Jer. xvii, 6; xlviii, 6. “He shall be like the heath in the
desert. He shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched
places in the wilderness, a salt land.” The LXX and Vulgate render
_oror_, “the tamarisk;” and this is strengthened by the affinity of the
Hebrew name of this tree with the Turkish _œrœr_. Taylor and
Parkhurst render it, “a blasted tree stripped of its foliage.” If it be
a particular tree, the tamarisk is as likely as any. Celsius thinks it
to be the juniper; but from the mention of it as growing in a salt land,
in parched places, the author of “Scripture Illustrated” is disposed to
seek it among the _lichens_, a species of plants which are the last
production of vegetation under the frozen zone, and under the glowing
heat of equatorial deserts; so that it seems best qualified to endure
parched places, and a salt land. Hasselquist mentions several kinds seen
by him in Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. In Jer. xlviii, 6, the original word
is ערוער, which the Septuagint translators have read ערור, for they
render it ὄνος ἄγριος, _wild ass_; and, as this seems best to agree with
the flight recommended in the passage, it is to be preferred. See WILD
ASS.

HEAVEN, the place of the more immediate residence of the Most High, Gen.
xiv, 19. The Jews enumerated three heavens: the first was the region of
the air, where the birds fly, and which are therefore called “the fowls
of heaven,” Job xxxv, 11. It is in this sense also that we read of the
dew of heaven, the clouds of heaven, and the wind of heaven. The second
is that part of space in which are fixed the heavenly luminaries, the
sun, moon, and stars, and which Moses was instructed to call “the
firmament or expanse of heaven,” Gen. i, 8. The third heaven is the seat
of God and of the holy angels; the place into which Christ ascended
after his resurrection, and into which St. Paul was caught up, though it
is not like the other heavens perceptible to mortal view.

2. It is an opinion not destitute of probability, that the construction
of the tabernacle, in which Jehovah dwelt by a visible symbol, termed
“the cloud of glory,” was intended to be a type of heaven. In the
holiest place of the tabernacle, “the glory of the Lord,” or visible
emblem of his presence, rested between the cherubims; by the figures of
which, the angelic host surrounding the throne of God in heaven was
typified; and as that holiest part of the tabernacle was, by a thick
vail, concealed from the sight of those who frequented it for the
purposes of worship, so heaven, the habitation of God, is, by the vail
of flesh, hidden from mortal eyes. Admitting the whole tabernacle,
therefore, in which the worship of God was performed according to a
ritual of divine appointment, to be a representation of the universe, we
are taught by it this beautiful lesson, that the whole universe is the
temple of God; but that in this vast temple there is “a most holy
place,” where the Deity resides and manifests his presence to the
angelic hosts and redeemed company who surround him. This view appears
to be borne out by the clear and uniform testimony of Scripture; and it
is an interesting circumstance, that heaven, as represented by “the
holiest of all,” is heaven as it is presented to the eye of Christian
faith, the place where our Lord ministers as priest, to which believers
now come in spirit, and where, they are gathered together in the
disembodied state. Thus, for instance, St. Paul tells the believing
Hebrews, “Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to
the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written,”
or are enrolled, “in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the
spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new
covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than the blood of Abel,” Heb. xii, 22–24. Here we are presented with the
antitype of almost every leading circumstance of the Mosaic
dispensation. Instead of the land of Canaan, we have heaven; for the
earthly Jerusalem, we have the heavenly, the city of the living God; in
place of the congregation of Israel after the flesh, we have the general
assembly and church of the first-born, that is, all true believers “made
perfect;” for just men in the imperfect state of the old dispensation,
we have just men made perfect in evangelical knowledge and holiness;
instead of Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, we have Jesus the
Mediator of the new and everlasting covenant; and instead of the blood
of slaughtered animals, which was sprinkled upon the Israelites, the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, to make a typical
atonement, we have the blood of the Son of God, which was shed for the
remission of the sins of the whole world; that blood which doth not,
like the blood of Abel, call for vengeance but for mercy, which hath
made peace between heaven and earth, effected the true and complete
atonement for sin, and which therefore communicates peace to the
conscience of every sinner that believes the Gospel.

3. Among the numerous refinements of modern times that is one of the
most remarkable which goes to deny the locality of heaven. “It is a
state,” say many, “not a place.” But if that be the case, the very
language of the Scriptures, in regard to this point, is calculated to
mislead us. For that God resides in a particular part of the universe,
where he makes his presence known to his intelligent creatures by some
transcendent, visible glory, is an opinion that has prevailed among Jews
and Christians, Greeks and Romans, yea, in every nation, civilized or
savage, and in every age; and, since it is confirmed by revelation, why
should it be doubted? Into this most holy place, the habitation of the
Deity, Jesus, after his resurrection, ascended; and there, presenting
his crucified body before the manifestation of the divine presence,
which is called “the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” he offered
unto God the sacrifice of himself, and made atonement for the sins of
his people. There he is sat down upon his throne, crowned with glory and
honour, as king upon his holy hill of Zion, and continually officiates
as our great High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor, within the vail.
There is his Father’s house, into which he is gone before, to prepare
mansions of bliss for his disciples; it is the kingdom conferred upon
him as the reward of his righteousness, and of which he has taken
possession as their forerunner, Acts i, 11; Heb. vi, 19, 20.

4. Some of the ancients imagined that the habitation of good men, after
the resurrection, would be the sun; grounding this fanciful opinion on a
mistaken interpretation of Psalm xix, 4, which they rendered, with the
LXX and Vulgate, “He has set his tabernacle in the sun.” Others, again,
have thought it to lie beyond the starry firmament, a notion less
improbable than the former. Mr. Whiston supposes the air to be the
mansion of the blessed, at least for the present; and he imagines that
Christ is at the top of the atmosphere, and other spirits nearer to or
more remote from him according to the degree of their moral purity, to
which he conceives the specific gravity of their inseparable vehicles to
be proportionable. Mr. Hallet has endeavoured to prove that they will
dwell upon earth, when it shall be restored to its paradisaical state.
The passages of Scripture, however, on which he grounds his hypothesis,
are capable of another and very different interpretation. After all, we
may observe, that the place of the blessed is a question of
comparatively little importance; and we may cheerfully expect and pursue
it, though we cannot answer a multitude of curious questions, relating
to various circumstances that pertain to it. We have reason to believe
that heaven will be a social state, and that its happiness will, in some
measure, arise from mutual communion and converse, and the expressions
and exercises of mutual benevolence. All the views presented to us of
this eternal residence of good men are pure and noble; and form a
striking contrast to the low hopes, and the gross and sensual
conceptions of a future state, which distinguish the Pagan and
Mohammedan systems. The Christian heaven may be described to be a state
of eternal communion with God, and consecration to hallowed devotional
and active services; from which will result an uninterrupted increase of
knowledge, holiness, and joy, to the glorified and immortalized assembly
of the redeemed.

HEBER, or EBER, the father of Peleg, and the son of Salah, who was the
grandson of Shem, one of Noah’s sons, was born A. M. 1723; B. C. 2281.
From him some have supposed that Abraham and his descendants derived the
appellation of Hebrews. But others have suggested, with greater
probability, that Abraham and his family were thus called, because they
came from the other side of the Euphrates into Canaan; Heber signifying
in the Hebrew language _one that passes_, or, _a passage_, that is, of
the river Euphrates. According to this opinion, Hebrew signifies much
the same as foreigner among us, or one that comes from beyond sea. Such
were Abraham and his family among the Canaanites; and his posterity,
learning and using the language of the country, still retained the
appellation originally given them, even when they became possessors and
settled inhabitants.

2. HEBER the Kenite, of Jethro’s family, husband to Jael, who killed
Sisera, Judges iv, 17, &c.

HEBREW OF THE HEBREWS, an appellation which the Apostle Paul applies to
himself, Phil. iii, 5, concerning the meaning of which there has been
some difference of opinion. Godwin, in his “Moses and Aaron,”
understands by this expression, a Hebrew both by father’s and mother’s
side. But if it meant no more than this, there was little occasion for
the Apostle’s using it immediately after having declared that he was “of
the stock of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin,” which, on Godwin’s
supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for the Jews were
not allowed to marry out of their own nation. Beside, it is not likely
that St. Paul would have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and
honour, that his parents were not proselytes. It is more probable that a
Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by nation and language,
which many of Abraham’s posterity, in those days, were not; or one of
the Hebrew Jews who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue;
for such were reckoned more honourable than the Jews born out of Judea,
and who spoke the Greek tongue. See HELLENISTS.

HEBREW LANGUAGE, called also absolutely Hebrew, is the language spoken
by the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are
written; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is
said to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in
the family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned
in the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the
punishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general,
have been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber’s
family, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been
maintained that Heber’s family, in the fourth generation after the
dispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen. xi, 27, 28,
and that there is no reason to think they used a different language from
their neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee,
and not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham’s country, and of his
kindred, Gen. xxiv, 4; xxxi, 46, 47; and it is probable that Abraham’s
native language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the
Canaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among
them. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by
the patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent
readers of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they
gave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects;
and it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the
dialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race.
As the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that
they had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was
complete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of
Canaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the
Phenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same
primitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of
mankind.

2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the
books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee.
The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the
world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr.
Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language;
not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first
parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion;
and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first
speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages,
or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in
the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius
of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original
language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of
which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The
names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental
circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined;
and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish
other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian,
Phenician, &c.

The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered
the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from
that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several
foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political
intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and
Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew
language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the
Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so
many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not
inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’
captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost
their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from
their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they
had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a
dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was,
that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret
them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe
brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the
Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law,
because “they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” Nehem. viii, 8.
Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be
spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by
the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be
enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it
appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general
contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the
leaden age of the language.

The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and
of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has
been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in
Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by
Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church,
transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square
letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those
Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than
that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the
old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This
opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as
from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such
characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of
this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck
before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten
tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same
with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their
forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.

HEBREWS, sometimes called Israelites, from their progenitor, Jacob,
surnamed Israel, and in modern times Jews, as the descendants of Judah,
the name of this leading tribe being given to all. See JEWS.

HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. Though the genuineness of this epistle has been
disputed both in ancient and modern times, its antiquity has never been
questioned. It is generally allowed that there are references to it,
although the author is not mentioned, in the remaining works of Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr; and that it contains, as
was first noticed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, internal evidence of
having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, Heb. viii, 4;
ix, 25; x, 11, 37; xiii, 10. The earliest writer now extant who quotes
this epistle as the work of St. Paul is Clement of Alexandria, toward
the end of the second century; but, as he ascribes it to St. Paul
repeatedly and without hesitation, we may conclude that in his time no
doubt had been entertained upon the subject, or, at least, that the
common tradition of the church attributed it to St. Paul. Clement is
followed by Origen, by Dionysius and Alexander, both bishops of
Alexandria, by Ambrose, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerom,
Chrysostom, and Cyril, all of whom consider this epistle as written by
St. Paul; and it is also ascribed to him in the ancient Syriac version,
supposed to have been made at the end of the first century. Eusebius
says, “Of St. Paul there are fourteen epistles manifest and well known;
but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, urging for their
opinion that it is contradicted by the church of the Romans, as not
being St. Paul’s.” In Dr. Lardner we find the following remark: “It is
evident that this epistle was generally received in ancient times by
those Christians who used the Greek language, and lived in the eastern
parts of the Roman empire.” And in another place he says, “It was
received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers in the fourth,
fifth, and sixth centuries.” The earlier Latin writers take no notice of
this epistle, except Tertullian, who ascribes it to Barnabas. It
appears, indeed, from the following expression of Jerom, that this
epistle was not generally received as canonical Scripture by the Latin
church in his time: “_Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas
Scripturas non recipiat_.” [Although the usage of the Latin church does
not receive it among the canonical Scriptures.] The same thing is
mentioned in other parts of his works. But many individuals of the Latin
church acknowledged it to be written by St. Paul, as Jerom himself,
Ambrose, Hilary, and Philaster; and the persons who doubted its
genuineness were those the least likely to have been acquainted with the
epistle at an early period, from the nature of its contents not being so
interesting to the Latin churches, which consisted almost entirely of
Gentile Christians, ignorant, probably, of the Mosaic law, and holding
but little intercourse with Jews.

2. The moderns, who, upon grounds of internal evidence, contend against
the genuineness of this epistle, rest principally upon the two following
arguments, the omission of the writer’s name, and the superior elegance
of the style in which it is written. It is indeed certain that all the
acknowledged epistles of St. Paul begin with a salutation in his own
name, and that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is nothing of that
kind; but this omission can scarcely be considered as conclusive against
positive testimony. St. Paul might have reasons for departing, upon this
occasion, from his usual mode of salutation, which we at this distant
period cannot discover. Some have imagined that he omitted his name,
because he knew that it would not have much weight with the Hebrew
Christians, to whom he was in general obnoxious, on account of his zeal
in converting the Gentiles, and in maintaining that the observance of
the Mosaic law was not essential to salvation: it is, however, clear,
that the persons to whom this epistle was addressed knew from whom it
came, as the writer refers to some acts of kindness which he had
received from them, and also expresses a hope of seeing them soon,
Hebrews x, 34; xiii, 18, 19, 23. As to the other argument, it must be
owned that there does not appear to be such superiority in the style of
this epistle, as should lead to the conclusion that it was not written
by St. Paul. Those who have thought differently have mentioned Barnabas,
St. Luke, and Clement, as authors or translators of this epistle. The
opinion of Jerom was, that the sentiments are the Apostle’s, but the
language and composition that of some one else, who committed to writing
the Apostle’s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the
things spoken by his master. Dr. Lardner says, “My conjecture is, that
St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great
master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle’s
sentiments in his own elegant Greek; but who this assistant of the
Apostle was, is altogether unknown.” But surely the writings of St.
Paul, like those of other authors, may not all have the same precise
degree of merit; and if, upon a careful perusal and comparison, it
should be thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written with
greater elegance than the acknowledged compositions of this Apostle; it
should also be remembered that the apparent design and contents of this
epistle suggest the idea of more studied composition, and yet, that
there is nothing in it which amounts to a marked difference of style: on
the other hand, there is the same concise, abrupt, and elliptical mode
of expression, and it contains many phrases and sentiments which are
found in no part of Scripture, except in St. Paul’s Epistles. We may
farther observe, that the manner in which Timothy is mentioned in this
epistle makes it probable that it was written by St. Paul. Compare Heb.
xiii, 23, with 2 Cor. i, 1, and Col. i, 1. It was certainly written by a
person who had suffered imprisonment in the cause of Christianity; and
this is known to have been the case of St. Paul, but of no other person
to whom this epistle has been attributed. Upon the whole, both the
external and internal evidence appear to preponderate so greatly in
favour of St. Paul’s being the author of this epistle, that it cannot
but be considered as written by that Apostle.

3. “They of Italy salute you,” is the only expression in the epistle
which can assist us in determining from whence it was written. The Greek
words are, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας which should have been translated, “Those
from Italy salute you;” and the only inference to be drawn from them
seems to be, that St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was at a place
where some Italian converts were. This inference is not incompatible
with the common opinion, that this epistle was written from Rome, and
therefore we consider it as written from that city. It is supposed to
have been written toward the end of St. Paul’s first imprisonment at
Rome, or immediately after it, because the Apostle expresses an
intention of visiting the Hebrews shortly: we therefore place the date
of this epistle in the year 63.

4. Clement, of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerom, thought that this
epistle was originally written in the Hebrew language; but all the other
ancient fathers who have mentioned this subject speak of the Greek as
the original work; and as no one pretends to have seen this epistle in
Hebrew, as there are no internal marks of the Greek being a translation,
and as we know that the Greek language was at this time very generally
understood at Jerusalem, we may accede to the more common opinion, both
among the ancients and moderns, and consider the present Greek as the
original text. It is no small satisfaction to reflect, that those who
have denied either the genuineness or the originality of this epistle
have always supposed it to have been written or translated by some
fellow labourer or assistant of St. Paul, and that almost every one
admits that it carries with it the sanction and authority of the
inspired Apostle.

5. There has been some little doubt concerning the persons to whom this
epistle was addressed; but by far the most general and most probable
opinion is, that it was written to those Christians of Judea who had
been converted to the Gospel from Judaism. That it was written,
notwithstanding its general title, to the Christians of one certain
place or country, is evident from the following passages: “I beseech you
the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner,” Heb.
xiii, 19. “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with
whom, if he come shortly, I will see you,” Heb. xiii, 23. And it appears
from the following passage in the Acts, “When the number of the
disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians
against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1, that certain persons were at this time
known at Jerusalem by the name of Hebrews. They seem to have been native
Jews, inhabitants of Judea, the language of which country was Hebrew,
and therefore they were called Hebrews, in contradistinction to those
Jews who, residing commonly in other countries, although they
occasionally came to Jerusalem, used the Greek language, and were
therefore called Grecians.

6. The general design of this epistle was to confirm the Jewish
Christians in the faith and practice of the Gospel, which they might be
in danger of deserting, either through the persuasion or persecution of
the unbelieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in Judea. We
may naturally suppose, that the zealous adherents to the law would
insist upon the majesty and glory which attended its first promulgation,
upon the distinguished character of their legislator, Moses, and upon
the divine authority of the ancient Scriptures; and they might likewise
urge the humiliation and death of Christ as an argument against the
truth of his religion. To obviate the impression which any reasoning of
this sort might make upon the converts to Christianity, the writer of
this epistle begins with declaring to the Hebrews, that the same God who
had formerly, upon a variety of occasions, spoken to their fathers by
means of his prophets, had now sent his only Son for the purpose of
revealing his will; he then describes, in most sublime language, the
dignity of the person of Christ, Heb. i; and thence infers the duty of
obeying his commands, the divine authority of which was established by
the performance of miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he
points out the necessity of Christ’s incarnation and passion, Heb. ii;
he shows the superiority of Christ to Moses, and warns the Hebrews
against the sin of unbelief, Heb. iii; he exhorts to steadfastness in
the profession of the Gospel, and gives an animated description of
Christ as our high priest, Heb. iv-vii; he shows that the Levitical
priesthood and the old covenant were abolished by the priesthood of
Christ, and by the new covenant, Heb. viii; he points out the efficacy
of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the law, and the sufficiency of the
atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, Heb. ix, x; he fully explains
the nature, merit, and effects of faith, Heb. xi; and in the last two
chapters he gives a variety of exhortations and admonitions, all
calculated to encourage the Hebrews to bear with patience and constancy
any trials to which they might be exposed. He concludes with the
valedictory benediction usual in St. Paul’s Epistles: “Grace be with you
all. Amen.” The most important articles of our faith are explained, and
the most material objections to the Gospel are answered with great
force, in this celebrated epistle. The arguments used in it, as being
addressed to persons who had been educated in the Jewish religion, are
principally taken from the ancient Scriptures; and the connection
between former revelations and the Gospel of Christ, is pointed out in
the most perspicuous and satisfactory manner.

7. In addition, it may be observed, that Mr. Stuart, an American critic,
has published an ample investigation of several of the points referred
to in the above remarks, and the following are the _results_:--

(1.) As to the place in which the persons lived to whom the epistle is
addressed, I have now examined all the objections against the opinion,
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, which I have
met with, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve
attention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and
surely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the
positive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and
falls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the
epistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together;
considering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong
attachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from
Christianity in consequence of it, which the whole texture of the
epistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other
circumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the
universal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom
this epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early
tradition and the contents of the epistle; and that the doubts and
difficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of
sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that
Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews.
Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed
and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that
has now been examined.

(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation.
In the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a
pretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is
definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is
manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter,
any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the
church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable
respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the
church, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What
Jerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, _Ab ecclesiis orientis
et ab omnibus retrò ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi
Apostoli Pauli suscipi_. In the western churches a diversity of opinion
prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can
be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine
leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the
western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times,
we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his
epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation.
What produced a change of opinion in the west, we are left to
conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times
afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from
being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the
churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little
able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured
to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the
east to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in
which the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable,
that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself,
should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have
with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome
against the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was
supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the
reception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so
lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in
Heb. vi, 4–8, and x, 26–31, at least seem strongly to favour the views
which they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against
the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been
led to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected
by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a
matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical
evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this
subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the
Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church.
Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church.
The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern
sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it
stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many
of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the
Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that
Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as
thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so
far as to give it the appellation of _epistola straminea_? [an epistle
of straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church,
exceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have
gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle;
because it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and
because, unlike St. Paul’s other epistles, it was anonymous. That all,
even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our
epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active
part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of
such an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever
might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty
generally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so
cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the
latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem
to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul’s;
although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains,
then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The
early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And
there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as
uniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to
many other books of the New Testament; and more so, than in respect to
several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from
tradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St.
Paul was the author of our epistle.

(3.) As to the language in which the epistle was originally written,
there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient
and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the
Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated
it into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the
Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report,
either Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, _scripserat ut
Hebræus Hebræis Hebraicè_; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in
Hebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek,
so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from
that of St. Paul’s. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was
Clement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that
the thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul’s, while the diction
or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the
sentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably
doubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken
in the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long
ceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these
fathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was
originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so
universal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church,
or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a
conclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all
probability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular
language? Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for
he was brought up at Jerusalem, and “at the feet of Gamaliel;” and when
he had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who
were excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts xxii, 1, 2. Why
should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was
originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that
country? So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned;
although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not
appear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just
referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to
defend the same opinion; and particularly Michaëlis, who has discussed
the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do
not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind
they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an
exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a
very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a
meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have
expressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning.
He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have
been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations
wholly _à priori_; as if these were admissible in a question of mere
fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls _wrong
translation_, which wears the appearance of any considerable
probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well
acquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New
Testament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of
translation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this
epistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an
Aramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original.
This testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question
before us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study
of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under
consideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the
various parts of the New Testament.

(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced
from two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the
Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and
many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not
read it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so
great, when compared with that of St. Paul’s epistles, that, unless we
suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be
led to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these
topics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that
in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide
circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most
feasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address
it to the church at Cæsarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in
Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did
not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every
considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood
the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established
beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s “Introduction to the New
Testament,” vol. ii, pp. 32–50. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he
did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his
epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome.
If St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed,
and he had not resided when he wrote this epistle, in any of the
countries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much
better that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar
reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable,
that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At
the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least,
in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period,
only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek,
not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then,
that, after twenty-five years’ incessant labour or preaching,
conversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred
writing in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances
like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his
native dialect of Palestine? I cannot think it strange, therefore, that
although the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to
some part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not
in Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of
this nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally
composed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.

HEBRON, one of the most ancient cities in the world; for it was built
seven years before Zoan, the capital of Lower Egypt, Numbers xiii, 22.
Now, as the Egyptians gloried much in the antiquity of their cities, and
their country was indeed one of the first that was peopled after the
dispersion of Babel, it may be from hence concluded that it was one of
the most ancient. Some think it was founded by Arba, one of the oldest
giants in Palestine; for which reason it was called Kirjath-arba, or
Arba’s city, Joshua xiv, 15; which name was afterward changed to that of
Hebron, Joshua xv, 13. Arba was the father of Anak; and from Anak the
giants, called Anakim, took their name, who were still dwelling at
Hebron when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. When it was first
called Hebron, is uncertain; some think, not till it was conquered by
Caleb, and that he called it so from his son of that name. But Calmet is
of opinion that the name of Hebron is more ancient; and that Caleb, to
do honour to his son, named him after this ancient and celebrated place.
Hebron was situated upon an eminence, twenty miles southward from
Jerusalem, and twenty miles north from Beersheba. Abraham, Sarah, and
Isaac were buried near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, or the double
cave, which Abraham bought of Ephron, Genesis xxiii, 7–9. Hebron was the
allotment of Judah. The Lord assigned it for the inheritance of Caleb,
Joshua xiv, 13; x, 3, 23, 37. Joshua first took Hebron, and killed the
king, whose name was Hoham. But afterward Caleb again made a conquest of
it, assisted by the troops of his tribe, and the valour of Othniel,
Judges i, 12, 13. It was appointed to be a dwelling for priests, and
declared to be a city of refuge, Joshua xxi, 13. David, after the death
of Saul, fixed the seat of his government there, 2 Sam. ii, 2–5. At
Hebron, Absalom began his rebellion, 2 Sam. xv, 7, 8, &c. During the
captivity of Babylon, the Edomites having invaded the southern parts of
Judea, made themselves masters of Hebron; hence Josephus sometimes makes
it a part of Edom. Here Zacharias and Elizabeth are believed to have
dwelt; and it is supposed to have been the birth place of John the
Baptist. Hebron is now called El Khalil; though not a town of large
dimensions, it has a considerable population. According to Ali Bey, it
contains about four hundred families of Arabs; but he does not notice
either the Jews, who are numerous, or the Turks. He describes it as
situated on the slope of a mountain, and having a strong castle.
Provisions, he says, are abundant, and there is a considerable number of
shops. The streets are winding, and the houses unusually high. The
country is well cultivated, to a considerable extent. Hebron is computed
to be twenty-seven miles south-west of Jerusalem.

HEIFER, a young cow, used in sacrifice at the temple, Num. xix, 1–10.
Moses and Aaron were instructed to deliver the divine command to the
children of Israel that they should procure “a red heifer, without
spot,” that is, one that was entirely red, without one spot of any other
colour; “free from blemish, and on which the yoke had never yet come,”
that is, which had never yet been employed in ploughing the ground or in
any other work; for according to the common sense of all mankind, those
animals which had been made to serve other uses, became unfit to be
offered to God,--a sentiment which we find in Homer and other Heathen
writers. The animal was to be delivered to the priest, who was to lead
her forth out of the camp, and there to slay her: the priest was then to
take of the blood with his finger, and sprinkle it seven times before
the tabernacle, and afterward to burn the carcass: then to take cedar
wood and hyssop, and scarlet wood, and cast them into the flames. The
ashes were to be gathered up, and preserved in a secure and clean place,
for the use of the congregation, by the sprinkling of which ashes in
water, it became a water of separation, by means of which a typical or
ceremonial purification for sin was effected, Heb. ix, 13.

HELIOPOLIS. See ON.

HELL. This is a Saxon word, which is derived from a verb which signifies
_to hide_ or _conceal_. A late eminent Biblical critic, Dr. Campbell,
has investigated this subject with his usual accuracy; and the following
is the substance of his remarks. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word
_sheol_ frequently occurs, and uniformly, he thinks, denotes the state
of the dead in general, without regard to the virtuous or vicious
characters of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating
that word, the LXX have almost invariably used the Greek term ἅιδης,
_hades_, which means the receptacle of the dead, and ought rarely to
have been translated _hell_, in the sense in which we now use it,
namely, as the place of torment. To denote this latter object, the New
Testament writers always make use of the Greek word γέεννα, which is
compounded of two Hebrew words, _Ge Hinnom_, that is, “The Valley of
Hinnom,” a place near Jerusalem, in which children were cruelly
sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites, 2 Chron.
xxxiii, 6. This place was also called _Tophet_, 2 Kings xxiii, 10,
alluding, as is supposed, to the noise of drums, (_toph_ signifying a
drum,) there raised to drown the cries of helpless infants. As in
process of time this place came to be considered an emblem of hell, or
the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a
future state, the name _Tophet_ came gradually to be used in this sense,
and at length to be confined to it. In this sense, also, the word
_gehenna_, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New
Testament, where it occurs about a dozen times. The confusion that has
arisen on this subject has been occasioned not only by our English
translators having rendered the Hebrew word _sheol_ and the Greek word
_gehenna_ frequently by the term _hell_; but the Greek word _hades_,
which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, is, in every instance,
except one, translated by the same English word, which it ought never to
have been. In the following passages of the Old Testament it seems,
however, that a future world of wo is expressed by _sheol_: “They,” the
wicked, “spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to
_sheol_,” Job xxi, 13. “The wicked shall be turned into _sheol_, and all
the nations that forget God,” Psalm ix, 17, 18. “Her feet go down to
death, her steps take hold on _sheol_,” Prov. v, 5. “But he knoweth not
that the ghosts are there, and that her guests are in the depths of
sheol,” Prov. ix, 18. “Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and shalt deliver
his soul from _sheol_,” Prov. xxiii, 14. Thus, as Stuart observes, in
his “Essay on Future Punishment,” while the Old Testament employs
_sheol_, in most cases to designate the grave, the region of the dead,
the place of departed spirits, it employs it also, in some cases, to
designate along with this idea the adjunct one of the place of misery,
place of punishment, region of wo]. In this respect it accords fully
with the New Testament use of _hades_. For though _hades_ signifies the
grave, and often the invisible region of separate spirits, without
reference to their condition, yet, in Luke xvi, 23, “In hades ἐν τῷ ᾅδη,
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,” it is clearly used for a
place and condition of misery. The word _hell_ is also used by our
translators for _gehenna_, which means the world of future punishment,
“How shall ye escape the damnation of hell, κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης?“

HELL, _Gates of_. See GATES.

HELLENISTS. On this appellation, Dr. Jennings observes, There is a very
remarkable appellation which the Apostle Paul, after glorying in his
being “of the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin,” applies to
himself, namely, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” Phil. iii, 5. By
this expression Godwin understands a Hebrew both by father’s and
mother’s side. But if this be all that the phrase imports, there seems
to be very little occasion for the Apostle’s using it immediately after
having declared, that he was “of the stock of Israel, and the tribe of
Benjamin;” which, on Godwin’s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of
the Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own
nation; or if they sometimes married proselytes, yet their number was
comparatively so small among them, especially while they were under
oppression, as they were at that time by the Romans, that methinks Paul
would hardly have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour,
that neither of his parents were proselytes. It is therefore a much more
probable sense, that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by
nation and language, which multitudes of Abraham’s posterity, in those
days, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public
worship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable
than the Hellenistic Jews, who in their dispersion having, in a manner,
lost the Hebrew, used the Greek language _in sacris_, and read the
Scripture out of the Septuagint version. We meet with this distinction
among the converted Jews, in the Acts of the Apostles: “In those days,
when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring
of the Grecians or Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1. This is
what St. Paul probably meant by his being a Hebrew, as distinguished
from an Israelite: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So
am I,” 2 Corinthians xi, 22. In one sense, these were convertible terms,
both signifying Jews by nation and religion; but in the sense just
mentioned, there were many, in those days, who were Israelites, but not
Hebrews. St. Paul was both, not only an Israelite by birth, but a
Hebrew, and not a Hellenistic Jew. Godwin expresses himself
inaccurately, when he says that those who lived in Palestine, and who,
as using the Hebrew text in their public worship, were opposed to the
Ἑλληνιϛαί, are called Hebrews, or Jews. For, though Hebrew and Jew are
convertible terms, when opposed to Gentiles, as denoting the seed of
Abraham, and professors of the Mosaic religion, see Jer. xxxiv, 9; yet,
as opposed to the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, they are not convertible terms, there being
Hebrew Jews and Hellenistic Jews; for it is said, that when “they, who
were scattered by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled
into several countries, preaching the word to none but Jews only,” yet
they spoke, ϖρος τοὺς Ἑλληνιϛὰς, to the Hellenists or Grecians, Acts xi,
19, 20. In order to confirm the sense which is here given of the word
Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, in opposition to the appellation Hebrews, it is proper we
should take notice of the distinction between the Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνιϛαὶ.
The former were Greeks by nation, and as such distinguished from Jews,
Acts xvi, 1; xix, 10; and the Greek empire having been rendered by
Alexander in a manner universal, and their language being then the most
common and general, the appellation Greeks is sometimes given to the
whole Heathen world, or to all who were not Jews, Rom. i, 16; ii, 9.
These Greeks, called Ἑλληνικοὶ by Josephus, are always styled Ἕελληνες
in the New Testament. On which account Grotius, understanding by the
Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or “Grecians, to whom some of those who were dispersed on the
persecution which arose about Stephen, preached the Lord Jesus,” Acts
xi, 19, 20, Greeks by nation, concludes there is a mistake in the text,
and alters it according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions: “_Certè
legendum_,” [it ought certainly to be read,] saith he, “ϖρος τοὺς
Ἕλληνας.” So indeed the Alexandrian manuscript reads, but it is
supported by no other copy. And this is decisive against it--that from
the words immediately preceding, it is evident that these Grecians were
by nation Jews, and not Greeks; it being expressly said, that those who
were scattered on the persecution “preached the Gospel to the Jews
only.” As for the Ἕλληνες, or Greeks mentioned in St. John’s Gospel, as
being come to Jerusalem at the passover to worship in the temple, John
xii, 20, and likewise those mentioned in the Acts, as worshipping along
with the Jews in the synagogues, Acts xiv, 1; xviii, 4; they were
doubtless Greeks by birth and nation, yet proselytes to the Jewish
religion. There is a distinction made between Jews and proselytes, Acts
ii, 10; but none between Hebrews and proselytes, because a proselyte
might be either a Hebrew or a Hellenist, according to the language in
which he performed public worship. That the Hellenists or Grecians, were
Jews, is farther argued from the account we have, that when at Jerusalem
St. Paul “disputed against the Grecians, they went about to slay him,”
Acts ix, 29, as the Jews at Damascus had done before, Acts ix, 23. Now
had these Grecians been strangers of a different nation, it cannot be
imagined they durst have attempted to kill a Jew, among his own
countrymen, in the capital, and without a formal accusation of him
before any of their tribunals. Upon the whole, the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or
Grecians being Jews who used the Greek tongue in their sacred exercises,
the Hebrew Jews and Grecian Jews were distinguished in those days, in
like manner as the Portuguese and Dutch Jews are among us, not so much
by the place of their birth, (many being born in England, others
abroad,) as by the language they use in their public prayers and
sermons.

Among the wonderful dealings of God, says Dr. Neander, by which the
coming of Christianity was prepared, must be placed the spreading of the
Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Those among them who belonged to the
Pharisees gave themselves much trouble to obtain proselytes; and the
loss of respect for the old popular religion, and the unsatisfied
religious wants of multitudes, farthered their views. Reverence for the
national God of the Jews, as a mighty Being, and reverence for the
secret sanctuary of the splendid temple of Jerusalem, had long gained
admittance among the Heathen. Jewish goetæ (enchanters, jugglers, &c)
permitted themselves to make use of a thousand acts of delusion, in
which they were very skilful, to make an impression of astonishment on
the minds of those around them. Confidence in Judaism had in consequence
made such wide progress, especially in large capital towns, that the
Roman writers in the time of the first emperors openly complain of it;
and Seneca, in his book upon superstition, said of the Jews, “The
conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” The Jewish
proselyte-makers, “blind leaders of the blind,” who had themselves no
conception of the real nature, of religion, could give to others no
insight into it. They often allowed their converts to take up a kind of
dead monotheism, and merely exchange one kind of superstition for
another; they taught them, that, by the mere outward worship of one God,
and outward ceremonials, they were sure of the grace of God, without
requiring any change of life; and they gave to them only new means of
silencing their conscience, and new support in the sins which they were
unwilling to renounce: and hence our Saviour reproached these
proselyte-makers, that they made their converts ten times more the
children of hell, than they themselves were. But we must here accurately
distinguish between the two classes of proselytes. The proselytes in the
strict sense of the word, the proselytes of righteousness, who underwent
circumcision and took upon themselves the whole of the ceremonial law,
were very different from the proselytes of the gate, who only bound
themselves to renounce idolatry, to the worship of the one God, and to
abstinence from all Heathenish excess, as well as from every thing which
appeared to have any connection with idolatry. The former often embraced
all the fanaticism and superstition of the Jews, and allowed themselves
to be blindly led by their Jewish teachers. The more difficult it had
been to them to subject themselves to the observance of the Jewish
ceremonial law, necessarily so irksome to a Greek or a Roman, the less
could they find it in their hearts to believe, that all this had been in
vain, that they had obtained no advantage by it, and that they must
renounce their presumed holiness. What Justin Martyr says to the Jews,
holds good of these proselytes: “The proselytes not only do not believe,
but they calumniate the name of Christ twice as much as you, and they
wish to murder and torture us who believe on him, because they are
desirous to resemble you in every thing.” The proselytes of the gate, on
the contrary, had taken many of the most admirable truths out of
Judaism. Without becoming entirely Jews, they had become acquainted with
the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, they had heard of the promised
messenger from God, of the King armed with power from God, of whom a
report had been spread, as Suetonius says in the life of Vespasian, over
the whole of the east. Much of that which they had heard from their
Jewish teachers, whose writings they had read, had remained dark to
them, and they were still to seek in them. By the notions which they had
received from the Jews, of one God, of the divine government of the
world, of God’s judgment, and of the Messiah, they were more prepared
for the Gospel than other Heathens; and because they still thought that
they had too little, because they had no determined religious system,
and were curious after more instruction in divine things, and because
they had not received many of the prejudices which swayed the Jews, they
were more fitted to receive the Gospel than many of the Jews. From the
very beginning they must have been attentive to the preaching of the
Gospel, which secured to them, without making them Jews, a full share in
the fulfilment of those promises of which the Jews had spoken to them.
To these proselytes of the gate, (the φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεὸν, the εὐσεβεῖς
of the New Testament,) passed, therefore, according to the Acts, the
preaching of the Gospel, when it had been rejected by the blinded Jews;
and here the seed of the divine word found a fitting soil in hearts
desirous of holiness. There were, however, doubtless, among the
proselytes of the gate, some who, wanting in proper earnestness in their
search after religious truth, only desired, in every case, an easy road
to heaven, which did not require any self-denial; and who, in order to
be sure of being on the safe side, whether power and truth lay with the
Jews or the Heathens, sometimes worshipped in the synagogue of Jehovah,
sometimes in the temples of the gods, and who, therefore, fluttered in
suspense between Judaism and Heathenism.

HEMLOCK, רוש and ראש, Deut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer.
viii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam. iii, 5, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12.
In the two latter places our translators have rendered the word
_hemlock_ in the others, _gall_. Hiller supposes it the _centaureum_,
described by Pliny; but Celsius shows it to be the hemlock. It is
evident, from Deut. xxix, 18, that some herb or plant is meant of a
malignant or nauseous kind, being there joined with _wormwood_, and in
the margin of our Bibles explained to be “a poisonful herb.” In like
manner see Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; and xxiii, 15. In Hosea x, 4, the
comparison is to a bitter herb, which, growing among grain, overpowers
the useful vegetable, and substitutes a pernicious weed. “If,” says the
author of “Scripture Illustrated,” “the comparison be to a plant growing
in the furrows of the field, strictly speaking, then we are much
restricted in our plants likely to answer this character; but if we may
take the ditches around, or the moist or sunken places within the field
also, which I partly suspect, then we may include other plants; and I do
not see why hemlock may not be intended. Scheuchzer inclines to this
rather than _wormwood_ or _agrostes_, as the LXX have rendered it. The
prophet appears to mean a vegetable which should appear wholesome, and
resemble those known to be salutary, as judgment, when just, properly
is; but experience would demonstrate its malignity, as unjust judgment
is when enforced. Hemlock is poisonous, and water-hemlock especially;
yet either of these may be mistaken, and some of their parts, the root
particularly, may deceive but too fatally.”

HEN, ὄρνις, 2 Esdras i, 30; Matt. xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34. In these
last two passages our Saviour exclaims, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” The metaphor
here used is a very beautiful one. When the hen sees a bird of prey
coming, she makes a noise to assemble her chickens, that she may cover
them with her wings from the danger. The Roman eagle was about to fall
upon the Jewish state; our Lord invited them to himself in order to
guard them from threatened calamities: they disregarded his invitations
and warnings, and fell a prey to their adversaries. The affection of the
hen to her brood is so strong as to have become proverbial. There is a
beautiful Greek epigram in the Anthologia, which affords a very fine
illustration of the affection of this bird in another view. It has been
thus translated:--

            “Beneath her fostering wing the hen defends
            Her darling offspring, while the snow descends;
            And through the winter’s day unmoved defies
            The chilling fleeces and inclement skies;
            Till vanquish'd by the cold and piercing blast,
            True to her charge she perishes at last.”

Plutarch, in his book _De Philostorgiâ_, represents this parental
attachment and care in a very pleasing manner: “Do we not daily observe
with what care the hen protects her chickens; giving some shelter under
her wings, supporting others upon her back, calling them around her, and
picking out their food; and if any animal approaches that terrifies
them, driving it away with a courage and strength truly wonderful?”

HENOTICON, a decree or edict of the Emperor Zeno, which was dated at
Constantinople in the year 482, and by which he intended to unite all
the parties in religion under one faith. For this reason the decree was
called _henoticon_, which signifies “union” or “uniting.” It is
generally agreed that it was published by the advice of Acacius, bishop
of Constantinople, who wished to reconcile the contending parties. This
decree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils
of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians,
Nestorians, and Eutychians, without particularly mentioning the council
of Chalcedon. The _henoticon_ was approved by all those of the two
contending parties who were remarkable for their candour and moderation;
but it was opposed by the violent and obstinate, who complained that it
was injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of
Chalcedon. Hence arose new contests and new divisions not less
deplorable than those which this decree was intended to suppress. The
Catholics opposed it with all their strength; and it was condemned in
form by Pope Felix II.

HERESY, _hæresis_, αἵρεσις, from αἱρέω, _I choose_, signifies an error
in some essential point of Christian faith, publicly avowed, and
obstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition,
“_Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitata, palam docta, et
pertinaciter defensa_.” [An opinion of divine things invented by human
reason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.] Among the ancients,
the word _heresy_ appears to have had nothing of that odious
signification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in
later times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect,
without conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either of a
party approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer. In this sense they
spoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c,
meaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the
historical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly
the same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect
or party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the
Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See Acts v, 17; xv,
5; xxiv, 5; xxvi, 5; xxviii, 22. In the two former of these passages,
the term _heresy_ seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for
the sake of distinction, without the least appearance of any intention
to convey either praise or blame. In Acts xxvi, 4, 5, St. Paul, in
defending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was
manifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and
to give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism,
both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.

2. It has been suggested that the acceptation of the word αἵρεσις in the
epistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the
historical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this
difference, it may be observed that the word _sect_ has always something
relative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term
be the same, it will convey a favourable or an unfavourable idea,
according to the particular relation which it bears in the application.
When it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one
party from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing
reprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word
αἵρεσις itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in
construction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a
good sect, or a bad sect. Again: the term may be applied to a party
formed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the
community be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision,
without impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting
into sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption
in that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the
society. Hence arises the whole difference in the word, as it is used in
the historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St.
Peter and St. Paul; for these are the only Apostles who employ it. In
the history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles,
it is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address
themselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn
them against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of
charity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and
of great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications,
however, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the
latter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During
the early ages of Christianity, the term _heresy_ gradually lost the
innocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a
reproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the
orthodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and
ceremonies of the church.

3. The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are,
first, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the Mosaic rites,
especially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists,
or Grecian Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high
an estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the
simplicity of the Gospel; and third, those who endeavoured to blend
Christianity with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and
Platonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to
the latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in
the writings of St. Paul:--Without being acquainted with the notions of
those teachers who caused the Apostle so much anxiety and so much
vexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain
dark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points
them out, at one time some deemed that they recognised the Gnostics;
others perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for
his assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and
morals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the Gnostic
school had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is
unjust to charge the Essenes with that extreme of immorality of which
St. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and
acquaintances of this Jewish sect mention them with honour and respect,
and extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The
similarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed
in both parties compared with St. Paul’s declarations, flows from a
common source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and
the other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray,
if we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general
modeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among
Judaism as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its
speculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite
them or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means
Christianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would
have been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the
Apostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An
oriental, or, as it is commonly called, a Babylonian or Chaldean,
doctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even
to the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age,
and was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It
set up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of
certain phenomena of nature, for the office of governing the world, and
for the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time
immemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy.
The practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by
means of which a person might enter into communication with these
spirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from
this union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their
assistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and
of performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated
under the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better
accommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system
after the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it
with the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic
and in Christendom the Gnostical school. These men forced their way even
to the throne. Tiberius had received instruction in their philosophy,
and was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons,
it was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. Nero caused a
great number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at
the expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always
appear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and
Chaldeans were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings,
who, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits,
prepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from
their art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently
necessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the augmentation of
their authority. As they found access and favour with people of all
classes in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a
magus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, Acts xiii, 6. Such was
that Simon in Samaria, Acts viii, 10, who was there considered as a
higher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it
is a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him
Δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλη, “The great power of God.” So also Pliny calls
some of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose coöperation
particular results were effected, _potestates_. [Powers.] Justin Martyr,
the fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical
expressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high
title ὑπεράνω ϖάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ δυνάμεως. [Far above all
principality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which
appear under such different appellations, the superior were those who
ruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who,
on that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with
matter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an
intelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern
at his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus
commanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material
world: Ἐν τῶ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, “By the prince of the devils,” Matt.
xii, 24.

4. The Syrian philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with
a circumstantial representation of this system and its several
varieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and
Egyptians:--The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect
unity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on
matter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the
world. Certain subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are
more compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These
are the “creators of the world,” δημίουργοι, and the “rulers of the
world,” κοσμοκράτορες. The superior deities are, however, the real cause
of all that exists; and from their fulness, from their ϖλήρωμα, it
derives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to
the lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating
decrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those
which are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related
to the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the
property of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or
coarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence,
either in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among
these classes of spirits are called ἄρχαι, or, ἀρχικὸν ἀιτιόν. Others
among the “divine natures,” θείαι οὐσίαι, are “intermediate beings,”
μέσαι. Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also
called ἄρχοντες, and “the ministering spirits” are δύναμεις and ἄγγελοι.
The archangels are not generally recognised in this theory; this class
is said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first
introduced by Porphyry. (See _Archangel_.) If we take here also into
consideration the ἐξουσίαι, of which Justin has before spoken, we shall
have enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this
demonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the
spiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is
necessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of
the body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely
spiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual
concupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this
perfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot,
without great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet
emancipated themselves from the _libido procreandi_, and the
propensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in
general of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. Bodily
exercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of
prophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only
attend to the pure, they nevertheless sometimes mislead men to impure,
actions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of
that which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and
mankind.

5. This philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time
in the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a
doctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity
than it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those
countries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St.
Paul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books
were brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes,
Acts xix, 19. This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the
Ἐφέσια ἀλεξιφάρμακα, and Ἐφέσια γράμματα, were spells highly extolled by
the ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons.
As late even as the fourth century, the synod at Laodicea was obliged to
institute severe laws against the worship of angels, against magic, and
against incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the
mind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the
recollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which
strikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of
his opponents φιλοσοφία οὐ κατὰ Χριϛὸν, “a philosophy incompatible with
Christianity,” Col. ii, 8; θρησκειά τῶν ἀγγέλων, “a worship of angels,”
Col. ii, 18; διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων, “a demonology,” 1 Tim. iv, 1. He
calls it still farther γοητεία, 2 Tim. iii, 13. This is the peculiar
expression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic
experiments; γόης is, according to Hesychius, μάγος, κόλαξ, ϖερίεργος,
and γοητεύει, ἀπατᾶ μαγεύει, φαρμακεύει, ἐξάιδει. λ. St. Paul compares
these teachers to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy iii, 8. These two
persons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who
withstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so
notorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even
to the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array
themselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat,
Ephes. vi, 12, he says that it is the more necessary, because their
combat is not against human force, οὐ ϖρὸς [not against] ἄιμα καὶ σάρκα,
“flesh and blood,” but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions
these, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world,
ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, particularly the κοσμοκράτορας, “principalities,”
“powers,” “rulers;” and likewise fixes their abode in the upper aërial
regions, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. In like manner, in the
Epistle to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them
Christianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the
divine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is his creation,
and is subjected to him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then
selects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this
supposititious demonocracy is wholly subservient to him; whether they be
θρόνοι, or κυριότητες, ἀρχαὶ ἐξουσίαι, [thrones, dominions,
principalities, powers,] Col. i, 16. Finally, to destroy completely and
decisively the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ,
through the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire
spiritual creation, that he drags in triumph the ἀρχὰς [principalities]
and ἐξουσίας [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion
and exercise of power have ceased, Col. ii, 15. But what he says
respecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their
deceptions, their avarice, &c, is certainly more applicable to this
class of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more
accused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidents of the
occult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats,
against abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he
rejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because
they imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as
the conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became
possible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle’s
mind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect
among the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics,
and which, together with the different varieties of this system, is
accused by history of magical arts. Other adherents of this system among
the Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some
Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect
of Neo-Platonism.

6. But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations
are wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the
above passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above
mentioned was built on the Scripture doctrine of good and evil angels,
and so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition,
and even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different
orders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and
government; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in
Scripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any
sanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers
they had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil
angels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by
showing that the “thrones and dominions” of heaven are submissive
created servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of
“the darkness of this world,” are put under his feet.

HERMON, a celebrated mountain in the Holy Land, often spoken of in
Scripture. It was in the northern boundary of the country, beyond
Jordan, and in the territories which originally belonged to Og, king of
Bashan, Joshua xii, 5; xiii, 5. The Psalmist connects Tabor and Hermon
together, upon more than one occasion, Psalm lxxxix, 12; cxxxiii, 3;
from which it may be inferred that they lay contiguous to each other.
This is agreeable to the account that is given us by travellers. Mr.
Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo, says that in three hours and a
half from the river Kishon, he came to a small brook near which was an
old village and a good kane, called Legune; not far from which his
company took up their quarters for the night, and from whence they had
an extensive prospect of the plain of Esdraëlon. At about six or seven
hours’ distance eastward, stood, within view, Nazareth, and the two
mountains Tabor and Hermon. He adds that they were sufficiently
instructed by experience what the holy Psalmist means by the dew of
Hermon; their tents being as wet with it as if it had rained all night,
Psalm cxxxiii, 3.

HEROD, surnamed the Great, king of the Jews, second son of Antipater the
Idumean, born B. C. 71. At the age of twenty-five he was made by his
father governor of Galilee, and distinguished himself by the suppression
of a band of robbers, with the execution of their leader, Hezekiah, and
several of his comrades. As he had performed this act of heroism by his
own authority, and had executed the culprits without the form of trial,
he was summoned before the sanhedrim, but, through the strength of his
party and zeal of his friends, he escaped any censure. In the civil war
between the republican and Cæsarian parties, Herod joined Cassius, and
was made governor of Cœlo-Syria; and when Mark Antony arrived
victorious in Syria, Herod and his brother found means to ingratiate
themselves with him, and were appointed as tetrarchs in Judea; but in a
short time an invasion of Antigonus, who was aided by the Jews, obliged
Herod to make his escape from Jerusalem, and retire first to Idumea, and
then to Egypt. He at length arrived at Rome, and obtained the crown of
Judea upon occasion of a difference between the two branches of the
Asmodean family. Hyrcanus had been for a considerable time prince and
high priest of the Jewish nation; but while the Roman empire was in an
unsettled state, after the death of Julius Cæsar, Antigonus, son of
Aristobulus, brother of Hyrcanus, made himself master of the city and
all Judea. In this state Herod found things when he came to Rome, and
the most that he then aimed at was to obtain the kingdom for
Aristobulus, his wife’s brother; but the senate of Rome, moved by the
recommendations of Mark Antony, conferred the kingdom of Judea upon
Herod himself. Having met with this unexpected success at Rome, he
returned without delay to Judea, and in about three years got possession
of the whole country. He had, however, to fight his way to the throne,
which, as we have seen, was in the possession of Antigonus. Though aided
by the Roman army, he was obliged to lay siege to Jerusalem, which held
out for six months, when it was carried by assault, and a vast slaughter
was made of the inhabitants, till the intercession and bribes of Herod
put an end to it. Antigonus was taken prisoner and put to death, which
opened the way to Herod’s quiet possession of the kingdom. His first
cares were to replenish his coffers, and to repress the faction still
attached to the Asmodean race, and which regarded him as a usurper. He
was guilty of many extortions and cruelties in the pursuit of these
objects. Shortly after this, an accusation was lodged against Herod
before Mark Antony by Cleopatra, who had been influenced to the deed by
his mother-in-law, Alexandra. He was summoned to answer to the charges
exhibited against him before the triumvir; and on this occasion he gave
a most remarkable display of the conflict of opposite passions in a
ferocious heart. Doatingly fond of his wife, Mariamne, and not being
able to bear the thought of her falling into the hands of another, he
exacted a solemn promise from Joseph, whom he appointed to govern in his
absence, that should the accusation prove fatal to him he would put the
queen to death. Joseph disclosed the secret to Mariamne, who, abhorring
such a savage proof of his love, from that moment conceived the deepest
and most settled aversion to her husband. Herod, by great pecuniary
sacrifices, made his peace with Antony, and returned in high credit.
Some hints were thrown out respecting Joseph’s familiarity with Mariamne
during his absence; he communicated his suspicions to his wife, who,
recriminating, upbraided him with his cruel order concerning her. His
rage was unbounded; he put Joseph to death for communicating the secret
entrusted to him alone, and he threw his mother-in-law, Alexandra, into
prison.

2. In the war between Antony and Octavius, Herod raised an army for the
purpose of joining the former; but he was obliged first to engage
Malchus, king of Arabia, whom he defeated and obliged to sue for peace.
After the battle of Actium, his great object was to make terms with the
conqueror; and, as a preliminary step, he put to death Hyrcanus, the
only surviving male of the Asmodeans; and, having secured his family, he
embarked for Rhodes, where Augustus at that time was. He appeared before
the master of the Roman world in all the regal ornaments excepting his
diadem, and with a noble confidence related the faithful services he had
performed for his benefactor, Antony, concluding that he was ready to
transfer the same gratitude to a new patron, from whom he should hold
his crown and kingdom. Augustus was struck with the magnanimity of the
defence, and replaced the diadem on the head of Herod, who remained the
most favoured of the tributary sovereigns. When the emperor afterward
travelled through Syria, in his way to and from Egypt, he was
entertained with the utmost magnificence by Herod; in recompense for
which he restored to him all his revenues and dominions, and even
considerably augmented them. His good fortune as a prince, was poisoned
by domestic broils, and especially by the insuperable aversion of
Mariamne, whom at length he brought to trial, convicted, and executed.
She submitted to her fate with all the intrepidity of innocence, and was
sufficiently avenged by the remorse of her husband, who seems never
after to have enjoyed a tranquil hour.

3. His rage being quenched, Herod endeavoured to banish the memory of
his evil acts from his mind by scenes of dissipation; but the charms of
his once loved Mariamne haunted him wherever he went: he would
frequently call aloud upon her name, and insist upon his attendants
bringing her into his presence, as if willing to forget that she was no
longer among the living. At times he would fly from the sight of men,
and on his return from solitude, which was ill suited to a mind
conscious of the most ferocious deeds, he became more brutal than ever,
and in fits of fury spared neither foes nor friends. Alexandra, whose
malignity toward her daughter has been noticed, was an unpitied victim
to his rage. At length he recovered some portion of self-possession, and
employed himself in projects of regal magnificence. He built at
Jerusalem a stately theatre and amphitheatre, in which he celebrated
games in honour of Augustus, to the great displeasure of the zealous
Jews, who discovered an idolatrous profanation in the theatrical
ornaments and spectacles. Nothing, it is said, gave them so much offence
as some trophies which he had set round his theatre in honour of
Augustus, and in commemoration of his victories, but which the Jews
regarded as images devoted to the purposes of idol worship. For this and
other acts of the king a most serious conspiracy was formed against him,
which he, fortunately for himself, discovered; and he exercised the most
brutal revenge on all the parties concerned in it. He next built
Samaria, which he named Sebaste, and adorned it with the most sumptuous
edifices; and for his security he built several fortresses throughout
the whole of Judea, of which the principal was called Cæsarea, in honour
of the emperor. In his own palace, near the temple of Jerusalem, he
lavished the most costly materials and curious workmanship; and his
palace Herodion, at some miles’ distance from the capital, by the beauty
of its situation, and other appropriate advantages, drew round it the
population of a considerable city.

4. To supply the place of his lost Mariamne, he married a new wife of
the same name, the beautiful daughter of a priest, whom he raised to the
high rank of the supreme pontificate. He sent his two sons, by the first
Mariamne, to be educated at Rome, and so ingratiated himself with
Augustus and his ministers, that he was appointed imperial procurator
for Syria. To acquire popularity among the Jews, and to exhibit an
attachment to their religion, he undertook the vast enterprise of
rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which he finished in a noble style
of magnificence in about a year and a half. During the progress of this
work he visited Rome, and brought back his sons, who had attained to
man’s estate. These at length conspired against their father’s person
and government, and were tried, convicted, and executed. Another act
deserving of notice, performed by Herod, was the dedication of his new
city of Cæsarea, at which time he displayed such profuse magnificence,
that Augustus said his soul was too great for his kingdom.
Notwithstanding the execution of his sons, he was still a slave to
conspiracies from his other near relations. In the thirty-third year of
his reign, OUR SAVIOUR was born. This event was followed, according to
the Gospel of St. Matthew, by the massacre of the children of Bethlehem.
About this time, Antipater, returning from Rome, was arrested by his
father’s orders, charged with treasonable practices, and was found
guilty of conspiring against the life of the king. This and other
calamities, joined to a guilty conscience, preying upon a broken
constitution, threw the wretched monarch into a mortal disease, which
was doubtless a just judgment of Heaven on the many foul enormities and
impieties of which he had been guilty. His disorder was attended with
the most loathsome circumstances that can be imagined. A premature
report of his death caused a tumult in Jerusalem, excited by the
zealots, who were impatient to demolish a golden eagle which he had
placed over the gate of the temple. The perpetrators of this rash act
were seized, and by order of the dying king, put to death. He also
caused his son Antipater to be slain in prison, and his remains to be
treated with every species of ignominy. He bequeathed his kingdom to his
son Archelaus, with tetrarchies to his two other sons. Herod, on his
dying bed, had planned a scheme of horrible cruelty which was to take
place at the instant of his own death. He had summoned the chief persons
among the Jews to Jericho, and caused them to be shut up in the
hippodrome, or circus, and gave strict orders to his sister Salome to
have them all massacred as soon as he should have drawn his last breath:
“for this,” said he, “will provide mourners for my funeral all over the
land, and make the Jews and every family lament my death, who would
otherwise exhibit no signs of concern.” Salome and her husband, Alexas,
chose rather to break their oath extorted by the tyrant, than be
implicated in so cruel a deed; and accordingly, as soon as Herod was
dead, they opened the doors of the circus, and permitted every one to
return to his own home. Herod died in the sixty-eighth year of his age.
His memory has been consigned to merited detestation, while his great
talents, and the active enterprise of his reign, have placed him high in
the rank of sovereigns.

HEROD ANTIPAS. See ANTIPAS.

HERODIANS, a sect among the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ, mentioned
Matt. xxii, 16; Mark iii, 6; viii, 15; xii, 13; but passed over in
silence both by Josephus and Philo. The critics and commentators on the
New Testament are very much divided with regard to the Herodians; some
making them to be a political party, and others a religious sect. The
former opinion is favoured by the author of the Syriac version, who
calls them the domestics of Herod; and also by Josephus’s having passed
them over in silence, though he professes to give an account of the
several religious sects of the Jews. The latter opinion is countenanced
by our Lord’s caution against “the leaven of Herod,” which implies that
the Herodians were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal
tenets. M. Basnage supposes, that one thing meant by the leaven of the
Herodians might be a conformity to Roman customs in some points which
were forbidden the Jews: if this was the case, it is not strange that
they are not mentioned by Josephus among the Jewish sects. St. Jerom, in
his Dialogue against the Luciferians, takes the name to have been given
to such as owned Herod for the Messiah; and Tertullian, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, and Theophylact, among the ancients; and Grotius, and other
moderns, are of the same sentiment. But the same St. Jerom, in his
Comment on St. Matthew, treats this opinion as ridiculous; and indeed it
must be highly improbable. He maintains that the Pharisees gave this
appellation, by way of derision, to Herod’s soldiers, who paid tribute
to the Romans; agreeably to which the Syriac interpreters render the
word by the domestics of Herod, that is, his courtiers. M. Simon, in his
notes on the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew, advances a more
probable opinion. The name Herodian, he imagines to have been given to
such as adhered to Herod’s party and interest, and were for preserving
the government in his family, about which there were, at that time,
great divisions among the Jews. F. Hardouin will have the Herodians and
Sadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the
Herodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is
called by St. Mark “the leaven of Herod,” is by St. Matthew styled “the
leaven of the Sadducees.”

2. Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that they derived their name from Herod
the Great, and that they were distinguished from the other Jews by their
concurrence with Herod’s scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions
to the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their Heathen
usages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were
diametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to
submit or pay taxes to the Roman emperor; an opinion which they grounded
on their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was
not one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the
Herodians, therefore, with the Pharisees, against Christ, is a memorable
proof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him;
especially when we consider that they united together in proposing to
him an ensnaring question, on a subject which was the ground of their
mutual dissension; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to
Cæsar. And provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would
accuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the
affirmative, the Pharisees were as ready to excite the people against
him, as an enemy of their civil liberties and privileges. Herod had
introduced several Heathen idolatrous usages; for, as Josephus says, he
built a temple to Cæsar, near the head of the river Jordan; he erected a
magnificent theatre at Jerusalem, instituted Pagan games, and placed a
golden eagle over the gate of the temple of Jehovah; and he furnished
the temples, which he reared in several places out of Judea, with images
for idolatrous worship, in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor
and the people of Rome; though to the Jews he pretended that he did it
against his will, and in obedience to the imperial command. The
Herodians probably complied with, acquiesced in, or approved these
idolatrous usages. This symbolizing with idolatry upon views of interest
and worldly policy, was probably that leaven of Herod, against which our
Saviour cautioned his disciples.

HERON, אנפה, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. This word has been variously
understood. Some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others
the curlieu, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane.
The root, אנפ, signifies _to breathe short_ through the nostrils, _to
snuff_, as in anger; hence to be angry; and it is supposed that the word
is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable
disposition. Bochart, however, thinks it the mountain falcon; the same
that the Greeks call ἀνόπαια, mentioned by Homer; and this bears a
strong resemblance to the Hebrew name.

HESHBON, a celebrated city beyond Jordan, twenty miles eastward of that
river, according to Eusebius. It was given to the tribe of Reuben, Josh.
xiii, 17. It was probably made over to Gad, since we meet with it among
the cities which were given to the Levites, Joshua xxi, 39.

HETERODOX, formed of the Greek ἑτερόδοξος, a compound of ἕτερος,
_alter_, and δόξα, _opinion_, something that is contrary to the faith or
doctrine established in the true church. Thus, we say, a heterodox
opinion, a heterodox divine, &c. The word stands in opposition to
orthodox.

HETEROUSH, HETEROUSIANS, composed of ἕτερος, and οὐσία, _substance_, a
sect or branch of Arians, the followers of Aëtius, and from him
denominated Aëtians. They were called Heterousii, because they held, not
that the Son of God was of a substance like, or similar to, that of the
Father, which was the doctrine of another branch of Arians, thence
called Homoousians, Homoousii; but that he was of another substance
different from that of the Father.

HETH, the father of the Hittites, was the eldest son of Canaan, Gen. x,
15, and dwelt southward of the promised land, probably about Hebron.
Ephron, who was an inhabitant of that city, was of the race of Heth; and
in the time of Abraham the whole city were of the family of Heth.

HEXAPLA, formed of ἕξ, _six_, and ἁπλόω, _I open_, or _unfold_, a Bible
disposed in six columns, containing the text, and divers versions of it,
compiled and published by Origen, with a view of securing the sacred
text from future corruptions, and to correct those that had been already
introduced. Eusebius relates that Origen after his return from Rome
under Caracalla, applied himself to learn Hebrew, and began to collect
the several versions that had been made of the sacred writings, and of
these to compose his _Tetrapla_, and _Hexapla_: others, however, will
not allow him to have begun till the time of Alexander, after he had
retired into Palestine, about the year 231. To conceive what this
_Hexapla_ was, it must be observed that, beside the translation of the
sacred writings called the Septuagint, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus,
above 280 years B. C., the Scripture had been since translated into
Greek by other interpreters. The first of those versions, or, reckoning
the Septuagint, the second, was that of Aquila, a proselyte Jew, the
first edition of which he published in the twelfth year of the Emperor
Adrian, or about A. D. 128; the third was that of Symmachus, published
as is commonly supposed, under Marcus Aurelius, but, as some say, under
Septimius Severus, about the year 200; the fourth was that of
Theodotion, prior to that of Symmachus, under Commodus, or about the
year 175: these Greek versions, says Dr. Kennicott, were made by the
Jews from their corrupted copies of the Hebrew, and were designed to
stand in the place of the LXX, against which they were prejudiced,
because it seemed to favour the Christians. The fifth was found at
Jericho, in the reign of Caracalla, about the year 217; and the sixth
was discovered at Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander Severus, about
the year 228: lastly, Origen himself recovered part of a seventh,
containing only the Psalms. Now, Origen, who had held frequent
disputations with the Jews in Egypt and Palestine, observing that they
always objected against those passages of Scripture quoted against them,
and appealed to the Hebrew text, the better to vindicate those passages
and confound the Jews, by showing that the LXX had given the sense of
the Hebrew, or rather, to show, by a number of different versions, what
the real sense of the Hebrew was, undertook to reduce all these several
versions into a body, along with the Hebrew text, so as they might be
easily confronted, and afford a mutual light to each other. He made the
Hebrew text his standard; and, allowing that corruptions might have
happened, and that the old Hebrew copies might and did read differently,
he contented himself with marking such words or sentences as were not in
his Hebrew text, nor the later Greek versions, and to add such words or
sentences as were omitted in the LXX, prefixing an asterisk to the
additions, and an obelisk to the others. In order to this he made choice
of eight columns: in the first he gave the Hebrew text in Hebrew
characters; in the second, the same text in Greek characters: the rest
were filled with the several versions above mentioned; all the columns
answering verse for verse, and phrase for phrase; and in the Psalms
there was a ninth column for the seventh version. This work Origen
called Ἑξαπλα, _Hexapla_, that is, _sextuple_, or a work of six columns,
as only regarding the first six Greek versions. Indeed, St. Epiphanius,
taking in likewise the two columns of the text, calls the work
_Octapla_, as consisting of eight columns. This celebrated work, which
Montfaucon imagines consisted of fifty large volumes, perished long ago,
probably with the library at Cæsarea, where it was preserved, in the
year 653; though several of the ancient writers have preserved us
portions of it, particularly St. Chrysostom on the Psalms, Philoponus in
his _Hexameron_, &c. Some modern writers have earnestly endeavoured to
collect fragments of the _Hexapla_, Flaminius Nobilius, Drusius, and
especially Montfaucon, in two folio volumes, printed at Paris in 1713.
In his edition, Montfaucon has prefixed prolegomena, explaining the form
and detailing the history of the _Hexapla_.

The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then
existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted all the
alterations which he discovered; and for the information of those who
might consult his work, he made use of the following marks: 1. Where any
passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew,
he designated them by an _obelus_ =÷= with two bold points =:= annexed.
This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but
added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or
for the purpose of illustrating the sense. 2. To passages wanting in the
copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek
versions, he prefixed an asterisk ASTERISK with two bold points =:= also
annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived.
These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerom, were for the
most part taken from Theodotion’s translation; not unfrequently from
that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus;
and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the
initial letter of each translator’s name was placed immediately after
the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage
was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of
Daniel, Theodotion’s translation of that book was inserted entire. 3.
Farther: not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied
by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that
version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original,
having noted the former reading with an _obelus_ =:=, he added the
correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk
subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the _lemniscus_ and
_hypolemniscus_, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a
difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to
determine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to
have been marks of better and more accurate renderings. These several
marks of distinction have been carefully observed, so far as they have
been recovered from various quarters, in the very accurate edition of
the Septuagint commenced by our learned countryman, Dr. Holmes, and
continued by his able successor, the Rev. J. Parsons, B. D.

For nearly fifty years was Origen’s stupendous work buried in a corner
of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of
transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of
private individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in
oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited
it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw
it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account
whatever of Origen’s autograph after this time, it is most probable that
it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs;
and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the
Septuagint and the catenæ of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain
of a work, which, in the present improved state of sacred literature,
would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism
of the Old Testament. The Syro-Estrangelo translation of Origen’s
edition of the Greek Septuagint was executed in the former part of the
seventh century; the author of it is not known. This version exactly
corresponds with the text of the Septuagint, especially in those
passages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. A manuscript of
this translation is in the Ambrosian library at Milan; it contains the
_obelus_ and other marks of Origen’s Hexapla; and a subscription at the
end states it to have been literally translated from the Greek copy,
corrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance of Pamphilus, from
the books of Origen, which were deposited in the library at Cæsarea.
From this version Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
in 1787; and Bugati, the book of Daniel, 1788.

HEZEKIAH, king of Judah, was the son of Ahaz, and born in the year of
the world 3251. At the age of five-and-twenty he succeeded his father in
the government of the kingdom of Judah, and reigned twenty-nine years in
Jerusalem, namely, from the year of the world 3277 to 3306, 2 Kings
xviii, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxix, 1. The reign of his father Ahaz had been
most unpropitious for his subjects. A war had raged between the kingdoms
of Israel and Judah, in which Pekah, king of Israel, overthrew the army
of Ahaz, destroying a hundred and twenty thousand of his men; after
which he carried away two hundred thousand women and children as
captives into his own country: they were, however, released and sent
home again, at the remonstrance of the Prophet Oded. As idolatry had
been established in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, by the command of
Ahaz, and the service of the temple either intermitted, or converted
into an idolatrous worship, the first object of his son Hezekiah, on his
accession to the throne, was to restore the legal worship of God, both
in Jerusalem and throughout Judea. He cleansed and repaired the temple,
and held a solemn passover. He improved the city, repaired the
fortifications, erected magazines of all sorts, and built a new
aqueduct. In the fourth year of his reign, Salmanezer, king of Assyria,
invaded the kingdom of Israel, took Samaria, and carried away the ten
tribes into captivity, replacing them by different people sent from his
own country. But Hezekiah was not deterred by this alarming example from
refusing to pay that tribute to the Assyrians which had been imposed on
Ahaz: this brought on the invasion of Sennacherib, in the fourteenth
year of the reign of Hezekiah, of which we have a very particular
account in the writings of the Prophet Isaiah, who was then living,
Isaiah xxxvi.

Immediately after the termination of this war, Hezekiah “was sick unto
death,” owing, as the sacred historian strongly intimates, to his heart
being improperly elevated on occasion of this miraculous deliverance,
and not sufficiently acknowledging the hand of God in it, 2 Kings xx;
Isaiah xxxviii. Isaiah was sent to bid him set his house in order, for
he should die and not live. Hezekiah had instant recourse to God by
prayer and supplications for his recovery; and the prophet had scarcely
proceeded out of the threshold, when the Lord commanded him to return to
Hezekiah, and to say to him, “Thus saith the Lord, I have heard thy
prayer, and I have seen thy tears: I will heal thee: on the third day
thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days
fifteen years.” And to confirm to him the certainty of all these tokens
of the divine regard, the shadow of the sun on the dial of Ahaz, at his
request, went backward ten degrees. After his recovery, he composed an
ode of thanksgiving to the God of all his mercies, which the Prophet
Isaiah has recorded in his writings, Isaiah xxxviii, 10, 11. Yet, as an
instance of human fickleness and frailty, we find Hezekiah, with all his
excellencies, again forgetting himself, and incurring the divine
displeasure. The king of Babylon having been informed of his sickness
and recovery, sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his restoration:
an honour with which the heart of Hezekiah was greatly elated; and, to
testify his gratitude, he made a pompous display to them of all his
treasures, his spices, and his rich vessels; and concealed from them
nothing that was in his palace. In all this the pride of Hezekiah was
gratified; and to humble him, Isaiah was sent to declare to him that his
conduct was displeasing to God, and that a time should come when all the
treasures of which he had made so vain a display should be removed to
Babylon, and even his sons be made eunuchs to serve in the palace of the
king of Babylon. Hezekiah bowed submissively to the will of God, and
acknowledged the divine goodness toward him, in ordaining peace and
truth to continue during the remainder of his reign. He accordingly
passed the latter years of his life in tranquillity, and contributed
greatly to the prosperity of his people and kingdom. He died in the year
of the world 3306, leaving behind him a son, Manasseh, who succeeded him
in the throne: a son every way unworthy of such a father.

HIDDEKEL. See EDEN.

HIGH PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more
zeal than for worshipping upon the high places. The destroying of these
high places is a commendation given only to few princes in Scripture;
and many, though zealous for the observance of the law, had not courage
to prevent the people from sacrificing upon these eminences. Before the
temple was built, the high places were not absolutely contrary to the
law, provided God only was there adored, and not idols. They seem to
have been tolerated under the judges; and Samuel offered sacrifices in
several places where the ark was not present. Even in David’s time they
sacrificed to the Lord at Shiloh, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. But after the
temple was built at Jerusalem, and the ark had a fixed settlement, it
was no longer allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The high places
were much frequented in the kingdom of Israel. The people sometimes went
upon those mountains which had been sanctified by the presence of
patriarchs and prophets, and by appearances of God, to worship the true
God there. This worship was lawful, except as to its being exercised
where the Lord had not chosen. But they frequently adored idols upon
these hills, and committed a thousand abominations in groves, and caves,
and tents; and hence arose the zeal of pious kings and prophets to
suppress the high places. Dr. Prideaux thinks it probable that the
_proseuchæ_, open courts, built like those in which the people prayed at
the tabernacle and the temple, were the same as those called high places
in the Old Testament. His reason is, that the _proseuchæ_ had groves in
or near them, in the same manner as the high places.

HIN, הין, a liquid measure, as of oil, or of wine, Exodus xxix, 40; xxx,
24; Lev. xxiii. According to Josephus, it contained two Attic _congii_,
and was therefore the sixth part of an ephah. He says that they offered
with an ox half a hin of oil; in English measure, six pints, twenty-five
thousand five hundred and ninety-eight solid inches. With a ram they
offered the third part of a hin, or three pints, ten thousand four
hundred and sixty-nine solid inches: with a lamb, the fourth part of a
hin, or two pints, fifteen thousand and seventy-one solid inches.

HIND, אילה, Gen. xlix, 21; 2 Sam. xxii, 34; Job xxxix, 1; Psalm xviii,
33; xxix, 9; Prov. v, 19; Cant. ii, 7; iii, 5; Jer. xiv, 5; Hab. iii,
19; the mate or female of the stag. It is a lovely creature, and of an
elegant shape. It is noted for its swiftness and the sureness of its
step as it jumps among the rocks. David and Habakkuk both allude to this
character of the hind. “The Lord maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and
causeth me to stand on the high places,” Psalm xviii, 33; Hab. iii, 19.
The circumstance of their standing on the high places or mountains is
applied to these animals by Xenophon. Our translators make Jacob,
prophesying of the tribe of Naphtali, say, “Naphtali is a hind let
loose: he giveth goodly words,” Gen. xlix, 21. There is a difficulty and
incoherence here which the learned Bochart removes by altering a little
the punctuation of the original; and it then reads, “Naphtali is a
spreading tree, shooting forth beautiful branches.” This, indeed,
renders the simile uniform; but another critic has remarked that “the
allusion to a tree seems to be purposely reserved by the venerable
patriarch for his son Joseph, who is compared to the boughs of a tree;
and the repetition of the idea in reference to Naphtali is every way
unlikely. Beside,” he adds, “the word rendered ‘let loose,’ imports an
active motion, not like that of the branches of a tree, which, however
freely they wave, are yet attached to the parent stock; but an emission,
a dismission, or sending forth to a distance: in the present case, a
roaming, roaming at liberty. The verb ‘he giveth’ may denote shooting
forth. It is used of production, as of the earth, which shoots forth,
yields, its increase, Lev. xxvi, 4. The word rendered ‘goodly’ signifies
_noble_, _grand_, _majestic_; and the noun translated ‘words’ radically
signifies _divergences_, what is spread forth.” For these reasons he
proposes to read the passage, “Naphtali is a deer roaming at liberty; he
shooteth forth spreading branches,” or “majestic antlers.” Here the
distinction of imagery is preserved, and the fecundity of the tribe and
the fertility of their lot intimated. In our version of Psalm xxix, 9,
we read, “The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and
discovereth the forests.” Mr. Merrick, in an ingenious note on the
place, attempts to justify the rendering; but Bishop Lowth, in his
“Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews,” observes that this
agrees very little with the rest of the imagery, either in nature or
dignity; and that he does not feel himself persuaded, even by the
reasonings of the learned Bochart on this subject: whereas the oak,
struck with lightning, admirably agrees with the context. The Syriac
seems, for אילות, _hinds_, to have read אלות, _oaks_, or rather,
perhaps, _terebinths_. The passage may be thus versified:--

                  “Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,
                  And the lofty mountain quakes;
                  Mighty trees the tempests tear,
                  And lay the spreading forests bare!”

HINNOM, VALLEY OF, called also Tophet, and by the Greeks Gehenna, a
small valley on the south-east of Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount Zion,
where the Canaanites, and afterward the Israelites, sacrificed their
children to the idol Moloch, by making them “pass through the fire,” or
burning them. To drown the shrieks of the victims thus inhumanly
sacrificed, musical instruments, called in the Hebrew _tuph_, tympana or
timbrels, were played; whence the spot derived the name of Tophet. _Ge
Hinnom_, or “The Valley of Hinnom,” from which the Greeks framed their
Gehenna, is sometimes used in Scripture to denote hell or hell fire. See
HELL.

HIRAM, king of Tyre, and son of Abibal, is mentioned by profane authors
as distinguished for his magnificence, and for adorning the city of
Tyre. When David was acknowledged king by all Israel, Hiram sent
ambassadors with artificers, and cedar, to build his palace. Hiram also
sent ambassadors to Solomon, to congratulate him on his accession to the
crown Solomon desired of him timber and stones for building the temple,
with labourers. These Hiram promised, provided Solomon would furnish him
with corn and oil. The two princes lived on the best terms with each
other.

HIRELING. Moses requires that the hireling should be paid as soon as his
work is over: “The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee
all night unto the morning,” Lev. xix, 19. A hireling’s days or year is
a kind of proverb, signifying a full year, without abating any thing of
it: “His days are like the days of a hireling,” Job vii, 1; the days of
man are like those of a hireling; as nothing is deducted from them, so
nothing, likewise is added to them. And again: “Till he shall accomplish
as a hireling his day,” Job xiv, 6; to the time of death, which he waits
for as the hireling for the end of the day. The following passage from
Morier’s Travels in Persia, illustrates one of our Lord’s parables: “The
most conspicuous building in Hamadan is the Mesjid Jumah, a large mosque
now falling into decay, and before it a maidan or square, which serves
as a market place. Here we observed, every morning before the sun rose,
that a numerous band of peasants were collected with spades in their
hands, waiting, as they informed us, to be hired for the day to work in
the surrounding fields. This custom, which I have never seen in any
other part of Asia, forcibly struck me as a most happy illustration of
our Saviour’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard in Matt. xx;
particularly when, passing by the same place late in the day, we still
found others standing idle, and remembered his words, ‘Why stand ye here
all the day idle?’ as most applicable to their situation; for in putting
the very same question to them, they answered us, ‘Because no man hath
hired us.’”

HITTITES, the descendants of Heth, Gen. xv, 20.

HIVITES, a people descended from Canaan, Gen. x, 17. They are also
mentioned, Deut. ii, 23. The inhabitants of Shechem, and the Gibeonites,
were Hivites, Joshua xi, 19; Gen. xxxiv, 2. Mr. Bryant supposes the
Hivites to be the same as the Ophites, or ancient worshippers of the sun
under the figure of a serpent; which was, in all probability, the deity
worshipped at Baal-Hermon.

HOLY GHOST, the third person in the Trinity. The orthodox doctrine is,
that as Christ is God by an eternal _filiation_, so the Spirit is God by
_procession_ from the Father and the Son. “And I believe in the Holy
Ghost,” says the Nicene Creed, “the Lord and Giver of life, who
_proceedeth_ from the Father and the Son, who, with the Father and the
Son together, is worshipped and glorified.” And with this agrees the
Athanasian Creed, “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but _proceeding_.” In the
Articles of the English church it is thus expressed: “The Holy Ghost,
_proceeding_ from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty,
and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.” The Latin
church introduced the term _spiration_, from _spiro_, “to breathe,” to
denote the manner of this procession: on which Dr. Owen remarks, “As the
vital breath of a man has a continual emanation from him, and yet is
never separated utterly from his person, or forsaketh him, so doth the
Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine
emanation, still abiding one with them.” On this refined view little can
be said which has clear Scriptural authority; and yet the very term by
which the Third Person in the Trinity is designated, _Wind_ or _Breath_,
may, as to the Third Person, be designed, like the term _Son_ applied to
the Second, to convey, though imperfectly, some intimation of that
manner of being by which both are distinguished from each other, and
from the Father; and it was a remarkable action of our Lord, and one
certainly which does not discountenance this idea, that when he imparted
the Holy Ghost to his disciples, “He _breathed_ on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John xx, 22.

2. But, whatever we may think as to the doctrine of _spiration_, the
_procession_ of the Holy Ghost rests on more direct Scriptural
authority, and is thus stated by Bishop Pearson: “Now this procession of
the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly in
relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. 1. It
is expressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as
our Saviour testifieth, ‘When the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me,’ John xv, 26. And this is also
evident from what hath been already asserted; for being the Father and
the Spirit are the same God, and, being so the same in the unity of the
nature of God, are yet distinct in the personality, one of them must
have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been
already shown to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it
from him. 2. Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that
the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and Son, yet the substance of
the same truth is virtually contained there; because those very
expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the
Father, for that reason, because he proceedeth from the Father, are also
spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there
must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is
expressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from
the Father, therefore it is called ‘the Spirit of God,’ and ‘the Spirit
of the Father.’ ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you,’ Matt. x, 20. For by the language of the Apostle,
‘the Spirit of God’ is the Spirit which is of God, saying, ‘The things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,’ 1 Cor. ii, 11,
12. Now the same Spirit is also called ‘the Spirit of the Son:’ for
‘because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our
hearts,’ Gal. iv, 6. ‘The Spirit of Christ:’ ‘Now if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,’ Romans viii, 9; ‘Even the
Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets,’ 1 Peter i, 11. ‘The Spirit
of Jesus Christ,’ as the Apostle speaks: ‘I know that this shall turn to
my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus
Christ,’ Phil. i, 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called ‘the Spirit of
the Father,’ because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that,
being called also ‘the Spirit of the Son,’ he proceedeth also from the
Son. Again: because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is
therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath, by the original
communication, a right of mission; as, ‘the Comforter, which is the Holy
Ghost, whom the Father will send,’ John xiv, 26. But the same Spirit
which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, ‘When
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you.’ Therefore the Son
hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be
acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never
sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the
Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in
the same manner, neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy
Spirit; because neither of them received the divine nature from the
Spirit: but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because
the divine nature, common to the Father and the Son, was communicated by
them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare
expressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also
virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.”

3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by
Christ, κτίσμα κτίϛματος, _the creature of a creature_. Some time
afterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was
considered as the _exerted energy_ of God. This appears to have been the
notion of Socinus, and, with occasional modifications, has been adopted
by his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute; and at
others, resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a
periphrasis, or circumlocution, for God himself; or, to express both in
one, into a figure of speech.

4. In establishing the proper personality and deity of the Holy Ghost,
the first argument may be drawn from the frequent association, in
Scripture, of a Person under that appellation with two other Persons,
one of whom, the Father, is by all acknowledged to be divine; and the
ascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts,
titles, and authority, with worship, of the same kind, and, for any
distinction that is made, of an equal degree. The manifestation of the
existence and divinity of the Holy Spirit may be expected in the law and
the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with certainty. The
Spirit is represented as an agent in creation, “moving upon the face of
the waters;” and it forms no objection to the argument, that creation is
ascribed to the Father, and also to the Son, but is a great confirmation
of it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the
Godhead, though acting in different respects, yet so that each should be
a Creator, and, therefore, both a Person and a divine Person, can be
explained only by their unity in one essence. On every other hypothesis
this Scriptural fact is disallowed, and therefore no other hypothesis
can be true. If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a
Creator, distinct from the Father and the Son, because he is not a
Person; but this is refuted both by the passage just quoted, and by
Psalm xxxiii, 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all
the host of them by the breath (Heb. _Spirit_) of his mouth.” This is
farther confirmed by Job xxxiii, 4: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and
the _breath_ of the Almighty hath given me life;” where the second
clause is obviously exegetic of the former: and the whole text proves
that, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the true religion
ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father; and that one
of his appellations was, “the _Breath_ of the Almighty.” Did such
passages stand alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the
criticism which resolves them into a personification; but, connected as
they are with the whole body of evidence, as to the concurring doctrine
of both Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: If the personality of
the Son and the Spirit be allowed, and yet it is contended that they
were but instruments in creation, through whom the creative power of
another operated, but which creative power was not possessed by them; on
this hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to
create, any more than Moses created the serpent into which his rod was
turned, and the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this association
of the three Persons in creative acts, may be added a like association
in acts of preservation, which has been well called a _continued
creation_, and by that term is expressed in the following passage:
“These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due
season. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their
breath, they die, and return to dust: thou sendest forth thy Spirit,
they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth,” Psalm civ,
27–30. It is not surely here meant, that the Spirit by which the
generations of animals are perpetuated, is _wind_; and if he be called
an attribute, _wisdom_, _power_, or both united, where do we read of
such attributes being “sent,” “sent forth from God?” The personality of
the Spirit is here as clearly marked as when St. Paul speaks of God
“sending forth the Spirit of his Son,” and when our Lord promises to
“send” the Comforter; and as the upholding and preserving of created
things is ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they are ascribed,
also, to the Spirit, “sent forth from” God to “create and renew the face
of the earth.”

5. The next association of the three Persons we find in the
_inspiration_ of the prophets: “God spake unto our fathers by the
prophets,” says St. Paul, Heb. i, 1. St. Peter declares that these “holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Peter i, 21;
and also that it was “the Spirit of Christ which was in them,” 1 Peter
i, 11. We may defy any Socinian to interpret these three passages by
making the Spirit an influence or attribute, and thereby reducing the
term Holy Ghost into a figure of speech. “God,” in the first passage,
is, unquestionably, God the Father; and the “holy men of God,” the
prophets, would then, according to this view, be moved by the
_influence_ of the Father; but the influence, according to the third
passage, which was the source of their inspiration, was the Spirit, or
the _influence_ of “Christ.” Thus the passages contradict each other.
Allow the trinity in unity, and you have no difficulty in calling the
Spirit, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, or the
Spirit of either; but if the Spirit be an influence, that influence
cannot be the influence of two persons,--one of them God, and the other
a creature. Even if they allowed the pre-existence of Christ, with
Arians, these passages are inexplicable by the Socinians; but, denying
his prëexistence, they have no subterfuge but to interpret, “the Spirit
of Christ,” _the spirit which prophesied of Christ_, which is a purely
gratuitous paraphrase; or “the spirit of an anointed one, or prophet;”
that is, the prophet’s own spirit, which is just as gratuitous and as
unsupported by any parallel as the former. If, however, the Holy Ghost
be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, united in one essence, the
passages are easily harmonized. In conjunction with the Father and the
Son, he is the source of that prophetic inspiration under which the
prophets spoke and acted. So the same Spirit which raised Christ from
the dead, is said by St. Peter to have preached by Noah while the ark
was preparing;--in allusion to the passage, “My Spirit shall not always
strive (contend, debate) with man.” This, we may observe, affords an
eminent proof, that the writers of the New Testament understood the
phrase, “the Spirit of God,” as it occurs in the Old Testament,
_personally_. For, whatever may be the full meaning of that difficult
passage in St. Peter, Christ is clearly declared to have preached by the
Spirit in the days of Noah; that is, he, by the Spirit, inspired Noah to
preach. If, then, the Apostles understood that the Holy Ghost was a
Person, a point which will presently be established, we have, in the
text just quoted from the book of Genesis, a key to the meaning of those
texts in the Old Testament where the phrases, “My Spirit,” “the Spirit
of God,” and “the Spirit of the Lord,” occur; and inspired authority is
thus afforded us to interpret them as of a Person; and if of a Person,
the very effort made by Socinians to deny his personality, itself,
indicates that that Person must, from the lofty titles and works
ascribed to him, be inevitably divine. Such phrases occur in many
passages of the Hebrew Scriptures; but, in the following, the Spirit is
also eminently distinguished from two other Persons: “And now the Lord
God, and his Spirit, hath sent me,” Isaiah xlviii, 16; or, rendered
better, “hath sent me and his Spirit,” both terms being in the
accusative case. “Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: for my
mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them,” Isaiah
xxxiv, 16. “I am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts, according to the
word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit
remaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I
will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come,” Hag.
ii, 4–7. Here, also, the Spirit of the Lord is seen collocated with the
Lord of Hosts and the Desire of all nations, who is the Messiah.

6. Three Persons, and three only, are associated also, both in the Old
and New Testament, as objects of supreme worship; and form the one
“name” in which the religious act of solemn benediction is performed,
and to which men are bound by solemn baptismal covenant. In the plural
form of the name of God, each received equal adoration. This threefold
personality seems to have given rise to the standing form of triple
benediction used by the Jewish high priest. The very important fact,
that, in the vision of Isaiah, the Lord of hosts, who spake unto the
prophet, is, in Acts xxviii, 25, said to be the Holy Ghost, while St.
John declares that the glory which Isaiah saw was the glory of Christ,
proves, indisputably, that each of the three Persons bears this august
appellation; it gives also the reason for the threefold repetition,
“Holy, holy, holy!” and it exhibits the prophet and the very seraphs in
deep and awful adoration before the Triune Lord of hosts. Both the
prophet and the seraphim were, therefore, worshippers of the Holy Ghost
and of the Son, at the very time and by the very acts in which they
worshipped the Father; which proves that, as the three Persons received
equal homage in a case which does not admit of the evasion of pretended
superior and inferior worship, they are equal in majesty, glory, and
essence.

7. As in the tabernacle form of benediction, the Triune Jehovah is
recognised as the source of all grace and peace to his creatures; so
also we have the apostolic formula: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you
all. Amen.” Here the personality of the three is kept distinct; and the
prayer is, that Christians may have a common participation of the Holy
Spirit, that is, doubtless, as he was promised by our Lord to his
disciples, as a Comforter, as the Source of light and spiritual life, as
the Author of regeneration. Thus the Spirit is acknowledged, equally
with the Father and the Son, to be the Source and the Giver of the
highest spiritual blessings; while this solemn ministerial benediction
is, from its specific character, to be regarded as an act of prayer to
each of the three Persons, and therefore is at once, an acknowledgment
of the divinity and personality of each. The same remark applies to
Revelation i, 4, 5: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which was,
and which is, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are
before his throne,” (an emblematical reference, probably to the golden
branch with its seven lamps,) “and from Jesus Christ.” The style of this
book sufficiently accounts for the Holy Spirit being called “the seven
spirits;” but no created spirit or company of created spirits is ever
spoken of under that appellation: and the place assigned to the seven
spirits, between the mention of the Father and the Son, indicates, with
certainty, that one of the sacred Three, so eminent, and so exclusively
eminent in both dispensations, is intended.

8. The form of baptism next presents itself with demonstrative evidence
on the two points before us, the personality and divinity of the Holy
Spirit. It is the form of covenant by which the sacred Three become our
one or only God, and we become his people: “Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.” In what manner is this text to be disposed of,
if the personality of the Holy Ghost is denied? Is the form of baptism
to be so understood as to imply that baptism is in the name of one
_God_, one _creature_, and one _attribute_? The grossness of this
absurdity refutes it, and proves that here, at least, there can be no
personification. If all the Three, therefore, are persons, are we to
have baptism in the name of one God and two creatures? This would be too
near an approach to idolatry, or, rather, it would be idolatry itself;
for, considering baptism as an act of dedication to God, the acceptance
of God as our God, on our part, and the renunciation of all other
deities and all other religions, what could a Heathen convert conceive
of the two creatures so distinguished from all other creatures in heaven
and in earth, and so associated with God himself as to form together the
_one name_, to which, by that act, he was devoted, and which he was
henceforward to profess and honour, but that they were equally divine,
unless special care were taken to instruct him that but one of the Three
was God, and the two others but creatures? But of this care, of this
cautionary instruction, though so obviously necessary upon this theory,
no single instance can be given in all the writings of the Apostles.

9. But other arguments are not wanting to prove both the personality and
the divinity of the Holy Spirit. With respect to the former, (1.) The
mode of his subsistence in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He
proceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either.
To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would be a gross
absurdity. (2.) Many passages of Scripture are wholly unintelligible and
even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as
those who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative
personality to an attribute, make that attribute to be the _energy_ or
_power of God_, they reduce such passages as the following to utter
unmeaningness: “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;”
that is, with the power of God and with power. “That ye may abound in
hope through the power of the Holy Ghost;” that is, through the power of
power. “In demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” that is, in
demonstration of power and of power.

(3.) Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy
Ghost is spoken of, impossible. The reality which this figure of speech
is said to present to us, is either some of the attributes of God, or
else the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon
the following passages: “He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak.” What attribute of God can here be
personified? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed with personal
attributes, where is there an instance of so monstrous a prosopopœia
as this passage would exhibit?--the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking
“of himself,” but speaking “whatsoever he shall hear!”--“The Spirit
maketh intercession for us.” What attribute is capable of interceding,
or how can the doctrine of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too,
is the language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited and
elevated discourse; but if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find
it in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative
discourse in the New Testament, and in the most incidental
conversations. “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” How
impossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the
shadow of a personification of either any attribute of God, or of the
doctrine of the Gospel! So again: “The Spirit said unto Philip, Go near,
and join thyself to this chariot.” Could it be any attribute of God
which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel? Finally,
that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the
use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New
Testament, in connection with the neuter noun Πνεῦμα, _Spirit_, and also
by many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as, “to come,” “to
go,” “to be sent,” “to teach,” “to guide,” “to comfort,” “to make
intercession,” “to bear witness,” “to give gifts,” “dividing them to
every man as he _will_,” “to be vexed,” “grieved,” and “quenched.” These
cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore
establish the Spirit’s true personality.

10. Some additional arguments to those before given to establish the
divinity of the Holy Ghost may also be adduced. The first is taken from
his being the subject of blasphemy: “The blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” Matt. xii, 31. This blasphemy
consisted in ascribing his miraculous works to Satan; and that he is
capable of being blasphemed proves him to be as much a person as the
Son; and it proves him to be divine, because it shows that he may be
sinned against, and so sinned against that the blasphemer shall not be
forgiven. A person he must be, or he could not be blasphemed: a divine
person he must be, to constitute this blasphemy a sin against him in the
proper sense, and of so malignant a kind as to place it beyond the reach
of mercy. He is called God: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie
unto the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou conceived this in thine heart? Thou
hast not lied unto men, but unto God,” Acts v, 3, 4. Ananias is said to
have lied particularly “unto the Holy Ghost,” because the Apostles were
under his special direction in establishing the temporary regulation
among Christians that they should have all things in common: the
detection of the crime itself was a demonstration of the divinity of the
Spirit, because it showed his omniscience, his knowledge of the most
secret acts. In addition to the proof of his divinity thus afforded by
this history, he is also called God: “Thou hast not lied unto men, but
unto God.” He is also called the Lord: “Now the Lord is that Spirit,” 2
Cor. iii, 17. He is _eternal_: “The eternal Spirit,” Heb. ix, 14.
_Omnipresence_ is ascribed to him: “Your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost,” 1 Cor. vi, 19. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God,” Rom. viii, 14. For, as all true Christians are his
temples, and are led by him, he must be present to them at all times and
in all places. He is _omniscient_: “The Spirit searcheth all things,
yea, the deep things of God,” 1 Cor. ii, 10. Here the Spirit is said to
search or know “all things” absolutely; and then, to make this more
emphatic, that he knows even “the deep things of God,” things hidden
from every creature, the depths of his essence, and the secrets of his
counsels; for, that this is intended, appears from the next verse, where
he is said to know “the things of God,” as the spirit of a man knows the
things of a man. _Supreme majesty_ is also attributed to him, so that to
“lie” to him, to “blaspheme” him, to “vex” him, to do him “despite,” are
sins, and as such render the offender liable to divine punishment. How
impracticable then is it to interpret the phrase, “the Holy Ghost,” as a
periphrasis for God himself! A Spirit, which is the Spirit _of_ God,
which is so often distinguished _from_ the Father, which “sees” and
“hears” the Father, which searches “the deep things” of God, which is
“sent” by the Father, which “proceedeth” from him, and who has special
prayer addressed to him at the same time as the Father, cannot, though
“one with him,” be the Father; and that he is not the Son is
acknowledged on both sides. As a divine person, our regards are
therefore justly due to him as the object of worship and trust, of
prayer and blessing.

11. Various are the gracious offices of the Holy Spirit in the work of
our redemption. He it is that first quickens the soul, dead in
trespasses and sins, to spiritual life; it is by him we are “born
again,” and made new creatures; he is the living root of all the
Christian graces, which are therefore called “the fruits” of the Spirit;
and by him all true Christians are aided in the “infirmities” and
afflictions of this present life. Eminently, he is promised to the
disciples as “the Comforter,” which is more fully explained by St. Paul
by the phrase “the Spirit of adoption;” so that it is through him that
we receive a direct inward testimony to our personal forgiveness and
acceptance through Christ, and are filled with peace and consolation.
This doctrine, so essential to the solid and habitual happiness of those
who believe in Christ, is thus clearly explained in a sermon on that
subject by the Rev. John Wesley:--

“(1.) But what is the witness of the Spirit? The original word,
μαρτυρία, may be rendered either, as it is in several places, _the
witness_, or, less ambiguously, _the testimony_, or, _the record_: so it
is rendered in our translation: ‘This is the record,’ the testimony, the
sum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, ‘that God hath
given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son,’ 1 John v, 11.
The testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to
and with our spirit. He is the person testifying. What he testifies to
us is, ‘that we are the children of God.’ The immediate result of this
testimony is, ‘the fruit of the Spirit;’ namely, ‘love, joy, peace, long
suffering, gentleness, goodness.’ And without these, the testimony
itself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the
commission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by
giving way to any inward sin: in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy
Spirit of God. (2.) I observed many years ago, It is hard to find words
in the language of men to explain the deep things of God. Indeed, there
are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in
his children. But, perhaps, one might say, (desiring any who are taught
of God to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,) by the
‘testimony of the Spirit,’ I mean, an inward impression on the soul,
whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses with my
spirit, that I am a child of God; that ‘Jesus Christ hath loved me, and
given himself for me;’ that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I,
am reconciled to God. (3.) After twenty years’ farther consideration, I
see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any
of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more
intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will
point out any other expressions which are more clear, or more agreeable
to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside. (4.) Meantime, let
it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies
this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although
he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies
to the heart, though he often may, one or more texts of Scripture. But
he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong,
though inexplicable, operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves
subside, and there is a sweet calm: the heart resting as in the arms of
Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that all his ‘iniquities
are forgiven, and his sins covered.’ (5.) Now what is the matter of
dispute concerning this? Not, whether there be a witness or testimony of
the Spirit. Not, whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that
we are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly
contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth.
Therefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit, is acknowledged by
all parties. (6.) Neither is it questioned, whether there is an indirect
witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly,
if not exactly, the same with ‘the testimony of a good conscience toward
God;’ and is the result of reason or reflection on what we feel in our
own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the
word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says,
Every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God. Experience
or inward consciousness tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit;
and hence I rationally conclude, Therefore I am a child of God. This is
likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. (7.)
Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit,
without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the
fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always
indeed in the same degree even when the testimony is first given; and
much less afterward: neither joy nor peace is always at one stay. No,
nor love: as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and
clear. (8.) But the point in question is, whether there be any direct
testimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of
the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit. I
believe there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning of the
text, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God.’ It is manifest here are two witnesses mentioned,
who together testify the same thing, the Spirit of God, and our own
spirit. The late bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems
astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very
face of the words. Now, ‘the testimony of our own spirit,’ says the
bishop, ‘is one which is the consciousness of our own sincerity;’ or, to
express the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the
fruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy,
peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these
premises, that we are the children of God. It is true, that great man
supposes the other witness to be ‘the consciousness of our own good
works.’ This, he affirms, is ‘the testimony of God’s Spirit.’ But this
is included in the testimony of our own spirit: yea, and in sincerity,
even according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle: ‘Our
rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity
and godly sincerity we have our conversation in the world;’ where it is
plain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least, as much as
to our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the
very same that he mentioned before: the consciousness of our good works
being only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity.
Consequently, here is only one witness still. If therefore, the text
speaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our
good works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly
contained in ‘the testimony of our spirit.’ What, then, is the other
witness? This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not
sufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding: ‘Ye have
received, not the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby
we cry, Abba, Father.’ It follows, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ This is farther
explained by the parallel text, Gal. iv, 6: ‘Because ye are sons, God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father.’ Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of
reflection or argumentation? Does not this Spirit cry, ‘Abba, Father,’
in our hearts, the moment it is given? antecedently to any reflection
upon our sincerity, yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? And is not this
the plain, natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as
he hears them? All these texts, then, in their most obvious meaning,
describe a direct testimony of the Spirit. That the testimony of the
Spirit of God, must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the
testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration:
We must be holy in heart and life, before we can be conscious that we
are so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being
the root of all holiness. Now, we cannot love God, till we know he loves
us: ‘We love him, because he first loved us.’ And we cannot know his
love to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since,
therefore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God and
all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness thereof.”

12. The precedence of the direct witness of the Spirit of God to the
indirect witness of our own, and the dependence of the latter upon the
former, are also clearly stated by other divines of great authority.
Calvin, on Romans viii, 16, says, “St. Paul means that the Spirit of God
gives such a testimony to us, that he being our guide and teacher, our
spirit concludes our adoption of God to be certain. For our own mind, of
itself, independent of the preceding testimony of the Spirit, [_nisi
præunte Spiritûs testimonio_,] could not produce this persuasion in us.
For while the Spirit witnesses that we are the sons of God, he at the
same time inspires this confidence into our minds, that we are bold to
call God our Father.” On the same passage Dr. John Owen says, “The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we are the sons of
God; the witness which our own spirits do give unto our adoption is the
work and effect of the Holy Spirit in us; if it were not, it would be
false, and not confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit himself, who is
the Spirit of truth. ‘And none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit
of God,’ 1 Cor. ii, 11. If he declare not our sonship in us and to us,
we cannot know it. How doth he then bear witness to our spirits? What is
the distinct testimony? It must be some such act of his as evidenceth
itself to be from him immediately, unto them that are concerned in it,
that is, those unto whom it is given.” Poole on the same passage
remarks, “The Spirit of adoption doth not only excite us to call upon
God as our Father, but it doth ascertain and assure us, as before, that
we are his children. And this it doth not by an outward voice, as God
the Father to Jesus Christ, nor by an angel, as to Daniel and the Virgin
Mary, but by an inward and secret suggestion, whereby he raiseth our
hearts to this persuasion, that God is our Father, and we are his
children. This is not the testimony of the graces and operations of the
Spirit, but of the Spirit itself.” Bishop Pearson, in his elaborate work
on the Creed, and Dr. Barrow, in his Sermons, are equally explicit in
stating this Scriptural doctrine.

HOMOIOUSIANS, a branch of the high Arians, who maintained that the
nature of the Son, though not the same, was similar to that of the
Father.

HOMOOUSIANS, or HOMOUSIASTS, was, on the other hand, a name applied to
the Athanasians, who held the Son to be _homousios_, or consubstantial
with the Father, that is, of the same nature and substance.

HONEY, דבש. It is probable, that it was in order to keep the Jews at a
distance from the customs of the Heathen, who were used to offer honey
in their sacrifices, that God forbade it to be offered to him, that is
to say, burnt upon the altar, Lev. ii, 11; but at the same time he
commanded that the first-fruits of it should be presented. These
first-fruits and offerings were designed for the support and sustenance
of the priests, and were not consumed upon the altar. In hot weather,
the honey burst the comb, and ran down the hollow trees or rocks, where,
in the land of Judea, the bees deposited great store of it. This,
flowing spontaneously, was the best and most delicious, as it was quite
pure, and clear from all dregs and wax. The Israelites called it יערה,
_wood honey_. It is therefore improperly rendered “honeycomb,” 1 Sam.
xiv, 27; Cant. v, 1; in both which places it means the honey that has
distilled from the trees, as distinguished from the domestic, which was
eaten with the comb. Hasselquist says, that between Acra and Nazareth,
great numbers of wild bees breed, to the advantage of the inhabitants;
and Maundrell observes of the great plain near Jericho, that he
perceived in it, in many places, a smell of honey and wax as strong as
if he had been in an apiary. Milk and honey were the chief dainties of
the earlier ages, and continue to be so of the Bedoween Arabs now. So
butter and honey are several times mentioned in Scripture as among the
most delicious refreshments, 2 Sam. xvii, 29; Job xx, 17; Cant. iv, 11;
Isaiah vii, 15. Thus Irby and Mangles, in their Travels, relate, “They
gave us some honey and butter together, with bread to dip in it, Narsah
desiring one of his men to mix the two ingredients for us, as we were
awkward at it. The Arab, having stirred the mixture up well with his
fingers, showed his dexterity at consuming, as well as mixing, and
recompensed himself for his trouble by eating half of it.” The _wild
honey_, μέλι ἄγριον, mentioned to have been a part of the food of John
the Baptist, Matt. iii, 4, was probably such as he got in the rocks and
hollows of trees. Thus, “honey out of the stony rock,” Psalm lxxxi, 16;
Deut. xxxii, 13.

HOPHNI. See ELI.

HOPKINSIANS, or HOPKINSONIANS, so called from the Rev. Samuel Hopkins,
D.D., pastor of the first Congregational church at Newport, Rhode
Island, North America, about A. D. 1770. Dr. Hopkins, in his sermons and
tracts, made several additions to the sentiments previously advanced by
the celebrated President Edwards, of New-Jersey College. The following
is a summary of their distinguishing tenets:--

1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested
benevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including
God, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of
every individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the
whole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and
happiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral
rectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our
neighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our
neighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must
be the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the
particular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested
affection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance,
all which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists
in love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man,
ourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of
God. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal
benevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of
our appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to
hurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the
divine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our
neighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.

2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested
affection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only
object of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to
promote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature,
and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law
of God, and it is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the
foundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry
and false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and
sensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites
mankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love
produces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil
speaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly
comprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.

3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions
of the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from
a bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty
when they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability,
which consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be
the subject of a command.

4. That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ,
is not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense,
that natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is
universally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very
thing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,

5. That in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart
of the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off for ever;
which, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness.
But as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream,
so the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow
creatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great
soul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the
governing principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to
their worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his
Maker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine
love, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in
the ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart,
that he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of
the potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits
the nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride
is lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God,
and rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine
administration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due
to those who have broken it; and “the Judge of all the earth cannot but
do right,” Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his
government to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is
felt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to
the free grace of God, through Christ’s redemption.

6. That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent
power, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the
existence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be
admitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and
view of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of
operation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually
preferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely
disappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains,
therefore, that “God was the author, origin, and positive cause of
Adam’s sin:” yea, “that he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as
really as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.”

7. That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general
good. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on
designs of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has,
undoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of
the infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have
been made to the view of creatures.

8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended,
that repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and
perfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only,
that true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which
the believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his
mediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, “Repent ye, and believe
the Gospel;” and Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ.”

9. That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine
constitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but
personal: for, (1.) Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not
the act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time
that he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to
them afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be
transferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.)
Therefore Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause,
but only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and
now God brings his posterity into the world sinners.

10. That though believers are justified through Christ’s righteousness,
yet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal
righteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor
personal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the
sinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only
the benefits of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being
pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness’ sake; and this is the
proper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan’s righteousness was
imputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his
father Jonathan’s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.

11. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees,
not only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the
total depravation of human nature, the special influences of the Spirit
of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final
perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom
and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since
the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists.
Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these
propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in
the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.)
Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is
confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our
affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Scriptures teach us, that
“no man hateth his own flesh.” Such a “disinterested benevolence,”
therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and
happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be
convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered
out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it
is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever
unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and
strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can
only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal
point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and
efficient cause of sin.” It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that
“in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;” this, however, is a
position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common
sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no
speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an
excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” saith the
Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii,
5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully
gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,” by Ezra
Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In
this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that
the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of
mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it
differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.

HOR. This mountain, in its general acceptation, is probably the same
with Mount Seir, Hor being the name by which that mountainous tract was
denominated before it was exchanged for Seir. But one particular
mountain of this region retained the name of Hor long after; as it was a
mountain of this name, “by the coast of the land of Edom,” that Aaron
was commanded to ascend, in order to die there, Num. xx, 23. This
mountain, or at least the one to which tradition assigns the tomb of
Aaron, was visited by Burckhardt; from whose account it appears to form
a conspicuous object in the chain of the Djebel Shera, or Mount Seir,
rising abruptly from the valley of El Araba, or desert of Zin, about
fifty miles north of Akaba, or Ezion-Geber.

HOREB, a mountain in Arabia Petræa, a part of which, or near to which,
was Sinai. At Horeb God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exod.
iii, 1, &c. Hither Elijah retired to avoid the persecution of Jezebel, 1
Kings xix, 8. Sinai and Horeb seem to be two parts of the same mountain;
hence the law is sometimes said to be given there.

HORN. By horns the Hebrews sometimes understood an eminence, or angle, a
corner, or a rising. By horns of the altar of burnt offerings, many
understand the angles of that altar; but there were also horns, or
eminences, at the corners of that altar, Exod. xxvii, 2; xxx, 2. Horn
also signifies glory, brightness, rays. God’s “brightness was as the
light, he had horns coming out of his hand,” Hab. iii, 4; that is,
refulgent beams issuing from the hollow of it. As the ancients
frequently used horns to hold liquors, vessels containing oil and
perfumes are often called horns, whether made of horn or not. “Fill
thine horn with oil,” says the Lord to Samuel, “and anoint David,” 1
Sam. xvi, 1. Zadok took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and
anointed Solomon, 1 Kings i, 39. Job called one of his daughters
Kerenhappuch, horn of antimony, or horn to put antimony (_stibium_) in,
which the women of the east still use at this day, Job xliii, 14. The
principal defence and strength of horned beasts consist in their horns;
and hence the Scripture mentions the horn as a symbol of strength. The
Lord exalted the horn of David, the horn of his people; he breaketh the
horn of the ungodly; he cutteth off the horn of Moab; he cutteth off the
horn of Israel; he promiseth to make the horn of Israel to bud forth; to
reëstablish the honour of it, and restore its former vigour. Moses
compares Joseph to a young bull, and says that he has horns like those
of a unicorn. Kingdoms and great powers are often in Scripture described
by the symbol of horns. In Daniel vii, viii, horns represent the power
of the Persians, of the Greeks, of Syria, of Egypt, or of Pagan and
Papal Rome. The prophet represents three animals as having many horns,
one of which grew from the other. This emblem is a natural one, since in
the east are rams which have many horns.

HORNET, הצרעה, Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Joshua xxiv, 12. The
hornet, in natural history, belongs to the species _crabo_, of the genus
_vespa_ or wasp. It is a most voracious insect, and is exceedingly
strong for its size, which is generally an inch in length, and sometimes
more. In each of the instances where this creature is mentioned in
Scripture, it is as sent among the enemies of the Israelites, to drive
them out of the land. Some explain the word metaphorically, as “I will
send my terror as the hornet,” &c. But Bochart contends that it is to be
taken in its proper literal meaning, and has accumulated examples of
several other people having been chased from their habitations by
insects of different kinds. Ælian records that the Phaselites, who dwelt
about the mountains of Solyma, were driven out of their country by
wasps. As these people were Phenicians or Canaanites, it is probable
that the event to which he refers is the same as took place in the days
of Joshua. How distressing and destructive a multitude of these fierce
and severely stinging insects might be, any person may conjecture. No
armour, no weapons could avail against them. A few thousands of them
would be sufficient to overthrow the best disciplined army and put it
into confusion and rout. From Joshua xxiv, 12, we find that two kings of
the Amorites were actually driven out of the land by these hornets, so
that the Israelites were not obliged to use either sword or bow in the
conquest. One of these, according to the Jewish commentaries of R.
Nachman, was the nation of the Girgashites, who retired into Africa,
fearing the power of God. And Procopius, in his history of the Vandals,
mentions an ancient inscription in Mauritania Tingitana, stating, that
the inhabitants had fled thither from the face of Joshua, the son of
Nun. This account accords with Scripture, in which, though the
Girgashites are included in the general list of the seven devoted
nations either to be driven out or destroyed by the Israelites, Gen. xv,
20, 21; Deut. vii, 1; Josh. iii, 10; xxiv, 11; yet they are omitted in
the list of those to be utterly destroyed, Deut. xx, 17; and among whom,
in neglect of the divine decree, the Israelites lived and intermarried,
Judges iii, 1–6. That the name of the Girgashites, however, was not
extirpated, we may collect from the Gergesenes, in our Saviour’s time,
inhabiting the same country, Matt. viii, 28. Other tribes of the
Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites, were also expelled by the hornet
gradually; not in one year, lest the land should become desolate, and
the wild beasts multiply to the prejudice of the Israelites, Exod.
xxiii, 28–30.

The “arms of Jove,” to which Virgil refers, (_Æneid_ viii, 355–358,) in
describing the flight of Saturn from the east, were the hornets sent by
the God of Israel, Iahoh, or by contraction Io, to which also his
description of the Asilus exactly corresponds:--

           _Plurimus--volitans, (cui nomen Asilo
           Romanum est_; οἶστρον, _Graii vertere vocantes,)
           Asper, acerba sonans, quo tota exterrita sylvis
           Diffugiunt armenta_.
                                             Georg. iii, 145.

         “About the Alburnian groves, with holly green,
         Of winged insects mighty swarms are seen;
         This flying plague, to mark its quality,
         ŒSTROS the Grecians call; ASYLUS, we:
         A fierce loud buzzing breeze; their stings draw blood,
         And drive the cattle gadding through the wood.
         Seized with unusual pains, they loudly cry.”
                                            DRYDEN.

Dr. Hales is of opinion, that the Latin _asilus_ and Greek οιστρον, were
probably only different pronunciations of the same oriental term, הצרעה,
_hatsiraah_, as this fly is called by Moses and Joshua. The vindictive
power that presided over this dreadful scourge was worshipped at Ekron,
in Palestine, through fear, the reigning motive of Pagan superstition,
under the title of _Baal-zebub_, “master or lord of the hornet,” whence
_Beelzebub_, in the New Testament, “the prince of demons,” Matt. xii,
24. Isaiah, denouncing a wo against Abyssinia, describes it as “the land
of the winged cymbal,” (_tsaltsal canaphim_,) Isaiah xviii, 1; by the
same analogy that _tsaltsal_ signifies “a locust,” Deut. xxviii, 42; _a
streperâ voce sic dictam_. [So called from its streperous sound.] Bruce,
in his Travels in Abyssinia, has given an accurate description of this
tremendous fly, which in Arabic is called _zimb_, and by the Abyssinians
_tsaltsal-ya_, “the cymbal of the Lord,” from its sonorous buzzing. And
in his Appendix he has given a drawing of it, magnified, for
distinctness’ sake, something above twice the natural size: after which
he observes, “He has no sting, though he seems to me to be rather of the
bee kind; but his motion is more rapid and sudden than that of the bee,
(_volitans_,) and resembles that of the gad-fly in England. There is
something particular in the sound or buzzing of this insect; it is a
jarring noise, together with a humming, (_acerba sonans_,) which induces
me to believe it proceeds, in part at least, from a vibration made with
the three hairs at his snout.” Bruce does not cite or refer to Virgil’s
description, though his account furnishes the most critical and exact
explanation of it. Such undesigned coincidences are most satisfactory
and convincing; they show that the poet and the naturalist both copied
from nature. And the terror impressed by this insect on all the cattle,
_quo tota exterrita sylvis diffugiunt_, [affrighted at which the entire
herds flee to the thickets,] according to Virgil, is thus illustrated by
Bruce: “As soon as this plague appears, and their buzzing is heard, all
the cattle forsake their food, and run wildly about the plain till they
die, worn out with fatigue, fright, and hunger. No remedy remains but to
leave the black earth, where they breed, and hasten down to the sands of
Atbara; and there they remain while the periodical rains last, this
cruel enemy (_asper_) never daring to pursue them farther. The camel,
emphatically called by the Arabs the ship of the desert, though his size
is immense as is his strength, and his body covered with a thick skin,
defended with strong hair, still is not able to sustain the violent
punctures the fly makes with his pointed proboscis. He must lose no time
in removing to the sands of Atbara; for when once attacked by this fly,
his body, head, and legs, break out into large bosses, which swell,
break, and putrefy, to the certain destruction of the creature. I have
found some of these tubercles upon almost every elephant and rhinoceros
that I have seen, and attribute them to this cause. All the inhabitants
of the sea coast are obliged to put themselves in motion, and remove to
the next sand, in the beginning of the rainy season, to prevent all
their stock of cattle from being destroyed. Nor is there any
alternative, or means of avoiding this, though a hostile band was in the
way, capable of spoiling them of half their substance, as was actually
the case when we were at Sennaar. Of such consequence is the weakest
instrument in the hand of Providence.” See FLIES and BEELZEBUB.

HORSE, סוס. Horses were very rare among the Hebrews in the early ages.
The patriarchs had none; and after the departure of the Israelites from
Egypt, God expressly forbade their ruler to procure them: “He shall not
multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to
the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said,
Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,” Deut. xvii, 16. As horses
appear to have been generally furnished by Egypt, God prohibits these,
1. Lest there should be such commerce with Egypt as might lead to
idolatry. 2. Lest the people might depend on a well appointed cavalry,
as a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the promised aid
and protection of Jehovah. 3. That they might not be tempted to extend
their dominion by means of cavalry, and so get scattered among the
surrounding idolatrous nations, and thus cease in process of time, to be
that distinct and separate people which God intended they should be, and
without which the prophecies relative to the Messiah could not be known
to have their due and full accomplishment. In the time of the Judges we
find horses and war chariots among the Canaanites, but still the
Israelites had none; and hence they were generally too timid to venture
down into the plains, confining their conquests to the mountainous parts
of the country. In the reign of Saul, it would appear, that horse
breeding had not yet been introduced into Arabia; for, in a war with
some of the Arabian nations, the Israelites got plunder in camels,
sheep, and asses, but no horses. David’s enemies brought against him a
strong force of cavalry into the field; and in the book of Psalms the
horse commonly appears only on the side of the enemies of the people of
God; and so entirely unaccustomed to the management of this animal had
the Israelites still continued, that, after a battle, in which they took
a considerable body of cavalry prisoners, 2 Sam. viii, 4, David caused
most of the horses to be cut down, because he did not know what use to
make of them. Solomon was the first who established a cavalry force.
Under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that the Mosaic law
should take no notice of an animal which we hold in such high
estimation. To Moses, educated as he was in Egypt, and, with his people,
at last chased out by Pharaoh’s cavalry, the use of the horse for war
and for travelling was well known; but as it was his object to establish
a nation of husbandmen, and not of soldiers for the conquest of foreign
lands, and as Palestine, from its situation, required not the defence of
cavalry, he might very well decline introducing among his people the yet
unusual art of horse breeding. Solomon, having married a daughter of
Pharaoh, procured a breed of horses from Egypt; and so greatly did he
multiply them, that he had four hundred stables, forty thousand stalls,
and twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings iv, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 25. It seems
that the Egyptian horses were in high repute, and were much used in war.
When the Israelites were disposed to place too implicit confidence in
the assistance of cavalry, the prophet remonstrated in these terms: “The
Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, not spirit,”
Isaiah xxxi, 3.

HORSE-LEECH, עלוקה, from a root which signifies _to adhere_, _stick
close_, or _hang fast_, Prov. xxx, 15. A sort of worm that lives in
water, of a black or brown colour, which fattens upon the flesh, and
does not quit it till it is entirely full of blood. Solomon says, “The
horse-leech hath two daughters, Give, give.” This is so apt an emblem of
an insatiable rapacity and avarice, that it has been generally used by
different writers to express it. Thus Plautus makes one say, speaking of
the determination to get money, “I will turn myself into a horse-leech,
and suck out their blood;” and Cicero, in one of his letters to Atticus,
calls the common people of Rome horse-leeches of the treasury. Solomon,
having mentioned those that devoured the property of the poor as the
worst of all the generations which he had specified, proceeds to state
the insatiable cupidity with which they prosecuted their schemes of
rapine and plunder. As the horse-leech had two daughters, cruelty and
thirst of blood, which cannot be satisfied, so the oppressor of the poor
has two dispositions, rapacity and avarice, which never say they have
enough, but continually demand additional gratifications.

HOSANNA, “Save, I beseech thee,” or, “Give salvation,” a well known form
of blessing, Matthew xxi, 9, 15; Mark xi, 9, 10; John xii, 13.

HOSEA, son of Beeri, the first of the minor prophets. He is generally
considered as a native and inhabitant of the kingdom of Israel, and is
supposed to have begun to prophesy about B. C. 800. He exercised his
office sixty years; but it is not known at what periods his different
prophecies now remaining were delivered. Most of them are directed
against the people of Israel, whom he reproves and threatens for their
idolatry and wickedness, and exhorts to repentance, with the greatest
earnestness, as the only means of averting the evils impending over
their country. The principal predictions contained in this book, are the
captivity and dispersion of the kingdom of Israel; the deliverance of
Judah from Sennacherib; the present state of the Jews; their future
restoration, and union with the Gentiles in the kingdom of the Messiah;
the call of our Saviour out of Egypt, and his resurrection on the third
day. The style of Hosea is peculiarly obscure; it is sententious,
concise, and abrupt; the transitions of persons are sudden; and the
connexive and adversative particles are frequently omitted. The
prophecies are in one continued series, without any distinction as to
the times when they were delivered, or the different subjects to which
they relate. They are not so clear and detailed, as the predictions of
those prophets who lived in succeeding ages. When, however, we have
surmounted these difficulties, we shall see abundant reason to admire
the force and energy with which this prophet writes, and the boldness of
the figures and similitudes which he uses.

2. HOSEA, or HOSHEA, son of Elah, was the last king of Israel. Having
conspired against Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, he killed him,
A. M. 3265; B. C. 739. However, the elders of the land seem to have
taken the government into their hands; for Hoshea was not in possession
of the kingdom till nine years after, 2 Kings xv, 30; xvii, 1. Hoshea
did evil in the sight of the Lord, but not equal to the kings of Israel
who preceded him; that is, say the Jewish doctors, he did not restrain
his subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship, if they would; whereas
the kings of Israel, his predecessors, had forbidden it, and had placed
guards on the road to prevent it. Salmaneser, king of Assyria, being
informed that Hoshea meditated a revolt, and had concerted measures with
So, king of Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke, marched against him,
and besieged Samaria. After a siege of three years, in the ninth year of
Hoshea’s reign, the city was taken, and was reduced to a heap of ruins,
A. M. 3282. The king of Assyria removed the Israelites of the ten tribes
to countries beyond the Euphrates, and thus terminated the kingdom of
the ten tribes.

HOSPITALITY. Instances of ancient hospitality occur frequently in the
Old Testament. So in the case of Abraham, Gen. xviii, where he invites
the angels who appeared in the form of men to rest and refreshment, “And
he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” “Nothing is more
common in India,” says Mr. Ward, “than to see travellers and guests
eating under the shade of trees. Even feasts are never held in houses.
The house of a Hindoo serves for the purposes of sleeping and cooking,
and of shutting up the women; but is never considered as a sitting or a
dining room.” “On my return to the boat,” says Belzony, “I found the aga
and all his retinue seated on a mat, under a cluster of palm trees,
close to the water. The sun was then setting, and the shades of the
western mountains had reached across the Nile, and covered the town. It
is at this time the people recreate themselves in various scattered
groups, drinking coffee, smoking their pipes, and talking of camels,
horses, asses, dhourra, caravans, or boats.” “The aga having prepared a
dinner for me,” says Mr. Light, “invited several of the natives to sit
down. Water was brought in a skin by an attendant, to wash our hands.
Two fowls roasted were served up on wheaten cakes, in a wooden bowl,
covered with a small mat, and a number of the same cakes in another: in
the centre of these were liquid butter, and preserved dates. These were
divided, broken up, and mixed together by some of the party, while
others pulled the fowls to pieces: which done, the party began to eat as
fast as they could: getting up, one after the other, as soon as their
hunger was satisfied.” “Hospitality to travellers,” says Mr. Forbes,
“prevails throughout Guzerat: a person of any consideration passing
through the province is presented, at the entrance of a village, with
fruit, milk, butter, fire wood, and earthen pots for cookery; the women
and children offer him wreaths of flowers. Small bowers are constructed
on convenient spots, at a distance from a well or lake, where a person
is maintained by the nearest villages, to take care of the water jars,
and supply all travellers gratis. There are particular villages, where
the inhabitants compel all travellers to accept of one day’s provisions:
whether they be many or few, rich or poor, European or native, they must
not refuse the offered bounty.”

          “So when angelic forms to Syria sent
          Sat in the cedar shade, by Abraham’s tent,
          A spacious bowl th’ admiring patriarch fills
          With dulcet water from the scanty rills;
          Sweet fruits and kernels gathers from his hoard,
          With milk and butter piles the plenteous board;
          While on the heated hearth his consort bakes
          Fine flour well kneaded in unleavened cakes,
          The guests ethereal quaff the lucid flood,
          Smile on their hosts, and taste terrestrial food;
          And while from seraph lips sweet converse springs,
          They lave their feet, and close their silver wings.”
                                           DARWIN.

HOURS. See DAY.

HOUSES. The following description of oriental houses will serve to
illustrate several passages of Scripture. From the gate of the porch,
one is conducted into a quadrangular court, which, being exposed to the
weather, is paved with stone, in order to carry off the water in the
rainy season. The principal design of this quadrangle, is to give light
to the house, and admit the fresh air into the apartments; it is also
the place where the master of the house entertains his company, who are
seldom or never honoured with admission into the inner apartments. This
open space bears a striking resemblance to the _impluvium_, or _cava
ædium_, of the Romans, which was also an uncovered area, from whence the
chambers were lighted. For the accommodation of the guests, the pavement
is covered with mats or carpets; and as it is secured against all
interruption from the street, is well adapted to public entertainments.
It is called, says Dr. Shaw, the middle of the house, and literally
answers to τὸ μέσον of the evangelist, into which the man afflicted with
the palsy was let down through the ceiling, with his couch, before
Jesus, Luke v, 19. Hence, he conjectures that our Lord was at this time
instructing the people in the court of one of these houses; and it is by
no means improbable, that the quadrangle was to him and his Apostles a
favourite situation, while they were engaged in disclosing the mysteries
of redemption. To defend the company from the scorching sun-beams, or
“windy storm and tempest,” a veil was expanded upon ropes from one side
of the parapet wall to the other, which might be unfolded or folded at
pleasure. The court is for the most part surrounded with a cloister,
over which, when the house has a number of stories, a gallery is erected
of the same dimensions with the cloister, having a balustrade, or else a
piece of carved or latticed work, going round about, to prevent people
from falling from it into the court. The doors of the enclosure round
the house are made very small; but the doors of the houses very large,
for the purpose of admitting a copious stream of fresh air into their
apartments. The windows which look into the street are very high and
narrow, and defended by lattice work; as they are only intended to allow
the cloistered inmate a peep of what is passing without, while he
remains concealed behind the casement. This kind of window the ancient
Hebrews called _arubah_, which is the same term that they used to
express those small openings through which pigeons passed into the
cavities of the rocks, or into those buildings which were raised for
their reception. Thus the prophet asks: “Who are these that fly as a
cloud, and as the doves, אל-ארבתיהם, to their small or narrow windows.”
The word is derived from a root which signifies to lie in wait for the
prey; and is very expressive of the concealed manner in which a person
examines through that kind of window an external object. Irwin describes
the windows in Upper Egypt as having the same form and dimensions; and
says expressly, that one of the windows of the house in which they
lodged, and through which they looked into the street, more resembled a
pigeon hole than any thing else. But the sacred writers mention another
kind of window, which was large and airy; it was called חלון, and was
large enough to admit a person of mature age being cast out of it; a
punishment which that profligate woman Jezebel suffered by the command
of Jehu, the authorized extirminator of her family. These large windows
admit the light and the breeze into spacious apartments of the same
length with the court, but which seldom or never communicate with one
another. In the houses of the fashionable and the gay, the lower part of
the walls is adorned with rich hangings of velvet or damask, tinged with
the liveliest colours, suspended on hooks, or taken down at pleasure. A
correct idea of their richness and splendour may be formed from the
description, which the inspired writer has given of the hangings in the
royal garden at Shushan, the ancient capital of Persia: “Where were
white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and
purple, to silver rings and pillars of marble,” Esther i, 6. The upper
part of the walls is adorned with the most ingenious wreathings and
devices, in stucco and fret-work. The ceiling is generally of wainscot,
painted with great art, or else thrown into a variety of pannels with
gilded mouldings. In the days of Jeremiah the prophet, when the
profusion and luxury of all ranks in Judea were at their height, their
chambers were ceiled with fragrant and costly wood, and painted with the
richest colours. Of this extravagance the indignant seer loudly
complains: “Wo unto him that saith, I will build me a wide house and
large chambers, and cutteth him out windows: and it is ceiled with
cedar, and painted with vermilion,” Jer. xxii, 14. The floors of these
splendid apartments were laid with painted tiles, or slabs of the most
beautiful marble. A pavement of this kind is mentioned in the book of
Esther; at the sumptuous entertainment which Ahasuerus made for the
princes and nobles of his vast empire, “the beds,” or couches, upon
which they reclined, “were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red
and blue, and white and black marble.” Plaster of terrace is often vised
for the same purpose; and the floor is always covered with carpets,
which are for the most part of the richest materials. Upon these
carpets, a range of narrow beds, or mattresses, is often placed along
the sides of the wall, with velvet or damask bolsters, for the greater
ease and convenience of the company. To these luxurious indulgences the
prophets occasionally seem to allude: Ezekiel was commanded to pronounce
a “wo to the women that sew pillows to all armholes,” Ezek. xiii, 18;
and Amos denounces the judgments of his God against them “that lie upon
beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the
lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall,”
Amos vi, 4. At one end of each chamber is a little gallery, raised three
or four feet above the floor, with a balustrade in front, to which they
go up by a few steps. Here they place their beds; a situation frequently
alluded to in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Jacob addressed his undutiful
son, in his last benediction: “Thou wentest up to thy father’s bed,--he
went up to my couch,” Gen. xlix, 4. The allusion is again involved in
the declaration of Elijah to the king of Samaria: “Now, therefore, thus
saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art
gone up, but shalt surely die,” 2 Kings i, 4, 16. And the Psalmist sware
unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob, “Surely I will
not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed, until I
find out a place for the Lord,” Psalm cxxxii, 3. This arrangement may
likewise illustrate the circumstance of Hezekiah’s “turning his face to
the wall, when he prayed,” that the greatness of his sorrow, and the
fervour of his devotion, might, as much as possible, be concealed from
his attendants, 2 Kings xx.

The roof is always flat, and often composed of branches of wood laid
across rude beams; and, to defend it from the injuries of the weather,
to which it is peculiarly exposed in the rainy season, it is covered
with a strong plaster of terrace. It is surrounded by a wall
breast-high, which forms the partition with the contiguous houses, and
prevents one from falling into the street on the one side, or into the
court on the other. This answers to the battlements which Moses
commanded the people of Israel to make for the roof of their houses, for
the same reason. “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a
battlement, מעקה, for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine
house, if any man fall from thence,” Deut. xxii, 8. Instead of the
parapet wall, some terraces are guarded, like the galleries, with
balustrades only, or latticed work. Of the same kind, probably, was the
lattice or net, as the term שבכה seems to import, through which Ahaziah,
the king of Samaria, fell down into the court, 2 Kings i, 2. This
incident proves the necessity of the law which was graciously dictated
from Sinai, and furnishes a beautiful example of God’s paternal care and
goodness; for the terrace was a place where many offices of the family
were performed, and business of no little importance was occasionally
transacted. Rahab concealed the spies on the roof, with the stalks of
flax which she had laid in order to dry, Joshua ii, 6; the king of
Israel, according to the custom of his country, rose from his bed, and
walked upon the roof of his house, to enjoy the refreshing breezes of
the evening, 2 Sam. xi, 2; upon the top of the house the prophet
conversed with Saul, about the gracious designs of God, respecting him
and his family, 1 Sam. ix, 25; to the same place Peter retired to offer
up his devotions, Acts x, 9; and in the feast of tabernacles, under the
government of Nehemiah, booths were erected, as well upon the terraces
of their houses, as in their courts, and in the streets of the city,
Neh. viii, 16. In Judea, the inhabitants sleep upon the tops of their
houses during the heats of summer, in arbours made of the branches of
trees, or in tents of rushes. When Dr. Pococke was at Tiberias, in
Galilee, he was entertained by the sheik’s steward, and with his company
supped upon the top of the house for coolness, according to their
custom, and lodged there likewise, in a sort of closet of about eight
feet square, formed of wicker-work, plastered round toward the bottom,
but without any door, each person having his cell. In like manner, the
Persians take refuge during the day in subterraneous chambers, and pass
the night on the flat roofs of their houses.

The expression, “to dig through houses,” occurs, Job xxiv, 16.
“Thieves,” says Mr. Ward, “in Bengal very frequently dig through the mud
walls, and under the clay floors of houses, and, entering unperceived,
plunder them while the inhabitants are asleep.” Our Lord’s parable of
the foolish man who built his house on the sand derives illustration
from the following passages in Ward’s “View,” and Belzoni’s “Travels:”
“The fishermen in Bengal build their huts in the dry season on the beds
of sand, from which the river has retired. When the rains set in, which
they often do very suddenly, accompanied by violent north-west winds,
the water pours down in torrents from the mountains. In one night
multitudes of these huts are frequently swept away, and the place where
they stood is the next morning undiscoverable.” “It so happened, that we
were to witness one of the greatest calamities that have occurred in
Egypt in the recollection of any one living. The Nile rose this season
three feet and a half above the highest mark left by the former
inundation, with uncommon rapidity, and carried off several villages,
and some hundreds of their inhabitants. I never saw any picture that
could give a more correct idea of a deluge than the valley of the Nile
in this season. The Arabs had expected an extraordinary inundation this
year, in consequence of the scarcity of water the preceding season; but
they did not apprehend it would rise to such a height. They generally
erect fences of earth and reeds around their villages, to keep the water
from their houses; but the force of this inundation baffled all their
efforts. Their cottages, being built of earth, could not stand one
instant against the current; and no sooner did the water reach them,
than it levelled them with the ground. The rapid stream carried off all
that was before it; men, women, children, cattle, corn, every thing was
washed away in an instant, and left the place where the village stood
without any thing to indicate that there had ever been a house on the
spot.”

House is taken for family: “The Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house,”
Gen. xii, 17. “What is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?” 2
Sam. vii, 18. So Joseph was of the house of David, Luke i, 27; ii, 4;
but more especially he was of his royal lineage, or family; and, as we
conceive, in the direct line or eldest branch of the family; so that he
was next of kin to the throne, if the government had still continued in
possession of the descendants of David. House is taken for kindred: it
is a Christian’s duty to provide first for those of his own house, 1
Tim. v, 8, his family, his relatives.

HUSBANDRY. In the primitive ages of the world, agriculture, as well as
the keeping of flocks, was a principal employment among men Gen. ii, 15;
iii, 17–19; iv, 2. It is an art which has ever been a prominent source,
both of the necessaries and the conveniences of life. Those states and
nations, especially Babylon and Egypt, which made the cultivation of the
soil their chief business, arose in a short period to wealth and power.
To these communities just mentioned, which excelled in this particular
all the others of antiquity, may be added that of the Hebrews, who
learned the value of the art while remaining in Egypt, and ever after
that time were famous for their industry in the cultivation of the
earth. Moses, following the example of the Egyptians, made agriculture
the basis of the state. He accordingly apportioned to every citizen a
certain quantity of land, and gave him the right of tilling it himself,
and of transmitting it to his heirs. The person who had thus come into
possession could not alienate the property for any longer period than
the year of the coming jubilee: a regulation which prevented the rich
from coming into possession of large tracts of land, and then leasing
them out in small parcels to the poor: a practice which anciently
prevailed, and does to this day, in the east. It was another law of
Moses, that the vender of a piece of land, or his nearest relative, had
a right to redeem the land sold, whenever they chose, by paying the
amount of profits up to the year of jubilee, Ruth iv, 4; Jer. xxxii, 7.
Another law enacted by Moses on this subject was, that the Hebrews, as
was the case among the Egyptians after the time of Joseph, should pay a
tax of two-tenths of their income unto God, whose servants they were to
consider themselves to be, and whom they were to obey as their King and
Lord, Lev. xxvii, 30; Deut. xii, 17–19; xiv, 22–29; Gen. xxviii, 22. The
custom of marking the boundaries of lands by stones, although it
prevailed a long time before, Job xxiv, 2, was confirmed and perpetuated
in the time of Moses by an express law; and a curse was pronounced
against him who without authority removed them. These regulations having
been made in respect to the tenure, incumbrances, &c, of landed
property, Joshua divided the whole country which he had occupied, first
among the respective tribes, and then among individual Hebrews, running
it out with the aid of a measuring line, Joshua xvii, 5, 14; Amos vii,
17; Micah ii, 5; Psalm lxxviii, 55; Ezek. xl, 3. The word, חבל, _a
line_, is accordingly used by a figure of speech, for the heritage
itself, Psalm xvi, 6: “The _lines_ have fallen to me in pleasant places,
yea I have a goodly heritage.” Though Moses was the friend of the
agriculturist, he by no means discouraged the keeper of the flock.

The occupation of the husbandman was held in honour, not only for the
profits which it brought, but from the circumstance that it was
supported and protected by the fundamental laws of the state. All who
were not set apart for religious duties, such as the priests and the
Levites, whether inhabitants of the country, or of towns and cities,
were considered by the laws, and were, in fact, agriculturists. The rich
and the noble, it is true, in the cultivation of the soil, did not
always put themselves on a level with their servants; but none were so
rich or so noble as to disdain to put their hand to the plough, 1 Sam.
xi, 7; 1 Kings xix, 19; 2 Chron. xxvi, 10. The priests and Levites were
indeed engaged in other employments, yet they could not withhold their
honour from an occupation which supplied them with their income. The
esteem in which agriculture was held diminished as luxury increased; but
it never wholly came to an end. Even after the captivity, when many of
the Jews had become merchants and mechanics, the esteem and honour
attached to this occupation still continued, especially under the
dynasty of the Persians, who were agriculturists from motives of
religion.

The soil of Palestine is very fruitful, if the dews and vernal and
autumnal rains are not withheld. The country, in opposition to Egypt, is
eulogized for its rains in Deut. xi, 10. The Hebrews, notwithstanding
the richness of the soil, endeavoured to increase its fertility in
various ways. They not only divested it of stones, but watered it by
means of canals, communicating with the rivers or brooks; and thereby
imparted to their fields the richness of gardens, Psalm i, 3; lxv, 10;
Prov. xxi, 1; Isa. xxx, 25; xxxii, 2, 20. Springs, therefore, fountains,
and rivulets, were held in as much honour and worth by husbandmen as by
shepherds, Joshua xv, 9; Judges i, 15; and we accordingly find that the
land of Canaan was extolled for those fountains of water of which Egypt
was destitute. The soil was enriched, also, in addition to the method
just mentioned, by means of ashes; to which the straw, the stubble, the
husks, the brambles, and grass, that overspread the land during the
sabbatical year, were reduced by fire. The burning over the surface of
the land had also another good effect, namely, that of destroying the
seeds of the noxious herbs, Isa. vii, 23; xxxii, 13; Prov. xxiv, 31.
Finally, the soil was manured with dung.

The Hebrew word, דגן, which is translated variously by the English
words, _grain_, _corn_, &c, is of general signification, and comprehends
in itself different kinds of grain and pulse, such as wheat, millet,
spelt, wall-barley, barley, beans, lentils, meadow-cumin, pepperwort,
flax, cotton; to these may be added various species of the cucumber, and
perhaps rice. Rye and oats do not grow in the warmer climates; but their
place is, in a manner, supplied by barley. Barley, mixed with broken
straw, affords the fodder for beasts of burden, which is called כליל.
Wheat, חטה, which, by way of eminence, is called דגן, grew in Egypt in
the time of Joseph, as it now does in Africa, on several branches from
one stalk, each one of which produced an ear, Gen. xii, 47. This sort of
wheat does not flourish in Palestine: the wheat of Palestine is of a
much better kind.

HUSKS, κεράτιον, Luke xv, 16; the husks of leguminous plants, so named
from their resemblance to κέρας, _a horn_; but Bochart thinks that the
κερατία were the _ceretonia_, the husks or fruit of the carob tree, a
tree very common in the Levant. We learn from Columella, that these pods
afforded food for swine; and they are mentioned as what the prodigal
desired to eat, when reduced to extreme hunger.

HUTCHINSONIANS, the followers of John Hutchinson, Esq., a learned and
respectable layman, who was born at Spennythorn, in Yorkshire, in 1674.
In 1724, he published the first part of that curious work, “Moses’s
_Principia_,” in which he ridiculed Dr. Woodward’s “Natural History of
the Earth,” and exploded the doctrine of gravitation established in Sir
Isaac Newton’s “_Principia_.” In the second part of this work, published
in 1727, he maintained, in opposition to the Newtonian system, that a
_plenum_ is the principle of the Scripture philosophy. In this work he
also intimated that the idea of a Trinity is to be taken from the grand
agents in the natural system, fire, light, and spirit. From this time he
continued to publish a volume every year or two till his death; and a
correct and elegant edition of his works, including the MSS. which he
left was published in 1748, in 12 vols. 8vo. Mr. Hutchinson thought that
the Hebrew Scriptures comprise a perfect system of natural philosophy,
theology, and religion. He entertained so high an opinion of the Hebrew
language, that he thought the Almighty must have employed it to
communicate every species of knowledge, human and divine; and that,
accordingly, every species of knowledge is to be found in the Old
Testament. Both he and his followers laid a great stress on the evidence
of Hebrew etymology. After Origen, and other eminent commentators, he
asserted that the Scriptures are not to be understood and interpreted in
a literal but in a typical sense, and according to the radical import of
the Hebrew expressions; that even the historical parts, and particularly
those relating to the Jewish ceremonies and Levitical law, are to be
considered in this light; and he also asserted that, agreeably to this
mode of interpretation, the Hebrew Scriptures would be found amply to
testify concerning the nature and offices of Jesus Christ. His plan was
to find natural philosophy in the Bible, where hitherto it had been
thought no such thing was to be met with, or ever intended. His editors
tell us, he found, upon examination, that the Hebrew Scriptures nowhere
ascribe motion to the body of the sun, nor fixedness to the earth; that
they describe the created system to be a _plenum_ without any vacuum at
all, and reject the assistance of gravitation, attraction, or any such
occult qualities, for performing the stated operations of nature, which
are carried on by the mechanism of the heavens, in their threefold
condition of fire, light, and spirit, or air, the material agents set to
work at the beginning; that the heavens, thus framed by almighty Wisdom,
are an instituted emblem and visible substitute of _Jehovah Aleim_, the
eternal Three, the coëqual and co-adorable Trinity in Unity; that the
unity of substance in the heavens points out the unity of essence and
the distinction of conditions, the personality in Deity, without
confounding the persons or dividing the substance; and that, from their
being made emblems, they are called in Hebrew _shemim_, the names,
representatives, or substitutes, expressing by their names that they are
emblems, and, by their conditions or offices, what it is they are
emblems of. He also found that the Hebrew Scriptures have some capital
words, which he has proved, or endeavoured to prove, contain, in their
radical meaning, the greatest and most comfortable truths. Thus, the
word _Elohim_, which we call God, or, as he reads it, _Aleim_, he refers
to the oath or conditional execration, by which the eternal covenant of
grace among the persons in Jehovah was and is confirmed. The word
_berith_, which our translation renders “covenant,” signifies, “he or
that which purifies” and so the Purifier or purification _for_, not
_with_, man. The cherubim, which have been thought “angels placed as a
guard to deter Adam from breaking into Eden again,” he explains to have
been a hieroglyphic of divine construction, or a sacred image, to
describe, as far as figures could go, the _Aleim_ and man taken in, or
humanity united to deity. In like manner, he treats several other words
of similar, though not quite so solemn, import. Hence he drew this
conclusion, “that all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish
dispensation were so many delineations of Christ, in what he was to be,
to do, and to suffer; and that the early Jews knew them to be types of
his actions and sufferings, and, by performing them as such, were in so
far Christians, both in faith and practice.” His followers maintain,
that the cherubim, and the glory around them, with the divine presence
in them, were not only emblematical figures, representing the persons of
the ever blessed Trinity, as engaged in covenant for the redemption of
man, but also that they were intended “to keep or preserve the way of
the tree of life, to show man the way to life eternal, and keep him from
losing or departing from it.” That Melchizedec was an eminent type of
Christ, there can be little doubt; but that he was actually the second
person of the Trinity, in a human form, is a tenet of the
Hutchinsonians, though not entirely peculiar to them. Mr. Hutchinson
supposes that “the air exists in three conditions, fire, light, and
spirit; the two latter are the finer and grosser parts of the air in
motion: from the earth to the sun, the air is finer and finer till it
becomes pure light near the confines of the sun, and fire in the orb of
the sun, or solar focus.” From the earth toward the circumference of
this system, in which he includes the fixed stars, the air becomes
grosser and grosser till it becomes stagnant, in which condition it is
at the utmost verge of this system; from whence, in his opinion, the
expression of “outer darkness,” and “blackness of darkness,” used in the
New Testament, seems to be taken. These are some of the principal
outlines of this author’s doctrines, which have been patronized by
several eminent divines, both of the church and among the Dissenters.

2. The followers of Mr. Hutchinson have not erected themselves into a
sect or separate community. Among them may be reckoned some eminent and
respectable divines, both in England and Scotland; but their numbers
seem at present to be rather on the decrease. Of those who, in their
day, were ranked in the list of Hutchinsonians, perhaps the most eminent
were the following: Mr. Julius Bate, and Mr. Parkhurst, the
lexicographers; Mr. Holloway, author of “Originals,” and “Letter and
Spirit;” Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Mr. Henry Lee,
author of “Sophron, or Nature’s Characteristics of the Truth;” Dr.
Wetherell, late master of University College, Oxford; Mr. Romaine;
Bishop Horne; and Mr. William Jones, the bishop’s learned friend and
biographer.

HYMN, a song, or ode, composed in honour of God. The Jewish hymns were
accompanied with trumpets, drums, and cymbals, to assist the voices of
the Levites and people. The word is used as synonymous with canticle,
song, or psalm, which the Hebrews scarcely distinguish, having no
particular term for a hymn, as distinct from a psalm or canticle. St.
Paul requires Christians to edify one another with “psalms, and hymns,
and spiritual songs.” St. Matthew says, that Christ, having supped, sung
a hymn, and went out. He recited the hymns or psalms which the Jews were
used to sing after the passover; which they called the _Halal_; that is,
the Hallelujah Psalms.

HYPERBOLE. This figure, in its representation of things or objects,
either magnifies or diminishes them beyond or below their proper limits:
it is common in all languages, and is of frequent occurrence in the
Scriptures. Thus, things which are lofty are said to reach up to heaven,
Deut. i, 28; ix, 1; Psalm cvii, 26. So things which are beyond the reach
or capacity of man are said to be in “heaven,” in the “deep,” or “beyond
the sea,” Deut. xxx, 12; Rom. x, 6, 7. So a great quantity or number is
commonly expressed by the “sand of the sea,” the “dust of the earth,”
and the “stars of heaven,” Genesis xiii, 16; xli, 49; Judges vii, 12; 1
Sam. xiii, 5; 1 Kings iv, 29; 2 Chron. i, 9; Jer. xv, 8; Heb. xi, 12. In
like manner we meet with “smaller than grasshoppers,” Num. xiii, 33, to
denote extreme diminutiveness; “swifter than eagles,” 2 Sam. i, 23, to
intimate extreme celerity; the “earth trembled,” the “mountains melted,”
Judges v, 4, 5; the “earth rent,” 1 Kings i, 40. “I make my bed to
swim;” “rivers of tears run down mine eyes.” So we read of “angels'
food,” Psalm vi, 6; cxix, 136; lxxviii, 25; the “face of an angel,” Acts
vi, 15; and the “tongue of an angel,” 1 Cor. xiii, 1. See also Gal. i,
8; iv, 14. We read “sigh with the breaking of thy loins,” Ezek. xxi, 6,
that is, most deeply. So we read that “the stones would cry out,” and
“they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another,” Luke xix, 40, 44;
that is, there shall be a total desolation.

HYPOCRITE, a word from the Greek, which signifies one who feigns to be
what he is not; who puts on a masque or character, like actors in
tragedies and comedies. It is generally applied to those who assume
appearances of a virtue, without possessing it in reality. Our Saviour
accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew
word _caneph_, which is rendered “hypocrite,” “counterfeit,” signifies
also a profane wicked man, a man polluted, corrupted, a man of impiety,
a deceiver. It was ingeniously said by Basil, that the hypocrite did not
put off the old man, but put the new man upon it.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION; the union of the divine and human natures of Christ
in one person. This is the doctrine generally received in the church of
Christ; but there have been some who have denied this, who yet
acknowledge our Lord’s divinity. Nestorius, who had been taught to
distinguish accurately between the divine and human nature of Christ,
was offended with some expressions commonly used by Christians in the
beginning of the fifth century, which seemed to destroy that
distinction, and particularly with their calling the Virgin Mary
θεότοκος, as if it were possible for the Godhead to be born. His zeal
provoked opposition; in the eagerness of controversy he was led to use
unguarded expressions; and he was condemned by the third of the general
councils, the council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is a matter of
doubt whether the opinions of Nestorius, if he had been allowed by his
adversaries fairly to explain them, would have appeared inconsistent
with the doctrine established by the council of Ephesus, that Christ is
one person, in whom two natures were most closely united. But whatever
was the extent of the error of Nestorius, from him is derived that
system concerning the incarnation of Christ, which is held by a large
body of Christians in Chaldea, Assyria, and other regions of the east,
and which is known in the ecclesiastical history of the west by the name
of the Nestorian heresy. The object of the Nestorians is to avoid every
appearance of ascribing to the divinity of Christ the weakness of
humanity; and therefore they distinguish between Christ, and God who
dwelt in Christ as in a temple. They say, that from the moment of the
virgin’s conception, there commenced an intimate and indissoluble union
between Christ and God, that these two persons presented in Jesus Christ
one ϖρόσωπον, or aspect, but that the union between them is merely a
union of will and affection, such in kind as that which subsists between
two friends, although much closer in degree. Opposite to the Nestorian
opinion is the Eutychian, which derives its name from Eutyches, an abbot
of Constantinople, who, about the middle of the fifth century, in his
zeal to avoid the errors of Nestorius, was carried to the other extreme.
Those who did not hold the Nestorian opinions had been accustomed to
speak of the “one incarnate nature” of Christ. But Eutyches used this
phrase in such a manner as to appear to teach that the human nature of
Christ was absorbed in the divine, and that his body had no real
existence. This opinion was condemned in the year 451, by the council of
Chalcedon, the fourth general council, which declared, as the faith of
the catholic church, that Christ is one person; that in this unity of
person there are two natures, the divine and the human; and that there
is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that
each retains its distinguishing properties. The decree of Chalcedon was
not universally submitted to. But many of the successors of Eutyches,
wishing to avoid the palpable absurdity which was ascribed to him, of
supposing that one nature was absorbed by another, and anxious at the
same time to preserve that unity which the Nestorians divided, declared
their faith to be, that in Christ there is one nature, but that this
nature is twofold or compounded. From this tenet the successors of
Eutyches derive the name of Monophysites; and from Jacob Baradæus, who
in the following century was a zealous and successful preacher, of the
system of the Monophysites, they are more commonly known by the name of
Jacobites. The Monophysites, or Jacobites, are found chiefly near the
Euphrates and Tigris; they are much less numerous than the Nestorians;
and, although they profess to have corrected the errors which were
supposed to adhere to the Eutychian heresy, they may be considered as
having formed their peculiar opinions upon the general principles of
that system. The Monothelites, an ancient sect, of whom a remnant is
found in the neighbourhood of Mount Libanus, disclaim any connection
with Eutyches, and agree with the Catholics in ascribing two natures to
Christ; but they have received their name from their conceiving that
Christ, being one person, can only have one will: whereas the Catholics,
considering both natures as complete, think it essential to each to have
a will, and say that every inconvenience which can be supposed to arise
from two wills in one person, is removed by the perfect harmony between
that will which belongs to the divine, and that which belongs to the
human nature of Christ.

HYSSOP, אזוב, Exod. xii, 22; Lev. xiv, 4, 6, 49, 51, 52; Num. xix, 6,
18; 1 Kings iv, 33; Psalm li, 7; Matt, xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; ὑσσωπὸς,
John xix, 29; Heb. ix, 19. It grows plentifully on the mountains near
Jerusalem. It is of a bitter taste; and, from being considered as
possessing detersive and cleansing qualities, derived probably its
Hebrew name. The original word has been variously translated; and
Celsius has devoted forty-two pages to remove difficulties, occasioned
by the discordant opinions of the Talmudical writers, and to ascertain
the plant intended. That it is the hyssop seems most probable: the
passage in Heb. ix, 19, sufficiently identifies it. Under the law, it
was commonly used in purifications as a sprinkler. When the children of
Israel came out of Egypt, they were commanded to take a bunch of hyssop,
to dip it in the blood of the paschal lamb, and sprinkle it on the
lintel and the two side-posts of the door. It was also used in
sprinkling the leper. The hyssop is extremely well adapted to such
purposes, as it grows in bunches, and puts out many suckers from a
single root.


ICONIUM, the chief city of Lycaonia, in Asia Minor. An assault being
meditated at the place by the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles upon the
Apostles Paul and Barnabas, who, by preaching in the synagogue, had
converted many Jews and Greeks, they fled to Lystra; where the designs
of their enemies were put in execution, and St. Paul miraculously
escaped with his life, Acts xiv. The church planted at this place by St.
Paul continued to flourish, until, by the persecutions of the Saracens,
and afterward of the Seljukian Turks, who made it the capital of one of
their sultanies, it was nearly extinguished. But some Christians of the
Greek and Armenian churches, with a Greek archbishop, are yet found in
the suburbs of this city, who are not permitted to reside within the
walls. Iconium is now called Cogni, and is still a considerable city;
being the capital of the extensive province of Caramania, as it was
formerly of Lycaonia, and the seat of a Turkish beglerberg, or viceroy.
It is the place of chief strength and importance in the central parts of
Asiatic Turkey, being surrounded by a strong wall of four miles in
circumference; but, as is the case with most eastern cities, much of the
enclosed space is waste. It is situated about a hundred and twenty miles
inland from the Mediterranean, on the lake Trogilis. Mr. Kinneir says,
Iconium, the capital of Lycaonia, is mentioned by Xenophon, and
afterward by Cicero and Strabo; but does not appear to have been a place
of any consideration until after the taking of Nice by the crusaders in
1099, when the Seljukian sultans of Roum chose it as their residence.
These sultans rebuilt the walls, and embellished the city: they were,
however, expelled in 1189 by Frederic Barbarossa, who took it by
assault; but after his death they reëntered their capital, where they
reigned in splendour till the irruption of Tchengis Khan, and his
grandson, Holukow, who broke the power of the Seljukians. Iconium, under
the name of Cogni, or Konia, has been included in the dominions of the
grand seignior ever since the time of Bajazet, who finally extirpated
the Ameers of Caramania. The modern city has an imposing appearance from
the number and size of its mosques, colleges, and other public
buildings; but these stately edifices are crumbling into ruins, while
the houses of the inhabitants consist of a mixture of small huts built
of sun-dried bricks, and wretched hovels thatched with reeds. The city,
according to the same authority, contains about eighty thousand
inhabitants, principally Turks, with only a small proportion of
Christians. It is represented as enjoying a fine climate, and pleasantly
situated among gardens and meadows; while it is nearly surrounded, at
some distance, with mountains which rise to the regions of perpetual
snow. It was formerly the capital of an extensive government, and the
seat of a powerful pasha, who maintained a military force competent to
the preservation of peace and order, and the defence of his territories.
But it has now dwindled into insignificance, and exhibits upon the whole
a mournful scene of desolation and decay.

ICONOCLASTES, image breakers; or ICONOMACHI, image opposers, were names
given to those who rejected the use of images in churches, and, on
certain occasions, vented their zeal in destroying them. The great
opposition to images began under Bardanes, a Greek emperor, in the
beginning of the eighth century; and was revived again, a few years
after, under Leo, the Isaurian, who issued an edict against image
worship, which occasioned a civil war in the islands of the Archipelago,
and afterward in Italy; the Roman pontiffs and Greek councils
alternately supporting it. At length images were rejected by the Greek
church, which however retains pictures in churches, though her members
do not worship them; but the Latin church, more corrupt, not only
retained images, but made them the medium, if not the object, of their
worship, and are therefore _Iconoduli_, or _Iconolatræ_, image
worshippers.

IDDO, a prophet of the kingdom of Judah, who wrote the actions of
Rehoboam’s and Abijah’s reigns, 2 Chron. xii, 15. It seems by 2 Chron.
xiii, 22, that he had entitled his work, _Midrasch_, or, “Inquiries.” We
know nothing particularly concerning the life of this prophet. It is
probable that he likewise wrote some prophecies against Jeroboam, the
son of Nebat, 2 Chron. ix, 29, wherein part of Solomon’s life was
included. Josephus, and many others after him, are of opinion that it
was Iddo who was sent to Jeroboam, while he was at Bethel, and was there
dedicating an altar to the golden calves; and that it was he who was
killed by a lion, 1 Kings xiii.

IDOLATRY, from εἰδωλολατρεία, composed of εἰδος, _image_, and λατρεύειν,
_to serve_, the worship and adoration of false gods; or the giving those
honours to creatures, or the works of man’s hands, which are only due to
God. Several have written of the origin and causes of idolatry: among
the rest, Vossius, Selden, Godwyn, Tenison, and Faber; but it is still a
doubt who was the first author of it. It is generally allowed, however,
that it had not its beginning till after the deluge; and many are of
opinion, that Belus, who is supposed to be the same with Nimrod, was the
first man that was deified. But whether they had not paid divine honours
to the heavenly bodies before that time, cannot be determined; our
acquaintance with those remote times being extremely slender. The first
mention we find made of idolatry is where Rachel is said to have taken
the idols of her father; for though the meaning of the Hebrew word
תרפים, be disputed, yet it is pretty evident they were idols. Laban
calls them his gods, and Jacob calls them strange gods, and looks on
them as abominations. The original idolatry by image worship is by many
attributed to the age of Eber, B. C. 2247, about a hundred and one years
after the deluge, according to the Hebrew chronology; four hundred and
one years according to the Samaritan; and five hundred and thirty-one
years according to the Septuagint; though most of the fathers place it
no higher than that of Serug; which seems to be the more probable
opinion, considering that for the first hundred and thirty-four years of
Eber’s life all mankind dwelt in a body together; during which time it
is not reasonable to suppose that idolatry broke in upon them; then some
time must be allowed after the dispersion of the several nations, which
were but small at the beginning, to increase and settle themselves; so
that if idolatry was introduced in Eber’s time, it must have been toward
the end of his life, and could not well have prevailed so universally,
and with that obstinacy which some authors have imagined. Terah, the
father of Abraham, who lived at Ur, in Chaldea, about B. C. 2000, was
unquestionably an idolater; for he is expressly said in Scripture to
have served other gods. The authors of the Universal History think, that
the origin and progress of idolatry are plainly pointed out to us in the
account which Moses gives of Laban’s and Jacob’s parting, Gen. xxxi, 44,
&c. From the custom once introduced of erecting monuments in memory of
any solemn covenants, the transition was easy into the notion, that some
deity took its residence in them, in order to punish the first
aggressors; and this might be soon improved by an ignorant and
degenerate world, till not only birds, beasts, stocks, and stones, but
sun, moon, and stars, were called into the same office; though used,
perhaps, at first, by the designing part of mankind, as scare-crows, to
overawe the ignorant.

Sanchoniathon, who wrote his “Phenician Antiquities,” apparently with a
view to apologize for idolatry, traces its origin to the descendants of
Cain, the elder branch, who began with the worship of the sun, and
afterward added a variety of other methods of idolatrous worship:
proceeding to deify the several parts of nature, and men after their
death; and even to consecrate the plants shooting out of the earth,
which the first men judged to be gods, and worshipped as those that
sustained the lives of themselves and of their posterity. The Chaldean
priests, in process of time, being by their situation early addicted to
celestial observations, instead of conceiving as they ought to have done
concerning the omnipotence of the Creator and Mover of the heavenly
bodies, fell into the impious error of esteeming them as gods, and the
immediate governors of the world, in subordination, however, to the
Deity, who was invisible except by his works, and the effects of his
power. Concluding that God created the stars and great luminaries for
the government of the world, partakers with himself and as his
ministers, they thought it but just and natural that they should be
honoured and extolled, and that it was the will of God they should be
magnified and worshipped. Accordingly, they erected temples, or
_sacella_, to the stars, in which they sacrificed and bowed down before
them, esteeming them as a kind of mediators between God and man.
Impostors afterward arose, who gave out, that they had received express
orders from God himself concerning the manner in which particular
heavenly bodies should be represented, and the nature and ceremonies of
the worship which was to be paid them. When they proceeded to worship
wood, stone, or metal, formed and fashioned by their own hands, they
were led to apprehend, that these images had been, in some way or other,
animated or informed with a supernatural power by supernatural means;
though Dr. Prideaux imagines, that, being at a loss to know how to
address themselves to the planets when they were below the horizon, and
invisible, they recurred to the use of images. But it will be sufficient
to suppose, that they were persuaded that each star or planet was
actuated by an intelligence; and that the virtues of the heavenly body
were infused into the image that represented it. It is certain, that the
_sentient_ nature and divinity of the sun, moon, and stars, was
strenuously asserted by the philosophers, particularly by Pythagoras and
his followers, and by the Stoics, as well as believed by the common
people, and was, indeed, the very foundation of the Pagan idolatry. The
heavenly bodies were the first deities of all the idolatrous nations,
were esteemed eternal, sovereign, and supreme; and distinguished by the
title of the natural gods. Thus we find that the primary gods of the
Heathens in general were Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Mercury, Venus,
and Diana; by which we can understand no other than the sun and moon,
and the five greatest luminaries next to these. Plutarch expressly
censures the Epicureans for asserting that the sun and moon, whom all
men worshipped, are void of intelligence.

Sanchoniathon represents the most ancient nations, particularly the
Phenicians and Egyptians, as acknowledging only the natural gods, the
sun, moon, planets, and elements; and Plato declares it as his opinion,
that the first Grecians likewise held these only to be gods, as many of
the barbarians did in his time. Beside these natural gods, the Heathens
believed that there were certain spirits who held a middle rank between
the gods and men on earth, and carried on all intercourse between them;
conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and the divine benefits to
men. These spirits were called demons. From the imaginary office
ascribed to them, they became the grand objects of the religious hopes
and fears of the Pagans, of immediate dependence and divine worship. In
the most learned nations, they did not so properly share, as engross,
the public devotion. To these alone sacrifices were offered, while the
celestial gods were worshipped only with a pure mind, or with hymns and
praises. As to the nature of these demons, it has been generally
believed, that they were spirits of a higher origin than the human race;
and, in support of this opinion, it has been alleged, that the supreme
deity of the Pagans is called the greatest demon; that demons are
described as beings placed between the gods and men; and that demons are
expressly distinguished from heroes, who were the departed souls of men.
Some, however, have combatted this opinion, and maintained, on the
contrary, that by demons, such as were the more immediate objects of the
established worship among the ancient nations, particularly the
Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, we are to understand beings of an earthly
origin, or such departed human souls as were believed to become demons.

Although the Hindoo inhabitants of the East Indies deny the charge of
idolatry, using the same description of arguments as are so
inconclusively urged by superstitious Europeans in defence of image
worship, it is still evident that the mass of the Hindoos are addicted
to gross idolatry. The gods of Rome were even less numerous, certainly
less whimsical and monstrous, than those at Benares. In Moore’s Hindoo
Pantheon are given exact portraits of many scores of deities worshipped,
with appropriate ceremonies, and under various forms and names, by
different sects of that grossly superstitious race. Some of these
portraits are of images colossal to a degree perhaps unequalled by any
existing statues; others are exceedingly diminutive. Some are metallic
casts, and some apparently extremely ancient, which exhibit every
gradation of art from the rudest imaginable specimen, up to a very
respectable portion of skill, so as to approach to elegance of form, and
to ease and expression of attitude.

The principal causes which have been assigned for idolatry are, the
indelible idea which every man has of God, and the evidence which he
gives of it to himself; an inviolable attachment to the senses, and a
habit of judging and deciding by them, and them only; the pride and
vanity of the human mind, which is not satisfied with simple truth, but
mingles and adulterates it with fables; men’s ignorance of antiquity, or
of the first times, and the first men, of whom they had but very dark
and confused knowledge by tradition, they having left no written
monuments, or books; the ignorance and change of languages; the style of
the oriental writings, which is figurative and poetical, and personifies
every thing; the scruples and fears inspired by superstition; the
flattery and fictions of poets; the false relations of travellers; the
imaginations of painters and sculptors; a smattering of physics, that
is, a slight acquaintance with natural bodies and appearances, and their
causes; the establishment of colonies, and the invention of arts,
mistaken by barbarous people; the artifices of priests; the pride of
certain men, who affected to pass for gods; the love and gratitude borne
by the people to certain of their great men and benefactors; and,
finally, the historical events of the Scriptures ill understood. “One
great spring and fountain of all idolatry,” says Sir William Jones, “was
the veneration paid by men to the sun, or vast body of fire, which
‘looks from his sole dominion like the god of this world;’ and another,
the immoderate respect shown to the memory of powerful or virtuous
ancestors and warriors, of whom the sun and the moon were wildly
supposed to be the parents.” But the Scriptural account of the matter
refers the whole to wilful ignorance and a corrupt heart: “They did not
like to retain God in their knowledge.” To this may be added, what
indeed proceeds from the same sources, the disposition to convert
religion into outward forms; the endeavour to render it more impressive
upon the imagination through the senses; the substitution of sentiment
for real religious principle; and the license which this gave to
inventions of men, which in process of time became complicated and
monstrous. That debasement of mind, and that alienation of the heart
from God, and the gross immoralities and licentious practices which have
ever accompanied idolatry, will sufficiently account for the severity
with which it is denounced, both in the Old and New Testaments.

The veneration which the Papists pay to the Virgin Mary, and other
saints and angels, and to the bread in the sacrament, the cross, relics,
and images, affords ground for the Protestants to charge them with being
idolaters, though they deny that they are so. It is evident that they
worship these persons and things, and that they justify the worship, but
deny the idolatry of it, by distinguishing subordinate from supreme
worship. This distinction is justly thought by Protestants to be futile
and nugatory, and certainly has no support from Holy Writ.

Under the government of Samuel, Saul, and David, there was little or no
idolatry in Israel. Solomon was the first Hebrew king, who, in
complaisance to his foreign wives, built temples and offered incense to
strange gods. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who succeeded him in the
greater part of his dominions, set up golden calves at Dan and Bethel.
Under the reign of Ahab, this disorder was at its height, occasioned by
Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, who did all she could to destroy the worship
of the true God, by driving away and persecuting his prophets. God,
therefore, incensed at the sins and idolatry of the ten tribes,
abandoned those tribes to the kings of Assyria and Chaldea, who
transplanted them beyond the Euphrates, from whence they never returned.
The people of Judah were no less corrupted. The prophets give an awful
description of their idolatrous practices. They were punished after the
same manner, though not so severely, as the ten tribes; being led into
captivity several times, from which at last they returned, and were
settled in the land of Judea, after which we hear no more of their
idolatry. They have been, indeed, ever since that period, distinguished
for their zeal against it. See Image.

IDUMÆA is properly the Greek name for the land of Edom, which lay to the
south of Judea, and extended from the Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf of
the Red Sea, where were the ports of Elath and Ezion-Gaber. But the
Idumæa of the New Testament applies only to a small part adjoining Judea
on the south, and including even a portion of that country; which was
taken possession of by the Edomites, or Idumæans, while the land lay
unoccupied during the Babylonish captivity. The capital of this country
was Hebron, which had formerly been the metropolis of the tribe of
Judah. These Idumæans were so reduced by the Maccabees, that, in order
to retain their possessions, they consented to embrace Judaism; and
their territory became incorporated with Judea; although, in the time of
our Saviour, it still retained its former name of Idumæa, Mark iii, 8.
The proper Idumæans, or those who remained in the ancient land of Edom,
became in process of time mingled with the Ishmaelites; the two people
thus blended, being, from Nabaioth, or Nabath, the son of Ishmael,
termed Nabathæans; under which names they are frequently mentioned in
history. See EDOM.

ILLYRICUM, a province lying to the north and north-west of Macedonia,
along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Gulf, or Gulf of Venice. It was
distinguished into two parts: Liburnia to the north, where is now
Croatia, and Dalmatia to the south, which still retains the same name,
and to which, as St. Paul informs Timothy, Titus went, 2 Tim. iv, 10.
St. Paul says, that he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to
Illyricum, Rom. xv, 19.

IMAGE, in a religious sense, is an artificial representation of some
person or thing used as an object of adoration, and is synonymous with
idol. Nothing can be more clear, full, and distinct, than the
expressions of Scripture prohibiting the making and worship of images,
Exod. xx, 4, 5; Deut. xvi, 22. No sin is so strongly and repeatedly
condemned in the Old Testament as that of idolatry, to which the Jews,
in the early part of their history, were much addicted, and for which
they were constantly punished. St. Paul was greatly affected, when he
saw that the city of Athens was “wholly given to idolatry,” Acts xvii,
16; and declared to the Athenians, that they ought not “to think that
the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and
man’s device,” Acts xvii, 29. He condemns those who “changed the glory
of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man,
and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things,” Romans i,
23.

That the first Christians had no images, is evident from this
circumstance,--that they were reproached by the Heathens, because they
did not use them; and we find almost every ecclesiastical writer of the
first four centuries arguing against the Gentile practice of image
worship, from the plain declarations of Scripture, and from the pure and
spiritual nature of God. The introduction of images into places of
Christian worship, dates its origin soon after the times of Constantine
the Great; but the earlier Christians reprobated every species of image
worship in the strongest language. It is sometimes pretended by the
Papists, that they do not worship the images, but God through the medium
of images; or, that the worship which they pay to images is inferior to
that which they pay to the Deity himself. These distinctions would be
scarcely understood by the common people; and formerly an enlightened
Heathen or Jew would probably have urged the same thing. The practice is
in direct opposition to the second commandment, and notwithstanding
every sophistical palliation, it has always led to a transfer of human
trust from God to something else. Hence idolatry, in general, is
condemned in Scripture; and all use of images in the worship of God,
making or bowing to any likeness, is absolutely forbidden. See
ICONOCLASTES and IDOLATRY.

IMMATERIALITY, abstraction from matter; or what we understand by pure
spirit.

IMMORTAL. That which will endure to all eternity, as having in itself no
principle of alteration or corruption. God is absolutely immortal,--he
cannot die. Angels are immortal; but God, who made them, can terminate
their being. Man is immortal in part, that is, in his spirit; but his
body dies. Inferior creatures are not immortal; they die wholly. Thus
the principle of immortality is differently communicated according to
the will of him who can render any creature immortal, by prolonging its
life; who can confer immortality on the body of man, together with his
soul; and will do so at the resurrection. God only is absolutely
perfect, and, therefore, absolutely immortal. See SOUL.

IMPOSITION OF HANDS. An ecclesiastical action, by which, among
Episcopalians, a bishop lays his hands on the head of a person, in
ordination, confirmation, or in uttering a blessing. In Presbyterian
churches, the imposition is by the hands of the presbytery. This
practice is also frequently observed by the Independents and others at
their ordinations, when all the ministers present place their hands on
the head of him whom they are ordaining, while one of them prays for a
blessing on him and his future labours. This they retain as an ancient
practice, justified by the example of the Apostles, when no
extraordinary gifts were conveyed. However, Christians are not agreed as
to the propriety of this ceremony; nor do they all consider it as an
essential part of ordination.

Imposition of hands was a Jewish ceremony, introduced, not by any divine
authority, but by custom; it being the practice among that people,
whenever they prayed to God for any person, to lay their hands on his
head. Our Saviour observed the same custom, both when he conferred his
blessing on children, and when he cured the sick. The Apostles likewise
laid hands on those upon whom they bestowed the Holy Ghost, but it was a
form accompanied by _prayer_, through which only the blessing was
obtained. And the Apostles themselves sometimes underwent the imposition
of hands afresh, when they entered upon any new design. In the ancient
church, imposition of hands was practised on persons when they married;
which custom the Abyssinians still observe. But this ceremony of laying
on of hands is now restrained, by custom, chiefly to that imposition
which is practised at the ordination of ministers.

[In the Methodist Episcopal Church, a bishop is constituted by the
election of the general conference, and the laying on of the hands of
three bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders; unless it
happen that, by death or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in the
church: in this case, the general conference is empowered to elect a
bishop, and the elders, or any three of them appointed by the general
conference for that purpose, to ordain him. An elder is constituted by
the election of an annual conference, and the laying on of the hands of
a bishop and of two or more elders. A deacon, by the election of an
annual conference, and the laying on of the hands of a bishop.]

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. See JUSTIFICATION.

INCENSE. _Thus_; so called by the dealers of drugs in Egypt from _thur_,
or _thor_, the name of a harbour in the north bay of the Red Sea, near
Mount Sinai; thereby distinguishing it from the gum arabic, which is
brought from Suez, another port in the Red Sea, not far from Cairo. It
differs also in being more pellucid and white. It burns with a bright
and strong flame, not easily extinguished. It was used in the temple
service as an emblem of prayer, Psalm cxli, 2; Rev. viii, 3, 4. Authors
give it, or the best sort of it, the epithets white, pure, pellucid; and
so it may have some connection with a word, derived from the same root,
signifying unstained, clear, and so applied to moral whiteness and
purity, Psalm li, 7; Dan. xii, 10. This gum is said to distil from
incisions made in the tree during the heat of summer. What the form of
the tree is which yields it, we do not certainly know. Pliny one while
says, it is like a pear tree; another, that it is like a mastic tree;
then, that it is like the laurel; and, in fine, that it is a kind of
turpentine tree. It has been said to grow only in the country of the
Sabeans, a people in Arabia Felix; and Theophrastus and Pliny affirm
that it is found in Arabia. Dioscorides, however, mentions an Indian as
well as an Arabian frankincense. At the present day it is brought from
the East Indies, but not of so good a quality as that from Arabia. The
“sweet incense,” mentioned Exodus xxx, 7, and elsewhere, was a compound
of several drugs, agreeably to the direction in the thirty-fourth verse.
To offer incense was an office peculiar to the priests. They went twice
a day into the holy place; namely, morning and evening, to burn incense
there. Upon the great day of expiation, the high priest took incense, or
perfume, pounded and ready for being put into the censer, and threw it
upon the fire, the moment he went into the sanctuary. One reason of this
was, that so the smoke which rose from the censer might prevent his
looking with too much curiosity on the ark and mercy-seat. God
threatened him with death upon failing to perform this ceremony, Lev.
xvi, 13. Generally incense is to be considered as an emblem of the
“prayers of the saints,” and is so used by the sacred writers.

INCEST, an unlawful conjunction of persons related within the degrees of
kindred prohibited by God. In the beginning of the world, and again,
long after the deluge, marriages between near relations were allowed. In
the time of Abraham and Isaac, these marriages were permitted, and among
the Persians much later: it is even said to be esteemed neither criminal
nor ignominious among the remains of the old Persians at this day. Some
authors believe that marriages between near relations were permitted,
or, at least, tolerated, till the time of Moses, who first prohibited
them among the Hebrews; and that among other people they were allowed
even after him. Others hold the contrary; but it is hard to establish
either of these opinions, for want of historical documents. The degrees
of consanguinity within which marriage was prohibited are stated in Lev.
xviii, 6–18. Most civilized people have looked on incests as abominable
crimes. St. Paul, speaking of the incestuous man of Corinth, says, “It
is reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father’s wife,” 1 Cor. v, 1. In order to preserve
chastity in families, and between persons of different sexes, brought up
and living together in a state of unreserved intimacy, it is necessary,
by every method possible, to inculcate an abhorrence of incestuous
conjunctions; which abhorrence can only be upholden by the absolute
reprobation of all commerce of the sexes between near relations. Upon
this principle, the marriage, as well as other cohabitations, of
brothers and sisters, of lineal kindred, and of all who usually live in
the same family, may be said to be forbidden by the law of nature.
Restrictions which extend to remoter degrees of kindred than what this
reason makes it necessary to prohibit from intermarriage, are founded in
the authority of the positive law which ordains them, and can only be
justified by their tendency to diffuse wealth, to connect families, or
to promote some political advantage. The Levitical law, which is
received in this country, and from which the rule of the Roman law
differs very little, prohibits marriages between relations within three
degrees of kindred; computing the generations, not from, but through,
the common ancestor, and accounting affinity the same as consanguinity.
The issue, however, of such marriages are not bastardized, unless the
parents be divorced during their life time.

INCHANTMENTS. The law of God condemns inchantments and inchanters.
Several terms are used in Scripture to denote inchantments: 1. לחש,
which signifies _to mutter_, _to speak with a low voice_, like magicians
in their evocations and magical operations, Psalm lviii, 6. 2. לטים,
_secrets_, whence Moses speaks of the inchantments wrought by Pharaoh’s
magicians. 3. כשף, meaning those who practise juggling, legerdemain,
tricks, and witchery, deluding people’s eyes and senses, 2 Chron.
xxxiii, 6. 4. חבר, which signifies, properly, _to bind_, _assemble_,
_associate_, _reunite_: this occurs principally among those who charm
serpents, who tame them, and make them gentle and sociable, which before
were fierce, dangerous, and untractable, Deut. xviii, 11. We have
examples of each of these ways of inchanting. It was common for
magicians, sorcerers, and inchanters, to speak in a low voice, to
whisper: they are called _ventriloqui_, because they spake, as one would
suppose, from the bottom of their stomachs. They affected secrecy and
mysterious ways, to conceal the vanity, folly, or infamy of their
pernicious art. Their pretended magic often consisted in cunning tricks
only, in sleight of hand, or some natural secrets, unknown to the
ignorant. They affected obscurity and night, or would show their skill
only before the uninformed or mean persons, and feared nothing so much
as serious examinations, broad day-light, and the inspection of the
intelligent. Respecting the inchantments practised by Pharaoh’s
magicians, (see Exod. viii, 18, 19,) in order to imitate the miracles
which were wrought by Moses, it must be said either that they were mere
illusions, whereby they imposed on the spectators; or that, if they
performed such miracles, and produced real changes of their rods, and
the other things said to be performed by them, it must have been by a
supernatural power which God had permitted Satan to give them, but the
farther operation of which he afterward thought proper to prevent.

INDEPENDENTS, a denomination of Protestants in England and Holland,
originally called Brownists. They derive their name from their
maintaining that every particular congregation of Christians has,
according to the New Testament, a full power of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction over its members, independent of the authority of bishops,
synods, presbyteries, or any other ecclesiastical assemblies. This
denomination appeared in England in the year 1616. John Robinson, a
Norfolk divine, who, being banished from his native country for
non-conformity, afterward settled at Leyden, was considered as their
founder and father. He possessed sincere piety, and no inconsiderable
share of learning. Perceiving defects in the denomination of the
Brownists, to which he belonged, he employed his zeal and diligence in
correcting them and in new modelling the society. Though the
Independents considered their own form of ecclesiastical government as
of divine institution, and as originally introduced by the authority of
the Apostles, nay, by the Apostles themselves; yet they did not always
think it necessary to condemn other denominations, but often
acknowledged that true religion might flourish in those communities
which were under the jurisdiction of bishops, or the government of
presbyteries. They approved, also, of a regular and educated ministry;
nor is any person among them now permitted to speak in public before he
has submitted to a proper examination of his capacity and talents, and
has been approved of by the church to which he belonged. Their grounds
of separation from the established church are different from those of
other puritans. Many of the latter objected chiefly to certain rites,
ceremonies, vestments, or forms, or to the government of the church;
while yet they were disposed to arm the magistrate in support of the
truth, and regretted and complained that they could not on these
accounts conform to it. But Robinson and his companions not only
rejected the appointments of the church on these heads, but denied its
authority to enact them; contending, that every single congregation of
Christians was a church, and independent of all legislation, save that
of Christ; standing in need of no such provision or establishment as the
state can bestow, and incapable of soliciting or receiving it. Hence
they sought not to reform the church, but chose to dissent from it. They
admitted there were many godly men in its communion, and that it was
reformed from the grossest errors of the man of sin; but thought it
still wanted some things essential to a true church of Christ; in
particular, a power of choosing its own ministers, and a stricter
discipline among its members. The creed of the Independents is uniformly
Calvinistic, though with considerable shades of difference; and many in
Scotland and Ireland have symbolized with the Sandemanians, or the
Scottish Baptist denominations. The Congregationalist and Independent
have been generally considered as convertible and synonymous: many,
however, in the present day, prefer the former appellation, considering
it desirable, in many cases, to unite, for mutual advice and support,
more closely than the term _independent_ seems to warrant.

INDULGENCES. In the primitive church very severe penalties were
inflicted on those who had been guilty of any sins, whether public or
private; and, in particular, they were forbidden to partake, for a
certain time, of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or to hold any
communion with the church. General rules were formed upon these
subjects; but as it was often found expedient to make a discrimination
in the degrees of punishment, according to the different circumstances
of the offenders, and especially when they showed marks of contrition
and repentance, power was given to bishops, by the council of Nice, to
relax or remit those punishments as they should see reason. Every favour
of this kind was called an indulgence or pardon. After the bishops had
enjoyed this privilege for some centuries, and had begun to abuse it,
the popes discovered that in their own hands it might be rendered a
powerful instrument to promote both their ambition and their avarice.
They could not but perceive that if they could persuade men they had the
power of granting pardon for sin, it would give them a complete
influence over their consciences; and if they could at the same time
prevail upon them to purchase these pardons for money, it must add
greatly to the wealth of the Roman see. In the eleventh century,
therefore, when the dominion of the popes was rising to its zenith, and
their power was almost irresistible, they took to themselves the
exclusive prerogative of dispensing indulgences, which they carried to a
most unwarrantable length. Instead of confining them, according to their
original institution, to the ordinary purposes of ecclesiastical
discipline, they extended them to the punishment of the wicked in the
world to come; instead of shortening the duration of earthly penance,
they pretended that they could deliver men from the pains of purgatory;
instead of allowing them gratuitously, and upon just grounds, to the
penitent offender, they sold them in the most open and corrupt manner to
the profligate and abandoned, who still continued in their vices. They
did not scruple to call these indulgences a plenary remission of all
sins, past, present, and future, and to offer them as a certain and
immediate passport from the troubles of this world to the eternal joys
of heaven. To give some sort of colour and support to this infamous
traffic, they confidently asserted that the superabundant merits of
Christ, and of his faithful servants, formed a fund of which the pope
was the sole manager; and that he could, at his own discretion, dispense
those merits, as the sure means of procuring pardon from God, in any
proportions, for any species of wickedness, and to any person he
pleased. The bare statement of this doctrine is a sufficient refutation
of it; and it is scarcely necessary to add, that it has no foundation
whatever in Scripture. It is an arrogant and impious usurpation of a
power which belongs to God alone; and it has an obvious tendency to
promote licentiousness and sin of every description, by holding out an
easy and certain method of absolution. The popes derived very large sums
from the sale of these indulgences; and it is well known that the gross
abuses practised in granting them were among the immediate and principal
causes of bringing about the reformation. They continue still to be sold
at Rome, and are to be purchased by any who are weak enough to buy them.
The sums required for indulgences were first published by Anthony Egane,
a Franciscan friar, in 1673; and the original pamphlet was republished
by Baron Maseres, in 1809, in his last volume of “Occasional Essays.”

INK. The ink of the ancients was not so fluid as ours. Demosthenes
reproaches Æschines with labouring in the grinding of ink, as painters
do in the grinding of their colours. The substance also found in an
inkstand at Herculaneum, looks like a thick oil or paint, with which the
manuscripts there have been written in a relievo visible in the letters,
when you hold a leaf to the light in a horizontal direction. Such
vitriolic ink as has been used on the old parchment manuscripts would
have corroded the delicate leaves of the papyrus, as it has done the
skins of the most ancient manuscripts of Virgil and Terence, in the
Vatican library; the letters are sunk into the parchment, and some have
eaten quite through it, in consequence of the corrosive acid of the
vitriolic ink, with which they were written. The inkhorn is also
mentioned in Scripture: “And one man among them was clothed with linen,
with a writer’s inkhorn by his side,” Ezek. ix, 2. The eastern mode and
apparatus for writing differs so materially from those with which we are
conversant, that it is necessary particularly to describe them.
D'Arvieux informs us that “the Arabs of the desert, when they want a
favour of their emir, get his secretary to write an order agreeable to
their desire, as if the favour were granted, this they carry to the
prince, who, after having read it, sets his seal to it with ink, if he
grants it; if not, he returns the petitioner his paper torn, and
dismisses him. These papers are without date, and have only the emir’s
flourish or cypher at the bottom, signifying the poor, the abject
Mohammed, son of Turabeye.” Pococke says, that “they make the impression
of their name with their seal, generally of cornelian, which they wear
on their finger, and which is blacked when they have occasion to seal
with it.” The custom of placing the inkhorn by the side, Olearius says,
continues in the east to this day. Dr. Shaw informs us, that, among the
Moors in Barbary, “the _hojas_, that is, the writers or secretaries,
suspend their inkhorns in their girdles; a custom as old as the Prophet
Ezekiel, ix, 2.” And in a note he adds, “that part of these inkhorns (if
an instrument of brass may be so called) which passes between the girdle
and the tunic, and holds their pens, is long and flat; but the vessel
for the ink which rests upon the girdle is square, with a lid to clasp
over it.” So Mr. Hanway: “Their writers carry their ink and pens about
them in a case, which they put under their sash.”

INN. The inns or caravanserais of the east, in which travellers are
accommodated, are not all alike, some being simply places of rest, by
the side of a fountain, if possible, and at a proper distance on the
road. Many of these places are nothing more than naked walls; others
have an attendant, who subsists either by some charitable donation, or
the benevolence of passengers; others are more considerable
establishments, where families reside, and take care of them, and
furnish the necessary provisions. “Caravanserais,” says Campbell, “were
originally intended for, and are now pretty generally applied to, the
accommodation of strangers and travellers, though, like every other good
institution, sometimes perverted to the purposes of private emolument,
or public job. They are built at proper distances through the roads of
the Turkish dominions, and afford to the indigent or weary traveller an
asylum from the inclemency of the weather, are in general built of the
most solid and durable materials, have commonly one story above the
ground floor, the lower of which is arched, and serves for warehouses to
store goods, for lodgings, and for stables, while the upper is used
merely for lodgings; beside which they are always accommodated with a
fountain, and have cooks’ shops and other conveniences to supply the
wants of lodgers. In Aleppo, the caravanserais are almost exclusively
occupied by merchants, to whom they are, like other houses, rented.” “In
all other Turkish provinces,” observes Antes, “particularly those in
Asia, which are often thinly inhabited, travelling is subject to
numberless inconveniences, since it is necessary not only to carry all
sorts of provisions along with one, but even the very utensils to dress
them in, beside a tent for shelter at night and in bad weather, as there
are no inns, except here and there a caravanserai, where nothing but
bare rooms, and those often very bad, and infested with all sorts of
vermin, can be procured.” “There are no inns anywhere,” says Volney,
“but the cities, and commonly the villages, have a large building called
a kan or kervanserai, which serves as an asylum for all travellers.
These houses of reception are always built without the precincts of
towns, and consist of four wings round a square court, which serves by
way of enclosure for the beasts of burden. The lodgings are cells, where
you find nothing but bare walls, dust, and sometimes scorpions. The
keeper of this kan gives the traveller the key and a mat, and he
provides himself the rest; he must therefore carry with him his bed, his
kitchen utensils, and even his provisions, for frequently not even bread
is to be found in the villages. On this account the orientals contrive
their equipage in the most simple and portable form. The baggage of a
man who wishes to be completely provided, consists in a carpet, a
mattress, a blanket, two sauce pans with lids contained within each
other, two dishes, two plates, and a coffee pot, all of copper, well
tinned, a small wooden box for salt and pepper, a round leathern table,
which he suspends from the saddle of his horse, small leathern bottles
or bags for oil, melted butter, water, and brandy, if the traveller be a
Christian, a tinder box, a cup of cocoa nut, some rice, dried raisins,
dates, Cyprus cheese, and, above all, coffee berries, with a roaster and
wooden mortar to pound them.” The Scriptures use two words to express a
caravanserai, in both instances translated inn: “There was no room for
them in the inn,” καταλύματι, Luke ii, 7; the place of untying, that is,
of beasts for rest. “And brought him to the inn,” ϖανδοχεῖον, Luke x,
34, whose keeper is called in the next verse ϖανδοχεὺς. This word
properly signifies “a receptacle open to all comers.” “The serai or
principal caravansary at Surat,” observes Forbes, “was much neglected.
Most of the eastern cities contain one, at least, for the reception of
strangers; smaller places, called choultries, are erected by charitable
persons, or munificent princes, in forests, plains, and deserts, for the
accommodation of travellers. Near them is generally a well, and a
cistern for the cattle; a brahmin, or fakeer, often resides there to
furnish the pilgrim with food, and the few necessaries he may stand in
need of. In the deserts of Persia and Arabia, these buildings are
invaluable; in those pathless plains, for many miles together, not a
tree, a bush, nor even a blade of grass, is to be seen; all is one
undulating mass of sand, like waves on the trackless ocean. In these
ruthless wastes, where no rural village or cheerful hamlet, no inn or
house of refreshment, is to be found, how noble is the charity that
rears the hospitable roof, that plants the shady grove, and conducts the
refreshing moisture into reservoirs!”

INSPIRATION, the conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural
notices or thoughts into the soul; or it denotes any supernatural
influence of God upon the mind of a rational creature, whereby he is
formed to a degree of intellectual improvement, to which he could not
have attained in his present circumstances in a natural way. In the
first and highest sense, the prophets, evangelists, and Apostles are
said to have spoken and written by divine inspiration. This inspiration
of the Old Testament Scriptures is so expressly attested by our Lord and
his Apostles, that among those who receive them as a divine revelation
the only question relates to the inspiration of the New Testament. On
this subject it has been well observed:--

1. That the inspiration of the Apostles appears to have been necessary
for the purposes of their mission; and, therefore, if we admit that
Jesus came from God, and that he sent them forth to make disciples, we
shall acknowledge that some degree of inspiration is highly probable.
The first light in which the books of the New Testament lead us to
consider the Apostles, is, as the historians of Jesus. After having been
his companions during his ministry, they came forth to bear witness of
him; and as the benefit of his religion was not to be confined to the
age in which he or they lived, they left in the four Gospels a record of
what he did and taught. Two of the four were written by the Apostles
Matthew and John. St. Mark and St. Luke, whose names are prefixed to the
other two, were probably of the seventy whom our Lord sent out in his
life time; and we learn from the most ancient Christian historians, that
the Gospel of St. Mark was revised by St. Peter, and the Gospel of St.
Luke by St. Paul, and that both were afterward approved by St. John; so
that all the four may be considered as transmitted to the church with
the sanction of apostolical authority. Now, if we recollect the
condition of the Apostles, and the nature of their history, we shall
perceive that, even as historians, they stood in need of some measure of
inspiration. Plato might feel himself at liberty to feign many things of
his master Socrates, because it mattered little to the world whether the
instruction that was conveyed to them proceeded from the one philosopher
or from the other. But the servants of a divine teacher, who appeared as
his witnesses, and professed to be the historians of his life, were
bound by their office to give a true record. And their history was an
imposition upon the world, if they did not declare exactly and literally
what they had seen and heard. This was an office which required not only
a love of the truth, but a memory more retentive and more accurate than
it was possible for the Apostles to possess. To relate, at the distance
of twenty years, long moral discourses, which were not originally
written, and which were not attended with any striking circumstances
that might imprint them upon the mind; to preserve a variety of
parables, the beauty and significancy of which depended upon particular
expressions; to record long and minute prophecies, where the alteration
of a single phrase might have produced an inconsistency between the
event and the prediction; and to give a particular detail of the
intercourse which Jesus had with his friends and with his enemies;--all
this is a work so very much above the capacity of unlearned men, that,
had they attempted to execute it by their own natural powers, they must
have fallen into such absurdities and contradictions as would have
betrayed them to every discerning eye. It was therefore highly
expedient, and even necessary, for the faith of future ages, that,
beside those opportunities of information which the Apostles enjoyed,
and that tried integrity which they possessed, their understanding and
their memory should be assisted by a supernatural influence, which might
prevent them from mistaking the meaning of what they had heard, which
might restrain them from putting into the mouth of Jesus any words which
he did not utter, or omitting what was important, and which might thus
give us perfect security, that the Gospels are as faithful a copy as if
Jesus himself had left in writing those sayings and those actions which
he wished posterity to remember.

But we consider the Apostles in the lowest view, when we speak of them
as barely the historians of their Master. In their epistles they assume
a higher character, which renders inspiration still more necessary. All
the benefit which they derived from the public and the private
instructions of Jesus before his death had not so far opened their minds
as to qualify them for receiving the whole counsel of God. And he who
knows what is in man declares to them, the night on which he was
betrayed, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear
them now,” John xv, 12. The purpose of many of his parables, the full
meaning even of some of his plain discourses, had not been attained by
them. They had marvelled when he spake to them of earthly things. But
many heavenly things of his kingdom had not been told them; and they who
were destined to carry his religion to the ends of the earth themselves
needed, at the times of their receiving this commission, that some one
should instruct them in the doctrine of Christ. It is true that, after
his resurrection, Jesus opened their understandings, and explained to
them the Scriptures; and he continued upon earth forty days, speaking to
them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. It appears,
however, from the history which they have recorded in the book of Acts,
that some farther teaching was necessary for them, Acts i. Immediately
before our Lord ascended, their minds being still full of the
expectation of a temporal kingdom, they say unto him, “Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It was not till some time
after they received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that they understood
that the Gospel had taken away the obligation to observe the ceremonies
of the Mosaic law; and the action of St. Peter in baptizing Cornelius, a
devout Heathen, gave offence to some of the Apostles and brethren in
Judea when they first heard it, Acts xi. Yet, in their epistles, we find
just notions of the spiritual nature of the religion of Jesus as a
kingdom of righteousness, the subjects of which are to receive remission
of sins, and sanctification through his blood, and just notions also of
the extent of this religion as a dispensation the spiritual blessings of
which are to be communicated to all, in every land, who receive it in
faith and love. These notions appear to us to be the explication both of
the ancient predictions, and of many particular expressions that occur
in the discourses of our Lord. But it is manifest that they had not been
acquired by the Apostles during the teaching of Jesus. They are so
adverse to every thing which men educated in Jewish prejudices had
learned and had hoped, that they could not be the fruit of their own
reflections; and therefore they imply the teaching of that Spirit who
gradually impressed them upon the mind, guiding the Apostles gently, as
they were able to follow him, into all the truth connected with the
salvation of mankind. As inspiration was necessary to give the minds of
the Apostles possession of the system that is unfolded in their
epistles, so many parts of that system are removed to such a distance
from human discoveries, and are liable to such misapprehension, that
unless we suppose a continued superintendence of the Spirit by whom it
was taught, succeeding ages would not have a sufficient security that
those who were employed to deliver it had not been guilty of gross
mistakes in some most important doctrines.

Inspiration will appear still farther necessary, when we recollect that
the writings of the Apostles contain several predictions of things to
come. St. Paul foretels, in his epistles, the corruptions of the church
of Rome, and many other circumstances which have taken place in the
history of the Christian church; and the Revelation is a book of
prophecy, of which part has been already fulfilled, while the rest will
no doubt be explained by the events which are to arise in the course of
Providence. But prophecy is a kind of writing which implies the highest
degree of inspiration. When predictions, like those in Scripture, are
particular and complicated, and the events are so remote and so
contingent as to be out of the reach of human sagacity, it is plain that
the writers of the predictions do not speak according to the measure of
information which they had acquired by natural means, but are merely the
instruments through which the Almighty communicates, in such measure and
such language as he thinks fit, that knowledge of futurity which is
denied to man. And although the full meaning of their own predictions
was not understood by themselves, they will be acknowledged to be true
prophets when the fulfilment comes to reflect light upon that language,
which, for wise purposes, was made dark at the time of its being put
into their mouth.

Thus the nature of the writings of the Apostles suggests the necessity
of their having been inspired. They could not be accurate historians of
the life of Jesus without divine inspiration, nor safe expounders of his
doctrine, nor prophets of distant events.

2. Inspiration was promised by our Lord to his Apostles. It is not
unfair reasoning to adduce promises contained in the Scriptures
themselves, as proofs of their divine inspiration. It were, indeed,
reasoning in a circle, to bring the testimony of the Scriptures in proof
of the divine mission of Jesus. But that being established by sufficient
evidence, and the books of the New Testament having been proved to be
the authentic genuine records of the persons whose names they bear, we
are warranted to argue, from the declarations contained in them, what is
the measure of inspiration which Jesus was pleased to bestow upon his
servants. He might have been a divine teacher, and they might have been
his Apostles, although he had bestowed none at all. But his character
gives us security that they possessed all that he promised. We read in
the Gospels that Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him, and
that he might send them forth to preach, Mark iii, 14. And as this was
the purpose for which they were first called, so it was the charge left
them at his departure. “Go,” said he, “preach the Gospel to every
creature: make disciples of all nations,” Mark xvi, 16; Matt. xxviii,
19. His constant familiar intercourse with them was intended to qualify
them for the execution of this charge; and the promises made to them
have a special reference to the office in which they were to be
employed. When he sent them, during his life, to preach in the cities of
Israel, he said, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or
what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you,” Matt. x, 19, 20. And when he spake to them in
his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the persecution which
they were to endure after his death, he repeats the same promise: “For I
will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not
be able to gainsay nor resist,” Luke xxi, 15. It is admitted that the
words in both these passages refer properly to that assistance which the
inexperience of the Apostles was to derive from the suggestions of the
Spirit, when they should be called to defend their conduct and their
cause before the tribunals of the magistrates. But the fulfilment of
this promise was a pledge, both to the Apostles and to the world, that
the measure of inspiration necessary for the more important purpose
implied in their commission would not be withheld; and, accordingly,
when that purpose came to be unfolded to the Apostles, the promise of
the assistance of the Spirit was expressed in a manner which applies it
to the extent of their commission. In the long affectionate discourse
recorded by St. John, when our Lord took a solemn farewell of the
disciples, after eating the last passover with them, he said, “And I
will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he
may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye
know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. The Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you. I have yet many things to say unto you,
but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of
himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak; and he will
show you things to come,” John xiv, 16, 17, 26; xvi, 12, 13. Here are
all the degrees of inspiration which we have seen to be necessary for
the Apostles: the Spirit was to bring to their remembrance what they had
heard; to guide them into the truth, which they were not then able to
bear; and to show them things to come; and all this they were to derive,
not from occasional illapses, but from the perpetual inhabitation of the
Spirit. That this inspiration was vouchsafed to them, not for their own
sakes, but in order to qualify them for the successful discharge of
their office as the messengers of Christ, and the instructers of
mankind, appears from several expressions of that prayer which
immediately follows the discourse containing the promise of inspiration;
particularly from these words: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for
them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they may be
one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me,” John
xvii, 20, 21. In conformity to this prayer, so becoming him who was not
merely the friend of the Apostles, but the light of the world, is that
charge which he gives them immediately before his ascension: “Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; I am with
you alway, not by my bodily presence; for immediately after he was taken
out of their sight; but I am with you by the Holy Ghost, whom I am to
send upon you not many days hence, and who is to abide with you for
ever.

The promise of Jesus, then, implies, according to the plain construction
of the words, that the Apostles, in executing their commission, were not
to be left wholly to their natural powers, but were to be assisted by
that illumination and direction of the Spirit which the nature of the
commission required; and we may learn the sense which our Lord had of
the importance and effect of this promise from one circumstance, that he
never makes any distinction between his own words and those of his
Apostles, but places the doctrines and commandments which they were to
deliver upon a footing with those which he had spoken: “He that heareth
you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me,” Luke x, 16. These words
plainly imply that Christians have no warrant to pay less regard to any
thing contained in the epistles than to that which is contained in the
Gospels; and teach us that every doctrine and precept clearly delivered
by the Apostles comes to the Christian world with the same stamp of the
divine authority as the words of Jesus, who spake in the name of him
that sent him.

The Author of our religion having thus made the faith of the Christian
world to hang upon the teaching of the Apostles, gave the most signal
manifestation of the fulfilment of that promise which was to qualify
them for their office, by the miraculous gifts with which they were
endowed on the day of pentecost, and by the abundance of those gifts
which the imposition of their hands was to diffuse through the church.
One of the twelve, indeed, whose labours in preaching the Gospel were
the most abundant and the most extensive, was not present at this
manifestation; for St. Paul was not called to be an Apostle till after
the day of pentecost. But it is very remarkable that the manner of his
being called was expressly calculated to supply this deficiency. As he
journeyed to Damascus, about noon, to bring the Christians who were
there bound to Jerusalem, there shone from heaven a great light round
about him. And he heard a voice, saying, “I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest. And I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,
and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; and now I send
thee to the Gentiles to open their eyes,” Acts xxvi, 12–18. In reference
to this manner of his being called, St. Paul generally inscribes his
epistles with these words: “Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
will” or “by the commandment of God;” and he explains very fully what he
meant by the use of this expression, in the beginning of his Epistle to
the Galatians, where he gives an account of his conversion: “Paul, an
Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead. I neither received the Gospel of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called
me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among
the Heathen: immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went
into Arabia,” Gal. i, 1, 12, 15–17. All that we said of the necessity of
inspiration, and of the import of the promise which Jesus made to the
other Apostles, receives very great confirmation from this history of
St. Paul, who, being called to be an Apostle after the ascension of
Jesus, received the Gospel by immediate revelation from heaven, and was
thus put upon a footing with the rest, both as to his designation, which
did not proceed from the choice of man, and as to his qualifications,
which were imparted, not by human instruction, but by the teaching of
the Author of Christianity. The Lord Jesus who appeared to him might
furnish St. Paul with the same advantages which the other Apostles had
derived from his presence on earth, and might give him the same
assurance of the inhabitation of the Spirit that the promises, which we
have been considering, had imparted to those.

3. Inspiration was claimed by the Apostles; and their claim may be
considered as the interpretation of the promise of their Master. We
shall not find the claim to inspiration formally advanced in the
Gospels. This omission has sometimes been stated by those superficial
critics, whose prejudices serve to account for their haste, as an
objection against the existence of inspiration. But if you attend to the
reason of the omission, you will perceive that it is only an instance of
that delicate propriety which pervades all the New Testament. The
Gospels are the record of the great facts which vouch the truth of
Christianity. These facts are to be received upon the testimony of men
who had been eye-witnesses of them. The foundation of Christian faith
being laid in an assent to these facts, it would have been preposterous
to have introduced in support of them that influence of the Spirit which
preserved the minds of the Apostles from error. For there can be no
proof of the inspiration of the Apostles, unless the truth of the facts
be previously admitted. The Apostles, therefore, bring forward the
evidence of Christianity in its natural order, when they speak in the
Gospels as the companions and eye-witnesses of Jesus, claiming that
credit which is due to honest men who had the best opportunities of
knowing what they declared. This is the language of St. John: “Many
other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples. But these are
written that ye may believe; and this is the disciple which testifieth
these things,” John xx, 30, 31; xxi, 24. The Evangelist Luke appears to
speak differently in the introduction to his Gospel, Luke i, 1–4; and
opposite opinions have been entertained respecting the information
conveyed by that introduction.

There is a difference of opinion, first, with regard to the time when
St. Luke wrote his Gospel. It appears to some to be expressly intimated
that he wrote after St. Matthew and St. Mark, because he speaks of other
Gospels then in circulation; and it is generally understood that St.
John wrote his after the other three. But the manner in which St. Luke
speaks of these other Gospels does not seem to apply to those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. He calls them many, which implies that they were
more than two, and which would confound these two canonical Gospels with
imperfect accounts of our Lord’s life, which we know from ancient
writers were early circulated, but were rejected after the four Gospels
were published. It is hardly conceivable that St. Luke would have
alluded to the two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark without
distinguishing them from other very inferior productions; and therefore
it is probable that when he used this mode of expression, no accounts of
our Lord’s life were then in existence but those inferior productions.
There appears, also, to very sound critics, to be internal evidence that
St. Luke wrote first. He is much more particular than the other
evangelists in his report of our Lord’s birth, and of the meetings with
his Apostles after his resurrection. They might think it unnecessary to
introduce the same particulars into their Gospels after St. Luke. But if
they wrote before him, the want of these particulars gives to their
Gospels an appearance of imperfection which we cannot easily explain.

The other point suggested by this introduction, upon which there has
been a difference of opinion, is, whether St. Luke, who was not an
Apostle, wrote his Gospel from personal knowledge, attained by his being
a companion of Jesus, or from the information of others. Our translation
certainly favours the last opinion; and it is the more general opinion,
defended by very able critics. Dr. Randolph, in the first volume of his
works, which contains a history of our Saviour’s life, supports the
first opinion, and suggests a punctuation of the verses, and an
interpretation of one word, according to which that opinion may be
defended. Read the second and third verses in connection: Καθὼς
ϖαρέδοσαν ἡμῖν ὁι απ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λογοῦ
Ἔδοξε κἀιμοὶ, ϖαρακολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν ϖᾶσιν ἀκριϐως καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι,
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, “Even as they who were eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word from the beginning delivered them to us, it seemed good to me
also, having accurately traced,” &c. By ἡμῖν is understood the Christian
world, who had received information, both oral and written, from those
that had been αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται, “eye-witnesses and ministers.”
Κἀιμοὶ means St. Luke, who proposed to follow the example of those
αὐτόπται in writing what he knew; and he describes his own knowledge by
the word ϖαρακολουθηκότι, which is more precise than the circumlocution,
by which it is translated, “having had understanding of all things.”
Perfect understanding may be derived from various sources; but
ϖαρακολουθέω properly means, “I go along with as a companion, and derive
knowledge from my own observation.” And it is remarkable that the word
is used in this very sense by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who
published his history not many years after St. Luke wrote, and who, in
his introduction, represents himself as worthy of credit, because he had
not merely inquired of those who knew, but ϖαρηκολουθηκότα τοις
γεγόνοσιν, which he explains by this expression: Πολλῶν μὲν αὐτουργὸς
ϖραξέων, and to state in the third verse that he, ϖλεῖϛων δ’ αὐτόπτης
γενόμενος, _an actor in many things, and an eye-witness of most_. If
this interpretation is not approved of, then, according to the sense of
those verses which is most commonly adopted, St. Luke will be understood
to give in the second verse an account of that ground upon which the
knowledge of the Christian world with regard to these things rested, the
reports of the “eye-witnesses and ministers,” having collected and
collated these reports, and employed the most careful and minute
investigation, he had resolved to write an account of the life of Jesus.
Here he does not claim inspiration: he does not even say that he was an
eye-witness. But he says that, having, like others, heard the report of
eye-witnesses, he had accurately examined the truth of what they said,
and presented to the Christian world the fruit of his researches.

The foundation is still the same as in St. John’s Gospel, the report of
those in whose presence Jesus did and said what is recorded. To this
report is added, (1.) The investigation of St. Luke, a contemporary of
the Apostles, the companion of St. Paul in a great part of his
journeyings, and honoured by him with this title, “Luke, the beloved
physician,” Col. iv, 14. (2.) The approbation of St. Paul, who is said,
by the earliest Christian writers, to have revised this Gospel written
by his companion, so that it came abroad with apostolical authority.
(3.) The universal consent of the Christian church, which, although
jealous of the books that were then published, and rejecting many that
claimed the sanction of the Apostles, has uniformly, from the earliest
times, put the Gospel of St. Luke upon a footing with those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark: a clear demonstration that they who had access to
the best information knew that it had been revised by an Apostle.

As, then, the authors of the Gospels appear under the character of
eye-witnesses, attesting what they had seen, there would have been an
impropriety in their resting the evidence of the essential facts of
Christianity upon inspiration. But after the respect which their
character and their conduct procured to their testimony, and the visible
confirmation which it received from heaven, had established the faith of
a part of the world, a belief of their inspiration became necessary.
They might have been credible witnesses of facts, although they had not
been distinguished from other men. But they were not qualified to
execute the office of Apostles without being inspired. And therefore, as
soon as the circumstances of the church required the execution of that
office, the claim which had been conveyed to them by the promise of
their Master, and which is implied in the apostolical character, appears
in their writings. They instantly exercised the authority derived to
them from Jesus, by planting ministers in the cities where they had
preached the Gospel, by setting every thing pertaining to these
Christian societies in order, by controlling the exercise of those
miraculous gifts which they had imparted, and by correcting the abuses
which happened even in their time. But they demanded from all who had
received the faith of Christ submission to the doctrines and
commandments of his Apostles, as the inspired messengers of Heaven. “But
God hath revealed it,” not _them_, as our translators have supplied the
accusative, “revealed the wisdom of God, the dispensation of the Gospel
unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are
freely given us of God; which things, also, we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” 1 Cor.
ii, 10, 12, 13. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xiv, 37; that is, Let no eminence of
spiritual gifts be set up in opposition to the authority of the
Apostles, or as implying any dispensation from submitting to it. “For
this cause, also, thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received
the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of
men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 Thess. ii, 13. St.
Peter, speaking of the epistles of St. Paul, says, “Even as our beloved
brother Paul, also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written
unto you,” 2 Peter iii, 15. And St. John makes the same claim of
inspiration for the other Apostles, as well as for himself: “We are of
God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not
us,” 1 John iv, 6.

The claim to inspiration is clearly made by the Apostles in those
passages where they place their own writings upon the same footing with
the books of the Old Testament; for St. Paul, speaking of the ἱερα
γράμματα, “_Holy Scriptures_,” a common expression among the Jews, in
which Timothy had been instructed from his childhood, says, “All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 2 Tim. iii, 16. St. Peter,
speaking of the ancient prophets, says, “The Spirit of Christ was in
them,” 1 Peter i, 11; and, “The prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost,” 2 Peter i, 21. And the quotations of our Lord and his Apostles
from the books of the Old Testament are often introduced with an
expression in which their inspiration is directly asserted: “Well spake
the Holy Ghost by Esaias;” “By the mouth of thy servant David thou hast
said,” &c, Acts i, 16; iv, 25; xxviii, 25. But with this uniform
testimony to that inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, which was
universally believed among that people, we are to conjoin this
circumstance, that St. Paul and St. Peter in different places rank their
own writings with the books of the Old Testament. St. Paul commands that
his epistles should be read in the churches, where none but those books
which the Jews believed to be inspired were ever read, Col. iv, 16. He
says that Christians “are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets,” ἐπὶ τῲ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποϛόλων καὶ ϖροφητῶν, Eph. ii, 20: a
conjunction which would have been highly improper, if the former had not
been inspired as well as the latter; and St. Peter charges the
Christians to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles,” 2 Peter iii,
2. The nature of the book of Revelation led the Apostle John to assert
most directly his personal inspiration; for he says that “Jesus sent and
signified by his angel to his servant John the things that were to come
to pass;” and that the divine Person, like the Son of man, who appeared
to him when he was in the Spirit, commanded him to write in a book what
he saw. And in one of the visions there recorded, when the dispensation
of the Gospel was presented to St. John under the figure of a great
city, the New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven, there is one part of
the image which is a beautiful expression of that authority in settling
the form of the Christian church, and teaching articles of faith, which
the Apostles derived from their inspiration: “The wall of the city had
twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the
Lamb,” Rev. i, 1, 10–19; xxi, 14.

These are only a few of the many passages to the same purpose which
occur in reading the New Testament. But it is manifest, even from them,
that the manner in which the Apostles speak of their own writings is
calculated to mislead every candid reader, unless they really wrote
under the direction of the Spirit of God. So gross and daring an
imposture is absolutely inconsistent not only with their whole
character, but also with those gifts of the Holy Ghost of which there is
unquestionable evidence that they were possessed; and which, being the
natural vouchers of the assertion made by them concerning their own
writings, cannot be supposed, upon the principles of sound theism, to
have been imparted for a long course of years to persons who continued
during all that time asserting such a falsehood, and appealing to those
gifts for the truth of what they said.

4. The claim of the Apostles derives much confirmation from the
reception which it met with among the Christians of their days. It
appears from an expression of St. Peter, that at the time when he wrote
his second epistle, the epistles of St. Paul were classed with “the
other Scriptures,” the books of the Old Testament; that is, were
accounted inspired writings, 2 Peter iii, 16. It is well known to those
who are versed in the early history of the church, with what care the
first Christians discriminated between the apostolical writings and the
compositions of other authors however much distinguished by their piety,
and with what reverence they received those books which were known by
their inscription, by the place from which they proceeded, or the manner
in which they were circulated, to be the work of an Apostle. In
Lardner’s “Credibility of the Gospel History,” will be found the most
particular information upon this subject; and it will be perceived that
the whole history of the supposititious writings which appeared in early
times, conspires in attesting the veneration in which the authority of
the Apostles was held by the Christian church. We learn from Justin
Martyr, that, before the middle of the second century, “the memoirs of
the Apostles, and the compositions of the prophets,” were read together
in the Christian assemblies. We know, that from the earliest times, the
church has submitted to the writings of the Apostles as the infallible
standard of faith and practice; and we find the ground of this peculiar
respect expressed by the first Christian writers as well as by their
successors, who speak of the writings of the Apostles as “divine
writings from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”

To this general argument we may add that right views on the subject of
the inspiration of the sacred writers are also necessary, because even
some Christian writers have spoken obscurely and unsatisfactorily on the
subject, dividing inspiration into different kinds, and assigning each
to different portions of the holy volume. By inspiration we are to
understand, that the sacred writers composed their works under so
plenary and immediate an influence of the Holy Spirit, that God may be
said to speak by those writers to man, and not merely that they spoke to
men in the name of God, and by his authority; and there is a
considerable difference between the two propositions. Each supposes an
authentic revelation from God; but the former view secures the
Scriptures from all error both as to the _subjects_ spoken, and the
_manner_ of expressing them. This, too, is the doctrine taught in the
Scriptures themselves, which declare not only that the prophets and
Apostles spake in the name of God, but that God spake by them as his
instruments. “The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David _spake_.” “Well
_spake_ the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet.” “The prophecy came not of
old time, by the will of man; but holy men of God _spake_ as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost.” For this reason, not only that the _matter_
contained in the book of “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” (the
usual phrase by which the Jews designated the whole Old Testament,) was
true; but that the books were _written_ under divine inspiration, they
are called collectively by our Lord and by his Apostles, “_The
Scriptures_,” in contradistinction to all other writings;--a term which
the Apostle Peter, as stated above, applies also to the writings of St.
Paul, and which therefore verifies them as standing on the same level
with the books of the Old Testament as to their inspiration: “Even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him,
hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking of these
things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction.” The Apostles also, as we have seen,
expressly claim an inspiration, not only as to the subjects on which
they wrote, but as to the words in which they expressed themselves.
Farther, our Lord promised to them the Holy Spirit “to guide them into
all truth;” and that he was not to fulfil his office by suggesting
thoughts only, but words, is clear from Christ’s discourse with them on
the subject of the persecutions they were to endure for “his name’s
sake:” “And when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto
magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall
answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the
same hour what ye ought to say; for it is not ye that speak; but the
Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” This inspiration of words
is also asserted by St. Paul as to himself and his brethren, when he
says to the Corinthians, “Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” Thus we
find that the claim which the sacred writers make on this subject is,
that they were in truth what they have been aptly called, “the penmen of
the Holy Ghost;” and that the words in which they clothed “the wisdom
given unto them” were words “taught” by the Holy Spirit.

But it may be asked, How are we to account for that difference of style
which is observable in each? that manner, too, so natural to each, and
so distinct in all? with those reasonings, recollections of memory, and
other indications of the working of the mind of each writer in its own
character and temperament? Some persons, indeed, observing this, have
concluded their style and manner to be entirely human, while their
thoughts were either wholly divine, or so superintended by the Holy
Ghost as to have been adopted by him, and therefore, although sometimes
natural, to be of equal authority as if they had been exclusively of
divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency their words also. The matter may be rightly conceived by
considering, that an inspiration of words took place either by
suggesting those most fit to express the thoughts, or by overruling the
selection of such words from the common as if they had been exclusively
of divine suggestion. This, indeed, would be sufficient to oblige our
implicit credence to their writings, as being from God; but it falls
below the force of the passages above cited, and which attribute to a
divine agency the store acquired by, and laid up in, the mind of each
writer, which is quite compatible with the fact, that a peculiarity and
appropriateness of manner might still be left to them separately. To
suppose that an inspiration of terms, as well as thoughts, could not
take place without producing one uniform style and manner, is to suppose
that the minds of the writers would thus become entirely passive under
the influence of the Holy Spirit; whereas it is easily conceivable that
the verbiage, style, and manner of each, was not so much displaced, as
elevated, enriched, and controlled by the Holy Spirit; and that there
was a previous fitness, in all these respects, in all the sacred penmen,
for which they were chosen to be the instruments under the aid and
direction of the Holy Ghost, of writing such portions of the general
revelation as the wisdom of God assigned to each of them. On the other
hand, while it is so conceivable that the words and manner of each might
be appropriated to his own design by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
it by no means follows that both were not greatly altered, as well as
controlled, although they still retained a general similarity to the
uninfluenced style and manner of each, and still presented a
characteristic variety. As none of their writings on ordinary occasions,
and when uninspired, have come down to us, we cannot judge of the degree
of this difference; and therefore no one can with any just reason affirm
that their writings are “the word of God as to the doctrine, but the
word of man as to the channel of conveyance.” Certain it is, that a vast
difference may be remarked between the writings of the Apostles, and
those of the most eminent fathers of the times nearest to them; and that
not only as to precision and strength of thought, but also as to
language. This circumstance is at least strongly presumptive, that
although the style of inspired men was not stripped of the
characteristic peculiarity of the writers, it was greatly exalted and
influenced.

But the same _force_ of inspiration, so to speak, was not probably
exerted upon each of the sacred writers, or upon the same writer
throughout his writings, whatever might be its subject. There is no
necessity that we should so state the case, in order to maintain what is
essential to our faith,--the plenary inspiration of each of the sacred
writers. In miracles there was no needless application of divine power.
Traditional history and written chronicles, facts of known occurrence,
and opinions which were received by all, are often inserted or referred
to by the sacred writers. There needed no miraculous operation upon the
memory to recall what the memory was furnished with, or to reveal a fact
which the writers previously and perfectly knew: but their plenary
inspiration consisted in this, that they were kept from all lapses of
memory, or inadequate conceptions, even on these subjects; and on all
others the degree of communication and influence, both as to doctrine,
facts, and the terms in which they were to be recorded for the
edification of the church, was proportioned to the necessity of the
case, but so that the whole was authenticated or dictated by the Holy
Spirit with so full an influence, that it became truth without mixture
of error, expressed in such terms as he himself ruled or suggested.
This, then, seems the true notion of plenary inspiration, that for the
revelation, insertion, and adequate enunciation of truth, it was full
and complete.

The principal objections to this view of the inspiration of words are
well answered by Dr. Woods, an American divine, in a recent publication,
from which, as the subject has been lately debated in this country, the
following extracts will be acceptable, although there is in them a
repetition of some of the preceding observations:--

“One argument which has been urged against the supposition that divine
inspiration had a respect to language, is, that the language employed by
the inspired writers exhibits no marks of a divine interference, but is
perfectly conformed to the genius and taste of the writers. The fact
here alleged is admitted. But how does it support the opinion of those
who allege it? Is it not evident, that God may exercise a perfect
superintendency over inspired writers as to the language they shall use,
and yet that each one of them shall write in his own style, and in all
respects according to his own taste? May not God give such aid to his
servants, that, while using their own style, they will certainly be
secured against all mistakes, and exhibit the truth with perfect
propriety? It is unquestionable, that Isaiah, and St. Paul, and St. John
might be under the entire direction of the Holy Spirit, even as to
language, and, at the same time, that each one of them might write in
his own manner; and that the peculiar manner of each might be adopted to
answer an important end; and that the variety of style, thus introduced
into the sacred volume, might be suited to excite a livelier interest in
the minds of men, and to secure to them a far greater amount of good,
than could ever have been derived from any one mode of writing. The
great variety existing among men as to their natural talents, and their
peculiar manner of thinking and writing may, in this way, be turned to
account in the work of revelation, as well as in the concerns of common
life. Now, is it not clearly a matter of fact, that God has made use of
this variety, and given the Holy Spirit to men, differing widely from
each other in regard to natural endowments, and knowledge, and style,
and employed them, with all their various gifts, as agents in writing
the Holy Scriptures? And what colour of reason can we have to suppose,
that the language which they used was less under the divine direction on
account of this variety, than if it had been perfectly uniform
throughout?

“To prove that divine inspiration had no respect to the language of the
sacred writers, it is farther alleged, that even the same doctrine is
taught and the same event described in a different manner by different
writers. This fact I also admit. But how does it prove that inspiration
had no respect to language? Is not the variety alleged a manifest
advantage, as to the impression which is likely to be made upon the
minds of men? Is not testimony, which is substantially the same, always
considered as entitled to higher credit, when it is given by different
witnesses in different language, and in a different order? And is it not
perfectly reasonable to suppose, that, in making a revelation, God would
have respect to the common principles of human nature and human society,
and would exert his influence and control over inspired men in such a
manner, that, by exhibiting the same doctrines and facts in different
ways, they should make a more salutary impression, and should more
effectually compass the great ends of a revelation? All I have to
advance on this part of the subject may be summed up in these two
positions: 1. The variety of manner apparent among different inspired
writers, even when treating of the same subjects, is far better suited
to promote the object of divine revelation, than a perfect uniformity.
2. It is agreeable to our worthiest conceptions of God and his
administration, that he should make use of the best means for the
accomplishment of his designs; and, of course, that he should impart the
gift of inspiration to men of different tastes and habits as to
language, and should lead them, while writing the Scriptures, to exhibit
all the variety of manner naturally arising from the diversified
character of their minds.

“But there is another argument, perhaps the most plausible of all,
against supposing that inspiration had any respect to language; which
is, that the supposition of a divine influence in this respect is wholly
unnecessary; that the sacred writers, having the requisite information
in regard to the subjects on which they were to write, might, so far as
language is concerned, be left entirely to their own judgment and
fidelity. But this view of the subject is not satisfactory. For whatever
may be said as to the judgment and fidelity of those who wrote the
Scriptures, there is one important circumstance which cannot be
accounted for, without supposing them to have enjoyed a guidance above
that of their own minds; namely, that they were infallibly preserved
from every mistake or impropriety in the manner of writing. If we should
admit that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the
inspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they
exhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed
with doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their
representations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all
the inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired men are commonly
liable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking
to charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how
their language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their
writings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison.
‘Here,’ we might say, ‘Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and
here his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended
to convey.’ ‘Here the style of St. John was inadvertent; and here it was
faulty: and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the
subject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been
altered thus.’ If the language of the sacred writers did not in any way
come under the inspection of the Holy Spirit, and if they were left,
just as other writers are, to their own unaided faculties in regard to
every thing which pertained to the manner of writing; then, evidently,
we might use the same freedom in animadverting upon their style, as upon
the style of other writers. But who could treat the volume of
inspiration in this manner, without impiety and profaneness? And rather
than make any approach to this, who would not choose to go to an excess,
if there could be an excess, in reverence for the word of God?

“On this subject, far be it from me to indulge a curiosity which would
pry into things not intended for human intelligence. And far be it from
me to expend zeal in supporting opinions not warranted by the word of
God. But this one point I think it specially important to maintain;
namely, that the sacred writers had such direction of the Holy Spirit,
that they were secured against all liability to error, and enabled to
write just what God pleased; so that what they wrote is, in truth, the
word of God, and can never be subject to any charge of mistake either as
to matter or form. Whether this perfect correctness and propriety as to
language resulted from the divine guidance directly or indirectly, is a
question of no particular consequence. If the Spirit of God directs the
minds of inspired men, and gives them just conceptions relative to the
subjects on which they are to write; and if he constitutes and maintains
a connection, true and invariable, between their conceptions and the
language they employ to express them, the language must, in this way, be
as infallible, and as worthy of God, as though it were dictated directly
by the Holy Spirit. But to assert that the sacred writers used such
language as they chose, or such as was natural to them, without any
special divine superintendence, and that, in respect to style, they are
to be regarded in the same light, and equally liable to mistakes, as
other writers, is plainly contrary to the representations which they
themselves make, and is suited to diminish our confidence in the word of
God. For how could we have entire confidence in the representations of
Scripture, if, after God had instructed the minds of the sacred writers
in the truth to be communicated, he gave them up to all the
inadvertencies and errors to which human nature in general is exposed,
and took no effectual care that their manner of writing should be
according to his will?

“Let us then briefly examine the subject, as it is presented in the Holy
Scriptures, and see whether we find sufficient reason to affirm that
inspiration had no relation whatever to language. 1. The Apostles were
the subjects of such a divine inspiration as enabled them to speak ‘with
other tongues:’ here inspiration related directly to language. 2. It is
the opinion of most writers, that, in some instances, inspired men had
not in their own minds a clear understanding of the things which they
spake or wrote. One instance of this, commonly referred to, is the case
of Daniel, who heard and repeated what the angel said, though he did not
understand it, Dan. xii, 7–9. This has also been thought to be in some
measure the case with the prophets referred to, 1 Peter i, 10–12. And is
there not reason to think this may have been the case with many of the
prophetic representations contained in the Psalms, and many of the
symbolical rites of the Mosaic institute? Various matters are found in
the Old Testament, which were not intended so much for the benefit of
the writers, or their contemporaries, as for the benefit of future ages.
And this might have been a sufficient reason why they should be left
without a clear understanding of the things which they wrote. In such
cases, if the opinion above stated is correct, inspired men were led to
make use of expressions, the meaning of which they did not fully
understand. And, according to this view, it would seem that the teaching
of the Spirit which they enjoyed, must have related rather to the words
than to the sense. 3. Those who deny that the divine influence afforded
to the sacred writers had any respect to language, can find no support
in the texts which most directly relate to the subject of inspiration.
And it is surely in such texts, if any where, that we should suppose
they would find support. The passage, 2 Peter i, 21, is a remarkable
one. It asserts that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost.’ There is surely nothing here which limits the divine
influence to the conceptions of their minds. They were moved by the Holy
Ghost to _speak_ or _write_. ‘All Scripture is divinely inspired,’ 2
Tim. iii, 16. Does this text afford any proof that the divine influence
granted to the inspired penmen was confined to their inward conceptions,
and had no respect whatever to the manner in which they expressed their
conceptions? What is _Scripture_? Is it divine truth _conceived in the
mind_, or divine truth _written_? In Heb. i, 1, it is said that ‘God
spake to the fathers by the prophets.’ Does this afford any proof that
the divine guidance which the prophets enjoyed related exclusively to
the conceptions of their own minds, and had no respect to the manner in
which they communicated those conceptions? Must we not rather think the
meaning to be, that God influenced the prophets to utter or make known
important truths? And how could they do this, except by the use of
proper words?

“I have argued in favour of the inspiration of the Apostles, from their
commission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in
his stead. It was an arduous work; and in the execution of it they
needed and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions
of Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to
the Apostles. If the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached
only to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might
have possessed though they had never been commissioned to teach others.
As Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought
to hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of
future ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine
assistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and
that, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of
religion, either orally or by writing, they were left to themselves, and
so exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men? But
our reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance which we
might reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the
work of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised
them in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x, 19, 20,
‘When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall
speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh
in you.’ This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that divine
assistance should extend not only to _what_ they should say, but to the
_manner_ in which they should say it. It is not, however, to be
understood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and
voluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that,
in consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them,
they should say what God would have them to say, without any liability
to mistake, either as to matter or manner. From the above-cited promise,
taken in connection with the instances of its accomplishment which are
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident that God may
exert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide
them in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie
chiefly within the province of their natural faculties. For in those
speeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of
the things which they declared, were things which, for aught that
appears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in
the natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being
admitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many
difficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration. The passage, 1
Cor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles, is very far from favouring the opinion that inspiration had no
respect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to
their thoughts. ‘Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.’ The Apostle avoided
the style and the manner of teaching which prevailed among the wise men
of Greece, and made use of a style which corresponded with the nature of
his subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of
teaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him
particularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation
of this text: Paul, they say, asserts that the doctrines of Christianity
were revealed to him by the almighty agency of God himself; and,
finally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his
words, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths. They add, that St.
Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner
in which it is communicated.”

INTERMEDIATE STATE. Beside questions concerning the nature of the
happiness of heaven, there have also arisen questions concerning the
state of the soul in the interval between death and the general
resurrection. If we believe, with Dr. Priestley, that the soul is not a
substance distinct from the body, we must believe with him that the
whole of the human machine is at rest after death, till it be restored
to its functions at the last day; but if we are convinced of the
immateriality of the soul, we shall not think it so entirely dependent
in all its operations upon its present companion, but that it may exist
and act in an unembodied state. And if once we are satisfied that a
state of separate existence is possible, we shall easily attach credit
to the interpretation commonly given of the various expressions in
Scripture, which intimate that the souls of good men are admitted to the
presence of God immediately after death, although we soon find that a
bound is set to our speculations concerning the nature of this
intermediate state. But when we leave philosophical probability, and
come to the doctrine of Scripture, the only ground of certainty on all
such subjects, a great number of passages are so explicit, that no
ingenuity of interpretation has been sufficient to weaken their evidence
on this point. One branch of the opinions that have been held concerning
an intermediate state is the Popish doctrine of purgatory; a doctrine
which appears upon the slightest inspection of the texts that have been
adduced in support of it to derive no evidence from Scripture; which
originated in the error of the church of Rome in assigning to personal
suffering a place in the justification of a sinner; and which is
completely overturned by the doctrine of justification by faith, and by
the general strain of Scripture, which represents this life as a state
of probation, upon our conduct during which our everlasting condition
depends. The holy Lazarus is carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom; and
the rich and careless sinner lifts up his eyes in hell, and is separated
from the place of bliss by an impassable gulf. This at once disproves
the doctrine of purgatory, and demonstrates an intermediate conscious
state of happiness and misery.

IRON, ברזל; occurs first in Gen. iv, 22, and afterward frequently; and
the Chaldee פרזל, in Dan. ii, 33, 41, and elsewhere often in that book;
σίδηρος, Rev. xviii, 12, and the adjectives, Acts xii, 10; Rev. ii, 27;
ix, 9; xii, 5; xix, 15; a well known and very serviceable metal. The
knowledge of working it was very ancient, as appears from Genesis iv,
22. We do not, however, find that Moses made use of iron in the fabric
of the tabernacle in the wilderness, or Solomon in any part of the
temple at Jerusalem. Yet, from the manner in which the Jewish legislator
speaks of iron, the metal, it appears, must have been in use in Egypt
before his time. He celebrates the great hardness of it, Lev. xxvi, 19;
Deut. xxviii, 23, 48; takes notice that the bedstead of Og, king of
Bashan, was of iron, Deut. iii, 11; he speaks of mines of iron, Deut.
viii, 9; and he compares the severity of the servitude of the Israelites
in Egypt to the heat of a furnace for melting iron, Deut. iv, 20. We
find, also, that swords, Num. xxxv, 16, axes, Deut. xix, 5, and tools
for cutting stones, Deut. xxvii, 5, were made of iron. By the “northern
iron,” Jer. xv, 12, we may probably understand the hardened iron, called
in Greek χάλυψ, from the Chalybes, a people bordering on the Euxine sea,
and consequently lying on the north of Judea, by whom the art of
tempering steel is said to have been discovered. Strabo speaks of this
people by the name of Chalybes, but afterward Chaldæi; and mentions
their iron mines. These, however, were a different people from the
Chaldeans, who were united with the Babylonians.

ISAAC, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born in the year of the world
2108. His name, which signifies _laughter_, was given him by his mother,
because when it was told her by an angel that she should have a son, and
that at a time of life when, according to the course of nature, she was
past child-bearing, she privately laughed, Gen. xviii, 10–12. And when
the child was born she said, “God hath made me to laugh, so that all
that hear will laugh with me,” Gen. xxi, 6. The life of Isaac, for the
first seventy-five years of it, is so blended with that of his
illustrious father, that the principal incidents of it have been already
noticed under the article _Abraham_. His birth was attended with some
extraordinary circumstances: it was the subject of various promises and
prophecies; an event most ardently desired by his parents, and yet
purposely delayed by Divine Providence till they were both advanced in
years, no doubt for the trial of their faith, and that Isaac might more
evidently appear to be the gift of God, and “the child of promise.” At
an early period of life he was the object of the profane contempt of
Ishmael, the son of the bond woman, by whom he was persecuted; and as in
the circumstances attending his birth there was something typical of the
birth of Abraham’s greater Son, the Messiah, the promised Seed; so, in
the latter instance, we contemplate in him a resemblance of real
Christians, who, as Isaac was, are “the children of promise,” invested
in all the immunities and blessings of the new covenant; but, as then,
“he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the
Spirit, even so it is now,” Gal. iv, 29.

When Isaac had arrived at a state of manhood, he was required to give a
signal proof of his entire devotedness to God. Abraham was commanded to
offer up his beloved son in sacrifice, Genesis xxii, 1. This remarkable
transaction, so far as Abraham was concerned in it, has already been
considered under the article _Abraham_. But, if from this trial of the
faith of the parent we turn our attention to the conduct of Isaac, the
victim destined for the slaughter, we behold an example of faith and of
dutiful obedience equally conspicuous with that of his honoured parent.
Isaac submitted, as it should seem, without resistance, to be bound and
laid on the altar, exposing his body to the knife that was lifted up to
destroy him. How strikingly calculated is this remarkable history to
direct our thoughts to a more exalted personage, whom Isaac prefigured;
and to a more astonishing transaction represented by that on Mount
Moriah! Behold Jesus Christ, that Seed of Abraham, in whom all the
families of the earth were to be blessed, voluntarily going forth, in
obedience to the command of his heavenly Father, and laying down his
life, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

In the progress of Isaac’s history, we find him, in the time of his
greatest activity and vigour, a man of retired habits and of remarkable
calmness of mind. He appears to have been affectionately attached to his
mother Sarah, and, even at the age of forty, was not insusceptible of
great sorrow on occasion of her death. But he allows his father to
choose for him a suitable partner in life; and Rebekah was selected from
among his own kindred, in preference to the daughters of Canaan, in the
midst of whom he dwelt. In a few years afterward, he who had mourned for
his mother, was called to weep over his father’s grave; and in that last
act of filial duty, it is pleasing to find the two rival brothers, Isaac
and Ishmael, meeting together for the interment of Abraham. The
occasion, indeed, was well calculated to allay all existing jealousies
and contentions, and cause every family broil to cease, Gen. xxv, 9.
After the death of Abraham, “God blessed his son Isaac;” but, though the
latter had now been married twenty years, Rebekah was childless. “Isaac
entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord
was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived,” Gen. xxv, 21. God
also promised to multiply Isaac’s seed, and his promise was fulfilled.
Two children were born to him at one time, concerning whom the divine
purpose was declared to the mother, and no doubt to the father also,
that “the elder should serve the younger.” A famine which came upon the
country in the days of Isaac, obliged him to remove his family and
flocks and retire to Gerar, in the country of the Philistines, of which
Abimelech was at that time king. The possessions of Isaac multiplied so
prodigiously, that the inhabitants of the country became envious of him,
and even Abimelech, to preserve peace among them, was under the
necessity of requesting him to retire, because he was become too
powerful. He accordingly withdrew, and pitched his tent in the valley of
Gerar, where he digged new wells, and, after a time, returned to
Beersheba, where he fixed his habitation, Genesis xxvi, 1–23. Here the
Lord appeared to him, and renewed to him the covenant which he had made
with Abraham, promising to be his God, and to make him a blessing to
others. Abimelech now sought his friendship, and, to form an alliance
with him, paid him a visit; on which occasion Isaac displayed his
magnificence by a sumptuous entertainment, A. M. 2240.

When he was a hundred and thirty-seven years of age, and his sight had
so failed him that he could not distinguish one of his sons from the
other, Jacob craftily obtained from him the blessing of primogeniture.
Yet Isaac survived many years after this, to him, distressing
occurrence. He sent Jacob into Mesopotamia, there to take a wife of his
own family, Genesis xxviii, 1, 2, and to prevent his marrying among the
Canaanites as his brother Esau had done. And when Jacob returned, after
a lapse of twenty years, Isaac was still living, and continued to live
twenty-three years longer. He then died at the age of a hundred and
eighty years, and was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and Jacob,
Gen. xxxv, 29. See ESAU and JACOB.

ISAIAH. Though fifth in the order of time, the writings of the Prophet
Isaiah are placed first in order of the prophetical books, principally
on account of the sublimity and importance of his predictions, and
partly also because the book which bears his name is larger than all the
twelve minor prophets put together. Concerning his family and descent,
nothing certain has been recorded, except what he himself tells us,
Isaiah, i, 1, namely, that he was the son of Amos, and discharged the
prophetic office “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah,” who successively flourished between A. M. 3194 and
3305. There is a current tradition that he was of the blood royal; and
some writers have affirmed that his father Amoz or Amos was the son of
Joash, and consequently brother of Uzziah, king of Judah. Jerom, on the
authority of some rabbinical writers, says, that the prophet gave his
daughter in marriage to Manasseh, king of Judah; but this opinion is
scarcely credible, because Manasseh did not commence his reign until
about sixty years after Isaiah had begun to discharge his prophetic
functions. He must, indeed, have exercised the office of a prophet
during a long period of time, if he lived to the reign of Manasseh; for
the lowest computation, beginning from the year in which Uzziah died,
when he is by some supposed to have received his first appointment to
that office, brings it to sixty-one years. But the tradition of the
Jews, which has been adopted by most Christian commentators, that he was
put to death by Manasseh, is very uncertain; and Aben Ezra, one of the
most celebrated Jewish writers, is rather of opinion that he died before
Hezekiah; which Bishop Lowth thinks most probable. It is, however,
certain, that he lived at least to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of
Hezekiah; which makes the least possible term of the duration of his
prophetic office to be about forty-eight years. The name of Isaiah, as
Vitringa has remarked after several preceding commentators, is in some
measure descriptive of his high character, since it signifies the
_salvation of Jehovah_; and was given with singular propriety to him,
who foretold the advent of the Messiah, through whom “all flesh shall
see the salvation of God,” Isa. xl, 5; Luke iii, 6; Acts iv, 12. Isaiah
was contemporary with the Prophets Amos, Hosea, Joel, and Micah.

Isaiah is uniformly spoken of in the Scriptures as a prophet of the
highest dignity: Bishop Lowth calls him the prince of all the prophets,
and pronounces the whole of his book to be poetical, with the exception
of a few detached passages. It is remarkable, that his wife is styled a
prophetess in Isaiah viii, 3; whence the rabbinical writers have
concluded that she possessed the spirit of prophecy: but it is very
probable that the prophets’ wives were called prophetesses, as the
priests’ wives were termed priestesses, only from the quality of their
husbands. Although nothing farther is recorded in the Scriptures
concerning the wife of Isaiah, we find two of his sons mentioned in his
prophecy, who were types or figurative pledges; and their names and
actions were intended to awaken a religious attention in the persons
whom they were commissioned to address and to instruct. Thus,
Shear-jashub signifies, “a remnant shall return,” and showed that the
captives who should be carried to Babylon should return thence after a
certain time, Isaiah vii, 3; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which denotes,
“make speed (or _run swiftly_) to the spoil,” implied that the kingdoms
of Israel and Syria would in a short time be ravaged, Isaiah viii, 1, 3.
Beside the volume of prophecies, which we are now to consider, it
appears from 2 Chron. xxvi, 22, that Isaiah wrote an account of “the
acts of Uzziah,” king of Judah: this has perished with some other
writings of the prophets, which, as probably not written by inspiration,
were never admitted into the canon of Scripture. There are also two
apocryphal books ascribed to him, namely, The Ascension of Isaiah, and
The Apocalypse of Isaiah; but these are evidently forgeries of a later
date, and the Apocalypse has long since perished.

The scope of Isaiah’s predictions is threefold, namely, 1. To detect,
reprove, aggravate, and condemn, the sins of the Jewish people
especially, and also the iniquities of the ten tribes of Israel, and the
abominations of many Gentile nations and countries; denouncing the
severest judgments against all sorts and degrees of persons, whether
Jews or Gentiles. 2. To invite persons of every rank and condition, both
Jews and Gentiles, to repentance and reformation, by numerous promises
of pardon and mercy. It is worthy of remark, that no such promises are
intermingled with the denunciations of divine vengeance against Babylon,
although they occur in the threatenings against every other people. 3.
To comfort all the truly pious, in the midst of all the calamities and
judgments denounced against the wicked, with prophetic promises of the
true Messiah, which seem almost to anticipate the Gospel history, so
clearly do they foreshow the divine character of Christ.

Isaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the evangelical
prophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies
concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the
sufferings and death, and the extensive permanent kingdom, of the
Messiah. So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so
numerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events
yet future; and he may rather be called an evangelist than a prophet. No
one, indeed, can be at a loss in applying them to the mission and
character of Jesus Christ, and to the events which are cited in his
history by the writers of the New Testament. This prophet, says Bishop
Lowth, abounds in such transcendent excellencies, that he may be
properly said to afford the most perfect model of prophetic poetry. He
is at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented; he unites
energy with copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments
there is uncommon elevation and majesty; in his imagery, the utmost
propriety, elegance, dignity, and diversity; in his language, uncommon
beauty and energy; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his subjects, a
surprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we may add, that
there is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his sentences,
whether it proceed from art or genius, that, if the Hebrew poetry at
present is possessed of any remains of its native grace and harmony, we
shall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah: so that the saying of
Ezekiel may most justly be applied to this prophet:--

             “Thou art the confirmed exemplar of measures,
             Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.”
                                        Ezekiel xxviii, 12.

Isaiah also greatly excels in all the graces of method, order,
connection, and arrangement: though in asserting this we must not forget
the nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the mind with
irresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions from near to
remote objects, from human to divine. We must likewise be careful in
remarking the limits of particular predictions, since, as they are now
extant, they are often improperly connected, without any marks of
discrimination; which injudicious arrangement, on some occasions,
creates almost insuperable difficulties.

Bishop Lowth has selected the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth chapters of
this prophet, as a specimen of the poetic style in which Isaiah delivers
his predictions, and has illustrated at some length the various beauties
which eminently distinguish the simple, regular, and perfect poem
contained in those chapters. But the grandest specimen of his poetry is
presented in the fourteenth chapter, which is one of the most sublime
odes occurring in the Bible, and contains the noblest personifications
to be found in the records of poetry. The prophet, after predicting the
liberation of the Jews from their severe captivity in Babylon, and their
restoration to their own country, verses 1–3, introduces a chorus of
them, expressing their surprise and astonishment at the sudden downfall
of Babylon, and the great reverse of fortune that had befallen the
tyrant, who, like his predecessors, had oppressed his own, and harassed
the neighbouring kingdoms. These oppressed kingdoms, or their rulers,
are represented under the image of the fir trees and the cedars of
Libanus, which is frequently used to express any thing in the political
or religious world that is supereminently great and majestic: the whole
earth shouts for joy; the cedars of Libanus utter a severe taunt over
the fallen tyrant, and boast their security now he is no more, verses
4–8. This is followed, verse 9, by one of the boldest and most animated
personifications of hades, or the regions of the dead, that was ever
executed in poetry. Hades excites his inhabitants, the shades of
princes, and the departed spirits of monarchs. These illustrious shades
rise at once from their couches as from their thrones; and, advancing to
the entrance of the cavern to meet the king of Babylon, they insult and
deride him on being reduced to the same low state of impotence and
dissolution with themselves, verses 10, 11. The Jews now resume the
speech, verse 12; they address the king of Babylon as the morning star
fallen from heaven, as the first in splendour and dignity, in the
political world fallen from his high state: they introduce him as
uttering the most extravagant vaunts of his power and ambitious designs
in his former glory; these are strongly contrasted, in the close, with
his present low and abject condition, verses 13–15. Immediately follows
a different scene, and a most happy image, to diversify the same
subject, and give it a new turn and additional force. Certain persons
are introduced, who light upon the corpse of the king of Babylon, cast
out and lying naked upon the bare ground, among the common slain, just
after the taking of the city, covered with wounds, and so disfigured,
that it is some time before they know him. They accost him with the
severest taunts, and bitterly reproach him with his destructive
ambition, and his cruel usage of the conquered; which have deservedly
brought upon him this ignominious treatment, so different from what
those of his high rank usually meet with, and which shall cover his
posterity with disgrace, verses 16–20. To complete the whole, God is
introduced, declaring the fate of Babylon; the utter extirpation of the
royal family, and the total desolation of the city; the deliverance of
his people, and the destruction of their enemies; confirming the
irreversible decree by the awful sanction of his oath, verses 21–27. How
forcible, says Bishop Louth, is this imagery, how diversified, how
sublime! How elevated the diction, the figures, the sentiments! The
Jewish nation, the cedars of Lebanon, the ghosts of departed kings, the
Babylonish monarch, the travellers who find his corpse, and last of all
Jehovah himself, are the characters which support this beautiful lyric
drama. One continued action is kept up, or rather, a series of
interesting actions are connected together in an incomparable whole:
this, indeed, is the principal and distinguished excellence of the
sublimer ode, and is displayed in its utmost perfection in this poem of
Isaiah, which may be considered as one of the most ancient, and
certainly one of the most finished, specimens of that species of
composition which has been transmitted to us. The personifications here
are frequent, yet not confused; bold, yet not improbable; a free,
elevated, and truly divine spirit pervades the whole; nor is there any
thing wanting in this ode to defeat its claim to the character of
perfect pathos and sublimity. There is not a single instance in the
whole compass of Greek and Roman poetry which, in every excellence of
composition, can be said to equal or even to approach it.

ISCARIOT, the name of that disciple who betrayed our Saviour. He was so
called, probably, as belonging to Karioth, or Cerioth; that is, a man of
Kerioth, Matt. x, 4.

ISHBOSHETH, a son of King Saul, and his successor in the throne. He was
acknowledged king by a part of the tribes of Israel, A. M. 2949, while
David reigned at Hebron, over the tribe of Judah, 2 Sam. ii, 8, 9, &c;
iii. He reigned two years in peace, but the remaining eight years were
spent in perpetual wars between his troops and those of David, till in
the end he perished, and with him ended the royal dignity of the house
of Saul.

ISHMAELITES, the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar,
his Egyptian bond-maid. Ishmael was born B. C. 1910, and his name,
founded on a circumstance which afforded relief to his mother, when she
was wandering from her master’s house toward Egypt, her native country,
is derived from the Hebrew ישמעאל, formed of שמע, _to hear_, and אל,
_God_, and denoting, “the Lord hath hearkened.” The heavenly messenger
who appeared to Hagar in the wilderness, and instructed her by what name
to call her future son, predicted also that he and his posterity would
prove fierce and warlike, engaged in repeated hostilities, and yet able
to maintain their independence. Hagar, deriving encouragement from this
circumstance, returned to the house of Abraham, and was soon delivered
of her promised son. The father regarded Ishmael as the heir of his
wealth, till Sarah had the promise of her son Isaac. After the birth of
Isaac, Abraham was persuaded by his wife to dismiss Hagar and her son;
and the patriarch probably provided for their subsistence in some
distant situation, where they could not encroach on the patrimony of
Isaac. Having wandered for some time in the wilderness of Beersheba,
they proceeded farther to the wilderness of Paran, which bordered on
Arabia; and here Ishmael arrived at maturity, and became an expert
archer, or a hunter and warrior. In process of time his mother procured
for him a wife out of Egypt, by whom he had twelve sons, who eventually
established themselves as the heads of so many distinct Arabian tribes.
Accordingly, the descendants of Ishmael are mentioned in history under
the general name of Arabians and Ishmaelites. Of Ishmael’s personal
history, we merely learn from the sacred writings, that he joined with
his brother Isaac in paying the last tribute of respect to the remains
of their father; and that he died at the age of a hundred and
thirty-seven years, B. C. 1773, Gen. xxv, 9, 18. His descendants,
according to the Scripture account, spread themselves “from Havilah to
Shur, that is, before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria.” From this
brief statement, we may conjecture how far their territory extended; for
Havilah, according to the generality of writers, was situated near the
confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, and Shur, on the isthmus which
separates Arabia from Egypt, now called the Isthmus of Suez. From thence
we may well imagine, that they spread themselves on both sides so far as
to have taken possession of the greatest part of Arabia; and, indeed,
Josephus does not scruple to style their progenitor the founder of the
Arabian nation. See ARABIA.

ISHTOB, a country situated at the northern extremity of the mountains of
Gilead, toward Mount Libanus, 2 Sam. x, 6. See TOB.

ISRAEL, a prince of God, or prevailing, or wrestling with God. This is
the name which the angel gave Jacob, after having wrestled with him all
night at Mahanaim, or Peniel, Genesis xxxii, 1, 2, 28, 29, 30; Hosea
xii, 4. By the name of Israel is sometimes understood the person of
Jacob, sometimes the whole people of Israel, the whole race of Jacob;
sometimes the kingdom of Israel, or ten tribes, distinct from the
kingdom of Judah; and finally, the spiritual Israel, the true church of
God.

ISRAELITES, the descendants of Israel, who were first called Hebrews by
reason of Abraham, who came from the other side of the Euphrates; and
afterward Israelites, from Israel, the father of the twelve tribes; and,
lastly, Jews, particularly after their return from the captivity of
Babylon; because the tribe of Judah was then much stronger and more
numerous than the other tribes, and foreigners had scarcely any
knowledge but of this tribe. See JEWS.

ISSACHAR, the fifth son of Jacob and Leah, Gen. xxx, 14–18. He had four
sons, Tola, Phovah, Job, and Shimron. We know nothing particular of his
life. The tribe of Issachar had its portion in one of the best parts of
the land of Canaan, along the great plain or valley of Jezreel, with the
half tribe of Manasseh to the south, that of Zebulun to the north, the
Mediterranean to the west, and Jordan, with the extremity of the sea of
Tiberias, to the east.

ITHAMAR, Aaron’s fourth son, Exod. vi, 23. There is no probability that
he ever exercised the high priesthood. He and his sons continued in the
rank of simple priests, till this dignity came into his family in the
person of Eli.

ITURÆA, so called from Itur, or Jetur, one of the sons of Ishmael, who
settled in it, but whose posterity were either driven out or subdued by
the Amorites; when it is supposed to have formed a part of the kingdom
of Bashan, and subsequently of the half tribe of Manasseh east of
Jordan; but as it was situated beyond the southern spur of Mount Hermon,
called the Djebel Heish, this is doubtful. It lay on the north-eastern
side of the land of Israel, between it and the territory of Damascus, or
Syria; and is supposed to have been the same country at present known by
the name of Djedour, on the east of the Djebel Heish, between Damascus
and the lake of Tiberias. The Ituræans being subdued by Aristobulus, the
high priest and governor of the Jews, B. C. 106, were forced by him to
embrace the Jewish religion; and were at the same time incorporated into
the state. Philip, one of the sons of Herod the Great, was tetrarch, or
governor, of this country when John the Baptist commenced his ministry.

IVORY. שנבים; from שז, _a tooth_, and הבים, _elephants_; ἐλεφάντινος,
Rev. xviii, 12. The first time that ivory is mentioned in Scripture is
in the reign of Solomon. If the forty-fifth Psalm was written before the
Canticles, and before Solomon had constructed his royal and magnificent
throne, then that contains the first mention of this commodity. It is
spoken of as used in decorating those boxes of perfume, whose odours
were employed to exhilarate the king’s spirits. It is probable that
Solomon, who traded to India, first brought thence elephants and ivory
to Judea. “For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish, with the navy of
Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold and
silver, and ivory,” 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21. It seems that
Solomon had a throne decorated with ivory, and inlaid with gold; the
beauty of these materials relieving the splendour, and heightening the
lustre of each other, 1 Kings x, 18. Cabinets and wardrobes were
ornamented with ivory, by what is called marquetry, Psalm xlv, 8.

                                 _Quale per artem
               Inclusum buxo aut Oricia terebintho
                   Lucet ebur._
                                            VIRGIL.

             “So shines a gem, illustrious to behold,
             On some fair virgin’s neck, enchased in gold:
             So the surrounding ebon’s darker hue
             Improves the polish'd ivory to the view.”
                                              PITT.

These were named “houses of ivory,” probably because made in the form of
a house, or palace; as the silver ναοὶ of Diana, mentioned Acts xix, 24,
were in the form of her temple at Ephesus; and as we have now ivory
models of the Chinese pagodas, or temples. In this sense we may
understand what is said of the ivory house which Ahab made, 1 Kings
xxii, 39; for the Hebrew word translated “_house_ is used,” as Dr.
Taylor well observes, for “a place, or case, wherein any thing lieth, is
contained, or laid up.” Ezekiel gives the name of house to chests of
rich apparel, Ezek. xxvii, 24. Dr. Durell, in his note on Psalm xlv, 8,
quotes places from Homer and Euripides, where the same appropriation is
made. Hesiod makes the same. As to dwelling houses, the most, I think,
we can suppose in regard to them is, that they might have ornaments of
ivory, as they sometimes have of gold, silver, or other precious
materials, in such abundance as to derive an appellation from the
article of their decoration; as the Emperor Nero’s palace, mentioned by
Suetonius, was named _aurea_, or “golden,” because _lita auro_,
“overlaid with gold.” This method of ornamental buildings, or
apartments, was very ancient among the Greeks. Homer mentions ivory as
employed in the palace of Menelaus at Lacedæmon:--

           Χαλκοῦ τε στεροπὴν, καδδώματα ἠχήεντα
           Χρυσοῦ τ’, ἠλέκτρȣ τε, καὶ ἀργύρȣ ἠ δ’ ἐλέφαντος.
                                             _Odyss._ iv, 72.

               “Above, beneath, around the palace, shines
               The sumless treasure of exhausted mines;
               The spoils of elephants the roof inlay,
               And studded amber darts a golden ray.”

Bacchylides, cited by Athenæus, says, that, in the island of Ceos, one
of the Cyclades, the houses of the great men “glister with gold and
ivory.”


JABBOK, a small river which falls into the Jordan below the sea of
Tiberias. Near this brook the angel wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii, 22.
Mr. Buckingham thus describes it: “The banks of this stream are so
thickly wooded with oleander and plane trees, wild olives, and wild
almonds in blossom, with many flowers, the names of which were unknown
to us; with tall and waving reeds, at least fifteen feet in height; that
we could not perceive the water through them from above, though the
presence of these luxuriant borders marked the winding of its course,
and the murmur of its flow, echoing through its long deep channel, was
to be heard distinctly from afar. On this side of the stream, at the
spot where we forded it, was a piece of wall, solidly built upon the
inclined slope, constructed in a uniform manner, though of small stones,
and apparently finished at the end toward the river, so that it never
could have been carried across, as we at first supposed, either for a
bridge, or to close the pass. This was called by the Arabs ‘Shugl beni
Israel,’ or the work of the sons of Israel; but they knew of no other
traditions regarding it. The river, where we crossed it at this point,
was not more than ten yards wide, but it was deeper than the Jordan, and
nearly as rapid; so that we had some difficulty in fording it. As it ran
in a rocky bed, its waters were clear, and we found their taste
agreeable.”

JABESH, or JABESH-GILEAD, the name of a city in the half tribe of
Manasseh, east of Jordan. Naash, king of the Ammonites, besieged it, 1
Sam. xi, 1, &c. The inhabitants were friendly to Saul and his family, 1
Sam. xxxi, 11, 12.

JACHIN, the name of a pillar in Solomon’s temple, 1 Kings vii, 21. See
BOAZ.

JACOB, the son of Isaac and Rebekah. He was the younger brother of Esau,
and a twin. It was observed, that at his birth he held his brother
Esau’s heel, and for this reason was called Jacob, Gen. xxv, 26, which
signifies “he supplanted.” Jacob was of a meek and peaceable temper, and
loved a quiet pastoral life; whereas Esau was of a fierce and turbulent
nature, and was fond of hunting. Isaac had a particular fondness for
Esau; but Rebekah was more attached to Jacob. The manner in which Jacob
purchased his brother’s birthright for a mess of pottage, and supplanted
him by obtaining Isaac’s blessing, is already referred to in the article
ESAU.

The events of the interesting and chequered life of Jacob are so plainly
and consecutively narrated by Moses, that they are familiar to all; but
upon some of them a few remarks may be useful. As to the purchase of the
birthright, Jacob appears to have been innocent so far as any guile on
his part or real necessity from hunger on the part of Esau is involved
in the question; but his obtaining the ratification of this by the
blessing of Isaac, though agreeable, indeed, to the purpose of God, that
the elder should serve the younger, was blamable as to the means
employed. The remarks of Dr. Hales on this transaction implicate Isaac
also:--Thirty-seven years after, when Jacob was seventy-seven years old,
according to Abulfaragi, and Isaac a hundred and thirty-seven, when he
was old, and his sight had failed, and he expected soon to die, his
partiality for Esau led him to attempt to set aside the oracle, and the
cession of Esau’s birthright to Jacob, by conferring on him the blessing
of Abraham, in reward for bringing him savoury venison to eat, before
his death. In this design, however, he was disappointed by the artifice
of Rebekah, who dressed her favourite Jacob in his brother’s clothes,
and made him personate Esau, and thereby surreptitiously obtained for
him the blessing: “Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee:
be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee:
cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth
thee,” Gen. xxvii, 1–29. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the
agitation of Isaac, when “he trembled very exceedingly,” at the
detection of the fraud, he did not attempt to rescind the blessing, nor
transfer it to Esau; but, on the contrary, confirmed it on Jacob: “Yea,
and he shall be blessed.” His wishes were overruled and controlled by
that higher power which he vainly endeavoured to counteract; and that he
spoke as the Spirit gave him utterance, appears from his prediction
respecting Esau’s family: “And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt
have the dominion, that thou shalt break thy brother’s yoke from off thy
neck,” Gen. xxvii, 40; which was fulfilled in the days of Jehoram, king
of Judah, when “the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah,
and made themselves a king unto this day,” 2 Chron. xxi, 8–10.

According to this view, all the parties were more or less culpable;
Isaac, for endeavouring to set aside the oracle which had been
pronounced in favour of his younger son; but of which he might have an
obscure conception; Esau, for wishing to deprive his brother of the
blessing which he had himself relinquished; and Rebekah and Jacob, for
securing it by fraudulent means, not trusting wholly in the Lord. That
their principal object, however, was the spiritual part of the blessing,
and not the temporal, was shown by the event. For Jacob afterward
reverenced Esau as his elder brother, and insisted on Esau’s accepting a
present from his band in token of submission, Gen. xxxiii, 3–15. Esau
also appears to have possessed himself of his father’s property during
Jacob’s long exile. But though the intention of Rebekah and Jacob might
have been free from worldly or mercenary motives, they ought not to have
done evil that good might come. And they were both severely punished in
this life for their fraud, which destroyed the peace of the family, and
planted a mortal enmity in the breast of Esau against his brother: “Is
he not rightly named Jacob?” _a supplanter_; “for he hath supplanted me
these two times: he took away my birthright, and lo, now he hath taken
away my blessing. The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then
will I slay my brother Jacob,” Gen. xxvii, 36–41. And there can be
little doubt of his intention of executing his threat, when he came to
meet him on his return, with such an armed force as strongly alarmed
Jacob’s fears, had not God changed the spirit of Esau into mildness, so
that “he ran to meet Jacob, and fell on his neck, and they wept,” Gen.
xxxiii, 4. Rebekah, also, was deprived of the society of her darling
son, whom “she sent away for one year,” as she fondly imagined, “until
his brother’s fury should turn away,” Genesis xxvii, 42–44; but whom she
saw no more; for she died during his long exile of twenty years, though
Isaac survived, Gen. xxxv, 27. Thus was “she pierced through with many
sorrows.” Jacob, also, had abundant reason to say, “Few and evil have
been the days of the years of my pilgrimage,” Gen. xlvii, 9. Though he
had the consolation of having the blessing of Abraham voluntarily
renewed to him by his father, before he was forced to fly from his
brother’s fury, Gen. xxviii, 1–4, and had the satisfaction of obeying
his parents in going to Padan-aram, or Charran, in quest of a wife of
his own kindred, Gen. xxviii, 7; yet he set out on a long and perilous
journey of six hundred miles and upward, through barren and inhospitable
regions, unattended and unprovided, like a pilgrim, indeed, with only
his staff in his hand, Gen. xxxii, 10. And though he was supported with
the assurance of the divine protection, and the renewal of the blessing
of Abraham by God himself, in his remarkable vision at Bethel, and
solemnly devoted himself to his service, wishing only for food and
raiment, and vowing to profess the worship of God, and pay tithe unto
him should he return back in peace, Gen. xxviii, 10–22; yet he was
forced to engage in a tedious and thankless servitude of seven years, at
first for Rachel, with Laban, who retaliated upon him the imposition he
had practised on his own father; and substituted Leah, whom he hated,
for Rachel, whom he loved; and thereby compelled him to serve seven
years more; and changed his wages several times during the remainder of
his whole servitude of twenty years; in the course of which, as he
pathetically complained, “the drought consumed him by day, and the frost
by night, and the sleep departed from his eyes,” in watching Laban’s
flocks, Gen. xxxi, 40; and at last he was forced to steal away, and was
only protected from Laban’s vengeance, as afterward from Esau’s, by
divine interposition. Add to these his domestic troubles and
misfortunes; the impatience of his favourite wife, “Give me children, or
I die;” her death in bearing her second son, Benjamin; the rape of his
daughter Dinah; the perfidy and cruelty of her brothers, Simeon and
Levi, to the Shechemites; the misbehaviour of Reuben; the supposed death
of Joseph, his favourite and most deserving son:--these were, all
together, sufficient to have brought down his gray hairs with sorrow to
the grave, had he not been divinely supported and encouraged throughout
the whole of his pilgrimage. For the circumstances which led Jacob into
Egypt, see JOSEPH.

When Jacob, at the invitation of Joseph, went down to Egypt, Joseph
introduced his father to his royal master; and the patriarch, in his
priestly character, blessed Pharaoh, and supplicated the divine favour
for the king. The venerable appearance and the pious demeanour of Jacob
led the monarch to inquire his years; to which he replied, “The days of
the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil
have the days of the years of my life been; and I have not attained unto
the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their
pilgrimage.” This answer of the patriarch was not the language of
discontent, but the solemn reflection of a man who had experienced a
large share of trouble, and who knew that the whole of human life is
indeed but “a vain show,” Genesis xlvii, 1–10. Jacob spent the remainder
of his days in tranquillity and prosperity, enjoying the society of his
beloved child seventeen years. The close of his life was a happy calm,
after a stormy voyage. The patriarch, perceiving that his dissolution
was near, sent for Joseph, and bound him by a solemn promise to bury him
with his fathers in Canaan. Shortly after this, Jacob was taken ill, and
it being reported to Joseph, he hastened to the bedside of his father,
taking with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. On hearing that his
son was come, Jacob exerted all his strength, and sat up in his bed to
receive him, and to impart that blessing which, in the spirit of
prophecy, he was commissioned to bequeath. He next blessed the infant
children of Joseph; but, as he placed his hands upon their heads, he
crossed them, putting his right upon Ephraim the younger, and his left
upon Manasseh the elder. Joseph wished to correct the mistake of his
father, but Jacob persisted, being guided by a divine impulse; and he
gave to each of the lads a portion in Israel, at the same time declaring
that the younger should be greater than the elder, Gen. xlviii, 22. When
this interview was ended, Jacob caused all his sons to assemble round
his dying bed, that he might inform them what would befall them in the
last days, Gen. xlix, 1, 2. Of all the predictions which he pronounced
with his expiring breath, the most remarkable and the most interesting
is that relating to Judah: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor
a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall
the gathering of the people be,” Gen. xlix, 10. One grand personage was
in the mind of the patriarch, as it had been in the contemplation of his
predecessors, even the illustrious Deliverer who should arise in after
ages to redeem his people, and bring salvation to the human race. The
promised Seed was the constant object of faithful expectation; and all
the patriarchal ordinances, institutions, and predictions, had an
allusion, positive or incidental, to the Messiah. Hitherto the promise
was confined generally to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that from them the
glorious blessing should arise; but now, under the divine direction, the
dying patriarch foretels in what tribe, and at what period, the great
Restorer shall come. The sovereign authority was to continue in the
possession of Judah, till from that tribe Shiloh should appear, and then
the royalty must cease. This was fulfilled; for the tribe of Judah
possessed legislative power till the time of Christ, and from that
period the Jewish people have neither had dominion nor priesthood. Jesus
Christ, therefore, must either be the true Shiloh, or the prophecy has
failed; for the Jews cannot prove that they have had any thing like
temporal power since his crucifixion. When they were so clamorous for
the execution of Jesus, and Pilate told them to take the law into their
own hands, they shrunk fearfully from the proposal, and acknowledged
their slavish state by saying, “It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death,” John xviii, 31. Here, then, we have a glorious proof of the
veracity of Scripture, and an incontestible evidence of the truth of our
religion.

When Jacob had finished blessing his sons, he charged them to bury him
in the cave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Isaac, and, “gathering his
feet into the bed, he yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his
people,” Gen. xlix, 33. Joseph, having closed the eyes of his father,
and wept over him, commanded the physicians to embalm the body. After a
general mourning of seventy days, he solicited the king’s permission to
go with the remains of Jacob into Canaan, to which Pharaoh consented;
and with Joseph went up all the state officers and principal nobility of
Egypt, so that when they came to the place of interment, the Canaanites
were astonished, and said, “This is a grievous mourning to the
Egyptians,” Gen. l, 1–11.

JACOBITES, a denomination of eastern Christians, who first made their
appearance in the fifth century, and were called Monophysites. Jacob
Albardai, or Baradæus, who flourished about A. D. 530, restored the
sect, then almost expiring, to its former vigour, and modelled it anew;
and hence from him they obtained the name of Jacobites. See HYPOSTATICAL
UNION.

JACOB’s WELL, or fountain, a well near Shechem, at which our Saviour
conversed with the woman of Samaria, John iv, 12. Jacob dwelt near this
place, before his sons slew the inhabitants of Shechem. If any thing,
says Dr. E. D. Clarke, connected with the remembrance of past ages be
calculated to awaken local enthusiasm, the land around this city is
preëminently entitled to consideration. The sacred story of events
transacted in the fields of Sichem, Gen. xxxvii, from our earliest
years, is remembered with delight; but with the territory before our
eyes, where those events took place, and in the view of objects existing
as they were described above three thousand years ago, the grateful
impression kindles into ecstacy. Along the valley may still be seen, as
in the days of Reuben and Judah, “a company of Ishmaelites coming from
Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery, and balm, and myrrh,” who
would gladly purchase another Joseph of his brethren, and convey him as
a slave to some Potiphar in Egypt. Upon the hills around, flocks and
herds are seen feeding as of old; nor in the simple garb of the
shepherds of Samaria, at this day, is there any thing repugnant to the
notions we may entertain of the appearance formerly presented by the
sons of Jacob. In the time of Alexander the Great, Sichem, or Napolose,
as it is now called, was considered as the capital of Samaria. Its
inhabitants were called Samaritans, not merely as people of Samaria, but
as a sect at variance with the Jews; and they have continued to maintain
their peculiar tenets to this day. The inhabitants, according to
Procopius, were much favoured by the Emperor Justinian, who restored
their sanctuaries, and added largely to the edifices of the city. The
principal object of veneration among them is Jacob’s well, over which a
church was formerly erected. This is situated at a small distance from
the town in the road to Jerusalem, and has been visited by pilgrims of
all ages, but particularly since the Christian era, as the place where
Christ revealed himself to the woman of Samaria. The spot is so
distinctly marked by the evangelist, John iv, and so little liable to
uncertainty from the circumstance of the well itself, and the features
of the country, that, if no tradition existed to identify it, the site
of it could scarcely be mistaken. Perhaps no Christian scholar ever read
the fourth chapter of St. John’s Gospel attentively, without being
struck with the numerous internal evidences of truth which crowd upon
the mind in its perusal. Within so small a compass, it is impossible to
find in other writings so many sources of reflection and of interest.
Independently of its importance as a theological document, it
concentrates so much information, that a volume might be filled with the
illustration it reflects upon the history of the Jews, and upon the
geography of their country. All that can be gathered from Josephus on
these subjects seems to be as a comment to illustrate this chapter. The
journey of our Lord from Judea into Galilee; the cause of it; his
passage through the territory of Samaria; his approach to the metropolis
of that country; its name; his arrival at the Amorite field, which
terminates the narrow valley of Sichem; the ancient custom of halting at
a well; the female employment of drawing water; the disciples sent into
the city for food, by which its situation out of the town is so
obviously implied; the question of the woman referring to existing
prejudices which separated the Jews from the Samaritans; the depth of
the well; the oriental allusion contained in the expression, “living
water;” the history of the well, and the customs illustrated by it; the
worship upon Mount Gerizim:--all these occur within the space of twenty
verses; and if to these be added that remarkable circumstance mentioned
in the fifty-first verse of the chapter, where it is stated that “as he
was now going _down_, his servants met him,” his whole route from Cana
being a continual _descent_ toward Capernaum, we may consider it as a
record, signally confirmed in its veracity by circumstances which remain
in indelible character, to give them evidence, to this day.

JAH, one of the names of God, which we meet with in the composition of
many Hebrew words; as, _Adonijah_, _Allelujah_, _Malachiah_; that is,
“My Lord,” Praise the Lord,” “The Lord is my King.”

JAIR, of the family of Manasseh. He possessed a large canton beyond
Jordan; the whole country of Argob, as far as the borders of Geshur and
Maachathi, Judges x, 3. He succeeded Tola in the judicature or
government of the Israelites, and was himself succeeded by Jephthah. His
government continued twenty-two years; from A. M. 2795 to 2817. Jair had
thirty sons, who rode on asses, and were lords or governors of thirty
towns, called Havoth-jair. He was buried at Camon beyond Jordan.

JAMES, Ἰάκωβος, of the same import as Jacob. James, surnamed the greater
or, the elder, to distinguish him from James the younger, was brother to
John the evangelist, and son to Zebedee and Salome, Matt. iv, 21. He was
of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and left all to follow Christ. Salome
requested our Saviour, that her two sons, James and John, might sit at
his right hand, when he should be in possession of his kingdom. Our
Saviour answered, that it belonged to his heavenly Father alone to
dispose of these places of honour, Matt. xx, 21. Before their vocation,
James and John followed the trade of fishermen with their father
Zebedee; and they did not quit their profession till our Saviour called
them, Mark i, 18, 19. They were witnesses of our Lord’s transfiguration,
Matt. xvii, 2. When certain Samaritans refused to admit Jesus Christ,
James and John wished for fire from heaven to consume them, Luke ix, 54;
and for this reason, it is thought, the name of Boanerges, or sons of
thunder, was given them. Some days after the resurrection of our
Saviour, James and John went to fish in the sea of Tiberias, where they
saw Jesus. They were present at the ascension of our Lord. St. James is
said to have preached to all the dispersed tribes of Israel; but for
this there is only report. His martyrdom is related, Acts xii, 1, 2,
about A. D. 42, or 44, for the date is not well ascertained. Herod
Agrippa, king of the Jews, and grandson of Herod the Great, caused him
to be seized and executed at Jerusalem. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us,
that he who brought St. James before the judges was so much affected
with his constancy in confessing Jesus Christ, that he also declared
himself a Christian, and was condemned, as well as the Apostle, to be
beheaded.

JAMES THE LESS, surnamed the brother of our Lord, Gal. i, 19, was the
son of Cleophas, otherwise called Alpheus, and Mary, sister to the
blessed virgin; consequently, he was cousin-german to Jesus Christ. He
was surnamed the Just, on account of the admirable holiness and purity
of his life. He is said to have been a priest, and to have observed the
laws of the Nazarites from his birth. Our Saviour appeared to James the
less, eight days after his resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 7. He was at
Jerusalem, and was considered as a pillar of the church, when St. Paul
first came thither after his conversion, Gal. i, 19, A. D. 37. In the
council of Jerusalem, held in the year 51, St. James gave his vote last;
and the result of the council was principally formed from what St. James
said, who, though he observed the ceremonies of the law, and was careful
that others should observe them, was of opinion, that such a yoke was
not to be imposed on the faithful converted from among the Heathens,
Acts xv, 13, &c.

James the less was a person of great prudence and discretion, and was
highly esteemed by the Apostles and other Christians. Such, indeed, was
his general reputation for piety and virtue, that, as we learn, from
Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom, Josephus thought, and declared it to be the
common opinion, that the sufferings of the Jews, and the destruction of
their city and temple, were owing to the anger of God, excited by the
murder of James. This must be considered as a strong and remarkable
testimony to the character of this Apostle, as it is given by a person
who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The passages of Josephus,
referred to by those fathers upon this subject, are not found in his
works now extant.

JAMES, GENERAL EPISTLE OF. Clement of Rome and Hermas allude to this
epistle; and it is quoted by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerom,
Chrysostom, Augustine, and many other fathers. But though the antiquity
of this epistle had been always undisputed, some few formerly doubted
its right to be admitted into the canon. Eusebius says, that in his time
it was generally, though not universally, received as canonical; and
publicly read in most, but not in all, churches; and Estius affirms,
that after the fourth century, no church or ecclesiastical writer is
found who ever doubted its authenticity; but that, on the contrary, it
is included in all subsequent catalogues of canonical Scripture, whether
published by councils, churches, or individuals. It has, indeed, been
the uniform tradition of the church, that this epistle was written by
James the Just; but it was not universally admitted till after the
fourth century, that James the Just was the same person as James the
less, one of the twelve Apostles; that point being ascertained, the
canonical authority of this epistle was no longer doubted. It is evident
that this epistle could not have been written by James the elder, for he
was beheaded by Herod Agrippa in the year 44, and the errors and vices
reproved in this epistle show it to be of a much later date; and the
destruction of Jerusalem is also here spoken of as being very near at
hand, James v, 8, 9. It has always been considered as a circumstance
very much in favour of this epistle, that it is found in the Syriac
version, which was made as early as the end of the first century, and
for the particular use of converted Jews,--the very description of
persons to whom it was originally addressed. Hence we infer, that it was
from the first acknowledged by those for whose instruction it was
intended; and “I think,” says Dr. Doddridge, “it can hardly be doubted
but they were better judges of the question of its authenticity than the
Gentiles, to whom it was not written; among whom, therefore, it was not
likely to be propagated so early; and who at first might be prejudiced
against it, because it was inscribed to the Jews.”

The immediate design of this epistle was to animate the Jewish
Christians to support with fortitude and patience any sufferings to
which they might be exposed, and to enforce the genuine doctrine and
practice of the Gospel, in opposition to the errors and vices which then
prevailed among them. St. James begins by showing the benefits of trials
and afflictions, and by assuring the Jewish Christians that God would
listen to their sincere prayers for assistance and support; he reminds
them of their being the distinguished objects of divine favour, and
exhorts them to practical religion; to a just and impartial regard for
the poor, and to a uniform obedience to all the commands of God, without
any distinction or exception; he shows the inefficacy of faith without
works, that is, unless followed by moral duties; he inculcates the
necessity of a strict government of the tongue, and cautions them
against censoriousness, strife, malevolence, pride, indulgence of their
sensual passions, and rash judgment; he denounces threats against those
who make an improper use of riches; he intimates the approaching
destruction of Jerusalem; and concludes with exhortations to patience,
devotion, and a solicitous concern for the salvation of others. This
epistle is written with great perspicuity and energy, and it contains an
excellent summary of those practical duties and moral virtues which are
required of Christians. Although the author wrote to the Jews dispersed
throughout the world, yet the state of his native land passed more
immediately before his eyes. Its final overthrow was approaching; and
oppressions, factions, and violent scenes troubled all ranks, and
involved some professing Christians in suffering, others in guilt.

JANNES and JAMBRES, or, as Pliny calls them, Jamne and Jotape, two
magicians, who resisted Moses in Egypt, 2 Tim. iii, 8. He speaks,
likewise, of the faction or sect of magicians, of which, he says, Moses,
Jannes, and Jocabel, or Jopata, were heads. By this last word he meant
probably the patriarch Joseph, whom the Egyptians considered as one of
their most celebrated sages. The Mussulmans have several particulars to
the same purpose. The paraphrast Jonathan says they were the sons of
Balaam, who accompanied him to Balak, king of Moab. They are called by
several names in several translations; by the Septuagint, φαρμακοὶ,
_poisoners_, and ἐπαοιδοὶ, _enchanters_; by Sulpitius Severus,
_Chaldæans_, that is, astrologers; by others, _sapientes_ and
_malefici_, wise men, that is, so esteemed among the Egyptians,
philosophers, and witches. Artapanus tells us, that Pharaoh sent for
magicians from Upper Egypt to oppose Moses. Ambrosiaster, or Hilary, the
deacon, says they were brothers. He cites a book entitled “Jannes and
Mambres,” which is likewise quoted by Origen, and ranked as apocryphal
by Pope Gelasius. Some of the Hebrews call them Janes and Jambres;
others, Jochana and Mamré, or Jonas and Jombros. Jerom translates their
names Johannes and Mambres; and there is a tradition, they say, in the
Talmud, that Juhanni and Mamré, chief of Pharaoh’s physicians, said to
Moses, “Thou bringest straw into Egypt where abundance of corn grew;”
that is, to bring your magical arts hither is to as much purpose as to
bring water to the Nile. Some say their names are the same as John and
Ambrose. Some will have it that they fled away with their father;
others, that they were drowned in the Red Sea with the Egyptians;
others, that they were killed by Phinehas in the war against the
Midianites. Numenius, cited by Aristobulus, says that Jannes and Jambres
were sacred scribes of the Egyptians, who excelled in magic at the time
when the Jews were driven out of Egypt. See PLAGUES OF EGYPT.

JANSENISTS, a denomination of Roman Catholics in France, which was
formed in the year 1640. They follow the opinions of Jansenius, bishop
of Ypres, from whose writings the following propositions are said to
have been extracted:--1. That there are divine precepts which good men,
notwithstanding their desire to observe them, are, nevertheless,
absolutely unable to obey; nor has God given them that measure of grace
which is essentially necessary to render them capable of such obedience.
2. That no person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the
influence of divine grace, when it operates upon the mind. 3. That, in
order to render human actions meritorious, it is not requisite that they
be exempt from necessity; but that they be free from constraint. 4. That
the Semi-Pelagians err greatly, in maintaining that the human will is
endowed with the power of either receiving or resisting the aids and
influences of preventing grace. 5. That whoever affirms that Jesus
Christ made expiation, by his sufferings and death, for the sins of
_all_ mankind, is a Semi-Pelagian. Of these propositions, Pope Innocent
X. condemned the first four as heretical, and the last as rash and
impious. But he did this without asserting that these were the doctrines
of Jansenius, or even naming him; which did not satisfy his adversaries,
nor silence him. The next pope, however, Alexander VII. was more
particular, and determined the said propositions to be the doctrines of
Jansenius; which excited no small trouble in the Gallican church.

This denomination was also distinguished from many of the Roman
Catholics, by their maintaining that the Holy Scriptures and public
liturgies should be given to the people in their mother tongue; and they
consider it as a matter of importance to inculcate upon all Christians,
that true piety does not consist in the performance of external
devotions, but in inward holiness and divine love.

As to Jansenius, it must be confessed that he was more diligent in the
search of truth, than courageous in its defence. It is said that he read
through the whole of St. Augustine’s works ten, and some parts thirty,
times. From these he made a number of _excerpta_, [extracts,] which he
collected in his book called “_Augustinus_.” This he had not the courage
to publish; but it was printed after his death, and from it his enemies,
the Jesuits, extracted the propositions above named; but the correctness
and fidelity of their extracts may be justly questioned. Jansenius
himself, undoubtedly, held the opinions of Calvin on unconditional
election, though he seems to have been reserved in avowing them.

The Jansenists of Port Royal may be denominated the evangelical party of
the Catholic church: among their number were the famous Father Quesnel,
Pierre Nicole, Pascal, De Sacy, Duguet, and Arnauld; the last of whom is
styled by Boileau, “the most learned mortal that ever lived.” They
consecrated all their great powers to the service of the cross; and for
their attachment to the grand article of the Protestant
reformation,--justification by faith, with other capital doctrines, they
suffered the loss of all things. The Jesuits, their implacable enemies,
never ceased until they prevailed upon their sovereign, Louis XIV. to
destroy the abbey of Port Royal, and banish its inhabitants. It must be
confessed, however, that all the Jansenists were not like the eminent
men whom we have just mentioned; and even these were tinged with
enthusiasm and superstition. Some of them even pretended to work
miracles, by which their cause was greatly injured.

JAPHETH, the son of Noah, who is commonly named the third in order of
Noah’s sons, was born in the five hundredth year of that patriarch,
Genesis v, 32; but Moses, Genesis x, 21, says expressly he was the
oldest of Noah’s sons, according to our translation, and those of the
Septuagint and Symmachus. Abraham was named the first of Terah’s sons,
“not from primogeniture, but from preëminence,” as the father of the
faithful, and the illustrious ancestor of the Israelites, and of the
Jews, whose “seed was Christ,” according to the flesh; with whose
history the Old Testament properly commences: “Now these are the
generations of Terah,” &c, Gen. xi, 27; all the preceding parts of
Genesis being only introductory to this. By the same analogy, Shem, the
second son of Noah, is placed first of his three sons, Gen. v, 32, and
Japheth, “the eldest,” last. Compare Gen. x, 21; xi, 20. Thus Isaac is
put before Ishmael, though fourteen years younger, 1 Chron. i, 28. And
Solomon, the eldest, is reckoned the last of Bathsheba’s children, 1
Chron. iii, 5.

Japheth signifies _enlargement_; and how wonderfully did Providence
enlarge the boundaries of Japheth! His posterity diverged eastward and
westward; from the original settlement in Armenia, through the whole
extent of Asia, north of the great range of Taurus, distinguished by the
general names of Tartary and Siberia, as far as the Eastern Ocean: and
in process of time, by an easy passage across Behring’s straits, the
entire continent of America; and they spread in the opposite direction,
throughout the whole of Europe, to the Atlantic Ocean; thus literally
encompassing the earth, within the precincts of the northern temperate
zone. While the enterprising and warlike genius of this hardy hunter
race frequently led them to encroach on the settlements, and to dwell in
“the tents of Shem,” whose pastoral occupations rendered them more
inactive, peaceable, and unwarlike; as when the Scythians invaded Media,
and overran western Asia southwards, as far as Egypt, in the days of
Cyaxares; and when the Greeks, and afterward the Romans, subdued the
Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, in the east, and the Scythians and Jews
in the south, as foretold by the Assyrian Prophet Balaam:

       “And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim,
       And shall afflict the Assyrians, and afflict the Hebrews;
       But he [the invader] shall perish himself at last.”
                                           Numb. xxiv, 24.

And by Moses: “And the Lord shall bring thee [the Jews] into Egypt [or
bondage] again with ships,” &c, Deut. xxviii, 28. And by Daniel: “For
the ships of Chittim shall come against him” [Antiochus, king of Syria,]
Dan. xi, 30.

In these passages Chittim denotes the southern coasts of Europe,
bordering on the Mediterranean Sea, called the “isles of the Gentiles,”
Gen. x, 5. And, in later times, the Tartars in the east have repeatedly
invaded and subdued the Hindoos and Chinese; while the warlike and
enterprising genius of the British isles has spread their colonies,
their arms, their arts, and their language, and, in some measure, their
religion, from the rising to the setting sun.

The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and
Tiras. The Scripture says, that they peopled the isles of the Gentiles,
and settled in different countries, each according to his language,
family, and people, Genesis x, 5. It is supposed that Gomer peopled
Galatia, and that from him the Cimmerians, or Cimbrians, and also the
Phrygians, derived their origin; that Magog was the father of the
Scythians, and Tartars, or Tatars; that Madai was the progenitor of the
Medes, though some make him the founder of a people in Macedonia, called
Macdi; that from Javan sprung the Ionians and Greeks; that Tubal was the
father of the Iberians, and that at least a part of Spain was peopled by
him and his descendants; that Meshech was the founder of the
Cappadocians, from whom proceeded the Muscovites, or Russians; and that
from Tiras the Thracians derived their origin. Japheth was known, by
profane authors, under the name of Japetus. The poets make him father of
heaven and earth. The Greeks believed that Japheth was the father of
their race, and acknowledged nothing more ancient than him.

JAR, the Hebrew month which answers to our April. It consisted but of
twenty-nine days.

JASPER, ישפה, Exod. xxviii, 20; xxxix, 13; and Ezek. xxviii, 13; ἴασπις,
Rev. iv, 3, and xxi, 11, 18, 19. The Greek and Latin name, _jaspis_, as
well as the English jasper, is plainly derived from the Hebrew, and
leaves little room to doubt what species of gem is meant by the original
word. The jasper is usually defined, a hard stone, of a bright,
beautiful, green colour; sometimes clouded with white, and spotted with
red or yellow.

JAVAN, or ION, (for the Hebrew word, differently pointed, forms both
names,) was the fourth son of Japheth, and the father of all those
nations which were included under the name of Grecians, or Ionians, as
they were invariably called in the east. Javan had four sons, by whom
the different portions of Greece Proper were peopled: Elisha, Tharsis,
Chittim, and Dodanim. Elisha, Eliza, or Ellas, as it is written in the
Chaldee, and from whom the Greeks took the name of Hέλληνες, settled in
the Peloponnesus; where, in the Elysian fields and the river Ilissus,
his name is still preserved. Tharsis settled in Achaia; Chittim, in
Macedonia; and Dodanim, in Thessaly and Epirus; where the city of Dodona
gives ample proof of the origin of its name. But the Greeks did not
remain pure Javanim. It appears from history that, at a very early age,
they were invaded and subjugated by the Pelasgi, a Cuthite race from the
east, and by colonies of Phenicians and Egyptians from the south: so
that the Greeks, so famous in history, were a compound of all these
people. The aboriginal Greeks were called Jaones, or Jonim; from which
similarity of sound, the Jonim and the Javanim, although belonging to
two essentially different families, have been confounded together. Javan
is the name used in the Old Testament for Greece and the Greeks. See
DIVISION OF THE EARTH.

JEALOUSY, WATERS OF. See ADULTERY.

JEBUS, the son of Canaan, Gen. x, 16, and father of the people of
Palestine called Jebusites. Their dwelling was in Jerusalem and round
about, in the mountains. This people were very warlike, and held
Jerusalem till David’s time, Josh. xv, 65; 2 Sam. v, 6, &c.

JEDUTHUN, a Levite of Merari’s family, and one of the four great masters
of music belonging to the temple, 1 Chron. xvi, 38, 41, 42; xv, 17;
Psalm lxxxix, title. He is the same as Ethan. Some of the Psalms are
said to have been composed by him; such as the eighty-ninth,
thirty-ninth, sixty-second, seventy-seventh; all of which go under his
name. Some believe, that David, having composed these Psalms, gave them
to Jeduthun and his company to sing; and that this is the reason of
their going by this name. But there are some Psalms which have the name
of Jeduthun, that seem to have been composed either during the
captivity, or after it; and consequently the name of Jeduthun prefixed
to them, can signify nothing else, but that some of his descendants, and
of Jeduthun’s class, composed them long after the death of the famous
Jeduthun, one of their ancestors.

JEHOAHAZ, otherwise SHALLUM, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, Jer.
xxii, 11. Josiah having been wounded mortally by Necho, king of Egypt,
and dying of his wounds at Megiddo, Jehoahaz was made king in his room,
though he was not Josiah’s eldest son, 2 Kings xxiii, 30, 31, 32. He was
in all probability thought fitter than any of his brethren to make head
against the king of Egypt. He was twenty-three years old when he began
to reign, and he reigned about three months only in Jerusalem, in the
year of the world 3395. King Necho, at his return from the expedition
against Carchemish, provoked at the people of Judah for having placed
this prince upon the throne without his consent, sent for him to Riblah,
in Syria, divested him of the kingdom, loaded him with chains, and sent
him into Egypt, where he died, Jer. xxii, 11, 12. Jehoiakim, or Eliakim
his brother, was made king in his room.

JEHOIACHIN, otherwise called Coniah, Jer. xxii, 24, and Jeconiah, 1
Chron. iii, 17, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and grandson of
Josiah. He ascended the throne, and reigned only three months. It seems
he was born about the time of the first Babylonish captivity, A. M.
3398, when Jehoiakim, or Eliakim, his father, was carried to Babylon.
Jehoiakim returned from Babylon, and reigned till A. M. 3405, when he
was killed by the Chaldeans, in the eleventh year of his reign; and was
succeeded by this Jehoiachin, who reigned alone three months and ten
days; but he reigned about ten years in conjunction with his father.
Thus 2 Kings xxiv, 8, is reconciled with 2 Chron. xxxvi, 9. In the
former of these passages, he is said to have been eighteen when he began
to reign, and in Chronicles only eight; that is, he was only eight when
he began to reign with his father, and eighteen when he began to reign
alone. He was a bad man, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, Jer.
xxii, 24. The time of his death is uncertain; and the words of the
Prophet Jeremiah, xxii, 30, are not to be taken in the strictest sense;
since he was the father of Salathiel and others, 1 Chron. iii, 17, 18;
Matt. i, 12.

JEHOIAKIM, or ELIAKIM, the brother and successor of Jehoahaz, king of
Judah, was advanced to the throne by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, A. M.
3395, 2 Kings xxiii, 34. He reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and did
evil in the sight of the Lord. When Jerusalem was taken by
Nebuchadnezzar, this prince was also taken and put to death, and his
body thrown into the common sewer, according to the prediction of
Jeremiah, xxii, 18, 19.

JEHOSHAPHAT, king of Judah, son of Asa, king of Judah, and Azabah,
daughter of Shilhi, ascended the throne at the age of thirty-five, and
reigned twenty-five years. He had the advantage over Baasha, king of
Israel; and he placed good garrisons in the cities of Judah and of
Ephraim, which had been conquered by his father. God was with him,
because he was faithful. He demolished the high places and groves. In
the third year of his reign he sent some of his officers, with priests
and Levites, through all the parts of Judah, with the book of the law,
to instruct the people. God blessed the zeal of this prince, who was
feared by all his neighbours. The Philistines and Arabians were
tributaries to him. He built several houses in Judah in the form of
towers, and fortified several cities. He generally kept an army of
eleven hundred thousand men, without reckoning the troops in his strong
holds. This number seems prodigious for so small a state as that of
Judah; but, probably, these troops were only an enrolled militia.

The Scripture reproaches Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, king of
Israel, 1 Kings xx; 2 Chronicles xviii. Some time after, he went to
visit Ahab in Samaria; and Ahab invited him to march with him against
Ramoth-Gilead. Jehoshaphat consented, but first asked for an opinion
from a prophet of the Lord. Afterward, he went into the battle in his
robe, and the enemy supposed him to be Ahab; but he crying out, they
discovered their mistake, and Jehoshaphat returned in peace to
Jerusalem. The Prophet Jehu reproved him for assisting Ahab, 2 Chron.
xix, 1, 2, 3, &c. Jehoshaphat repaired this fault by the good
regulations, and the good order, which he established in his dominions,
both as to civil and religious affairs, by appointing honest and able
judges, by regulating the discipline of the priests and Levites, and by
enjoining them to perform their duty with punctuality. After this, in
the year 3108, the Moabites, Ammonites, and other nations of Arabia
Petræa, declared war against Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xx, 1, 2, 3, &c. They
advanced to Hazaron-Tamar, otherwise Engedi. Jehoshaphat went with his
people to the temple, and put up prayers to God. Jahaziel, the son of
Zechariah, by the Spirit of the Lord, encouraged the king, and promised
that the next day he should obtain a victory without fighting.
Accordingly, these people being assembled the next day against Judah,
quarrelled, and killed one another; and Jehoshaphat and his army had
only to gather their spoils. This prince continued to walk in the ways
of the Lord; yet he did not destroy the high places, and the hearts of
the people were not entirely directed to the God of their fathers.
Jehoshaphat died after a reign of twenty-five years, and was buried in
the royal sepulchre; and his son, Jehoram reigned in his stead.

2. JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF. This valley is a deep and narrow glen, which
runs from north to south, between the Mount of Olives and Mount Moriah;
the brook Cedron flowing through the middle of it, which is dry the
greatest part of the year, but has a current of a red colour, after
storms, or in rainy seasons. The Prophet Joel, iii, 2, 12, says, “The
Lord will gather all nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will
plead with them there.” Abenezra is of opinion, that this valley is the
place where King Jehoshaphat obtained a signal victory over the
Moabites, Ammonites, and Meonians of Arabia Petræa, 2 Chron. xx, 1, &c,
toward the Dead Sea, beyond the wilderness of Tekoah, which after that
event was called the valley of blessing, verse 26. Others think it lies
between the walls of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. Cyril, of
Alexandria, on Joel iii, says that this valley is but a few furlongs
distant from Jerusalem. Lastly, some maintain that the ancient Hebrews
had named no particular place the valley of Jehoshaphat; but that Joel
intended generally the place where God would judge the nations, and will
appear at the last judgment in the brightness of his majesty.
_Jehoshaphat_, in Hebrew, signifies “the judgment of God.” It is very
probable that the valley of Jehoshaphat, that is, of God’s judgment, is
symbolical, as well as the valley of slaughter, in the same chapter.
From this passage, however, the Jews and many Christians have been of
opinion, that the last judgment will be solemnized in the valley of
Jehoshaphat.

JEHOVAH, יהוה the proper and incommunicable name of the Divine Essence.
That this divine name, Jehovah, was well known to the Heathens, there
can be no doubt. Sanchoniathon writes _Jebo_; Diodorus, the Sicilian,
Macrobius, St. Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Jerom, and Origen, pronounce
_Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret, and the Samaritans, _Jabe_, _Javé_. We
likewise find in the ancients, _Jahoh_, _Javo_, _Javu_, _Jaod_. The
Moors call their god _Jaba_, whom some believe to be the same as
Jehovah. The Latins, in all probability, took their _Javis_, or _Jovis
Pater_, from Jehovah.

The Jews, after their captivity in Babylon, out of an excessive and
superstitious respect for this name, left off to pronounce it, and thus
lost the true pronunciation. The Septuagint generally renders it Κύριος,
“the Lord.” Origen, St. Jerom, and Eusebius, testify that in their time
the Jews left the name of Jehovah written in their copies in Samaritan
characters, instead of writing it in the common Chaldee or Hebrew
characters; which shows their veneration for this holy name: and the
fear they were under, lest strangers, who were not unacquainted with the
Chaldee letters and language, should discover and misapply it. The Jews
call this name of God the Tetragrammaton, or the name with four letters.
It would be waste of time and patience to repeat all that has been said
on this incommunicable name: it may not be amiss, however, to remind the
reader, 1. That although it signifies the state of being, yet it forms
no verb. 2. It never assumes a plural form. 3. It does not admit an
article, or take an affix. 4. Neither is it placed in a state of
construction with other words; though other words may be in construction
with it. It seems to be a compound of יה, _the essence_, and הוה,
_existing_; that is, _always existing_; whence the word _eternal_
appears to express its import; or, as it is well rendered, “He who is,
and who was, and who is to come,” Rev. i, 4; xi, 17; that is, eternal,
as the schoolmen speak, both _a parte ante_, and _a parte post_. Compare
John viii, 58. It is usually marked by an abbreviation, ו, in Jewish
books, where it must be alluded to. It is also abbreviated in the term
יה, _Jah_, which, the reader will observe, enters into the formation of
many Hebrew appellations. See JAH.

JEHU, the son of Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, captain of the
troops of Joram the king of Israel, was appointed by God to reign over
Israel, and to avenge the sins committed by the house of Ahab, 1 Kings
xix, 16. The Prophet Elisha received a commission to anoint him; but the
order does not appear to have been executed until more than twenty years
afterward, and then it was done by one of the sons of the prophets, 2
Kings ix, 1–3. Jehu was then at the siege of Ramoth-Gilead, commanding
the army of Joram, the king of Israel, when a young prophet appeared,
who took him aside from the officers of the army, in the midst of whom
he was sitting, and, when alone in a chamber, poured oil on his head,
and said to him, “Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over
Israel; thou shalt smite the house of Ahab, and avenge the blood of the
prophets which hath been shed by Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab
shall perish, and I will make it as that of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,
and that of Baasha, the son of Ahijah. Jezebel shall be eaten by the
dogs in the fields of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her,” 2
Kings ix, 1–10. No sooner had the prophet delivered his message, than,
to avoid being known, he instantly withdrew; and Jehu, returning to the
company of his brother officers, was by them interrogated respecting
what had taken place. He informed them that a prophet had been sent from
God to anoint him to the kingly office; on which they all rose up, and
each taking his cloak, they made a kind of throne for Jehu, and then
sounding the trumpets, cried out, “Jehu is king.” Joram, who at that
time reigned over the kingdom of Israel, was then at Jezreel in a state
of indisposition, having been wounded at the siege of Ramoth-Gilead.
Jehu, intending to surprise him, immediately gave orders that no one
should be permitted to depart out of the city of Ramoth, and himself set
off for Jezreel. As he approached that city, a centinel gave notice that
he saw a troop coming in great haste; on which Joram despatched an
officer to discover who it was; but Jehu, without giving the latter any
answer, ordered him to follow in his rear. Joram sent a second, and Jehu
laid upon him the same command. Finding that neither of them returned,
Joram himself, accompanied by Ahaziah, king of Judah, proceeded in his
chariot toward Jehu, whom they met in the field of Naboth the
Jezreelite. Joram inquired, “Is it peace, Jehu?” To which the latter
replied, “How can there be peace so long as the whoredoms of thy mother
Jezebel, and her witchcrafts, are so many?” Joram instantly took the
alarm, and, turning to Ahaziah, said, “We are betrayed.” At the same
time Jehu drew his bow, and smote Joram between his shoulders, so that
the arrow pierced his heart, and he died in his chariot. Jehu then gave
orders that his body should be cast out into the field of Naboth the
Jezreelite, thus fulfilling the prediction of the Prophet Elijah, 2
Kings ix, 11–26.

Jehu next proceeded to Jezreel, where Jezebel herself at that time
resided. As he rode through the streets of the city, Jezebel, who was
standing at her window and looking at him, exclaimed, “Can he who has
killed his master hope for peace?” Jehu, lifting up his head and seeing
her, commanded her servants instantly to throw her out at the window;
which they did, and she was immediately trampled to death under the
horses’ feet as they traversed the city. To complete her destiny, and
fulfil the threatenings of Elijah, the dogs came and devoured her
corpse; so that when Jehu sent to have her buried, her bones only were
found, 2 Kings ix, 27–37. After this, Jehu sent to inform the
inhabitants of Samaria, who had the bringing up of Ahab’s seventy
children, that they might select which of them they thought proper to
place upon the throne of Israel. But overwhelmed with fear, they replied
that they were Jehu’s servants, and would in all things obey him. He
then commanded them to put to death all the king’s children, and send
their heads to him; which was accordingly done on the following day.
Jehu also caused to be put to death all Ahab’s relatives and friends,
the officers of his court, and the priests whom he had entertained at
Jezreel, 2 Kings x, 1–11. After this, Jehu proceeded to Samaria, and on
his way thither met the friends of Ahaziah, king of Judah, who were
going to Jezreel to salute the children of Ahab’s family, with the death
of whom they were as yet unacquainted. They were forty-two in number;
but Jehu gave orders to have them apprehended and put to death. Soon
after this, he met with Jonathan, the son of Rechab; and taking him up
into his chariot, “Come with me,” said he, “and see my zeal for the
Lord.” And when he was come to Samaria he extirpated every remaining
branch of Ahab’s family, without sparing an individual. Then convening
the people of Samaria, he said, “Ahab paid some honours to Baal, but I
will pay him greater. Send now and gather together all the ministers,
priests, and prophets of Baal.” When they were all assembled in Baal’s
temple, Jehu commanded to give each of them a particular habit, to
distinguish them; at the same time directing that no stranger should
mingle with them; and then ordered his people to put them all to the
sword, not sparing one of them; the image of Baal was also pulled down,
broken to pieces, and burned, the temple itself destroyed, and the place
where it stood reduced to a dunghill, 2 Kings x, 12–28.

Such were the sanguinary exploits of Jehu toward the idolatrous house of
Ahab; but he acted agreeably to divine direction, and the Lord in these
instances so far approved his conduct, as to promise him that his
children should sit upon the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.
Yet, though Jehu had been the instrument in the hand of God for taking
vengeance on the profane house of Ahab, we find him accused in Scripture
of not entirely forsaking the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who
made Israel to sin in worshipping the golden calves, 2 Kings x, 29, 31.
It appears also that, in executing the divine indignation on the wicked
house of Ahab, he was actuated more by the spirit of ambition and
animosity than the fear of God, or a regard to the purity of his
worship. And thus it is that God, in the course of his providence, makes
use of tyrants and wicked men, as his instruments to execute his
righteous judgments in the earth. After a reign of eight-and-twenty
years over Israel, Jehu died, and was succeeded by his son, Jehoahaz;
but his reign was embittered by the war which Hazael, king of Syria,
long waged against him, 2 Kings x, 32–36. His four descendants, who
succeeded him in the throne, were Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam II. and
Zechariah.

JEPHTHAH, one of the judges of Israel, was the son of Gilead by a
concubine, Judges xi, 1, 2. His father having several other children by
his lawful wife, they conspired to expel Jephthah from among them,
insisting that he who was the son of a strange woman should have no part
of the inheritance with them. Like Ishmael, therefore, he withdrew, and
took up his residence beyond Jordan, in the land of Tob, where he
appears to have become the chief of a banditti, or marauding party, who
probably lived by plunder, Judges xi, 3. In process of time, a war broke
out between the Ammonites and the children of Israel who inhabited the
country beyond Jordan; and the latter, finding their want of an intrepid
and skilful leader, applied to Jephthah to take the command of them. He
at first reproached them with the injustice they had done him, in
banishing him from his father’s house; but he at length yielded to their
importunity, on an agreement that, should he be successful in the war
against the Ammonites, the Israelites should acknowledge him for their
chief, Judges xi, 4–11.

As soon as Jephthah was invested with the command of the Israelites he
sent a deputation to the Ammonites, demanding to know on what principle
the latter had taken up arms against them. They answered that it was to
recover the territory which the former had taken from them on their
first coming out of Egypt. Jephthah replied that they had made no
conquests in that quarter but from the Amorites; adding, “If you think
you have a right to all that Chemosh, your god, hath given you, why
should not we possess all that the Lord our God hath conferred on us by
right of conquest?” Jephthah’s reasoning availed nothing with the
Ammonites; and as the latter persisted in waging war, the former
collected his troops together and put himself at their head. The Spirit
of the Lord is said to have now come upon Jephthah; by which we are here
to understand, that the Lord endowed him with a spirit of valour and
fortitude, adequate to the exigence of the situation in which he was
placed, animating him with courage for the battle, and especially
inspired him with unshaken confidence in the God of the armies of
Israel, Judges xi, 17; Heb. xi, 32; 1 Sam. xi, 6; Num. xxiv, 2. Jephthah
at this time made a vow to the Lord that if he delivered the Ammonites
into his hand, whatever came forth out of the doors of his house to meet
him when he returned should be the Lord’s; it is also added in our
English version, “and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,” Judges
xi, 31. The battle terminated auspiciously for Jephthah; the Ammonites
were defeated, and the Israelites ravaged their country. But on
returning toward his own house, his daughter, an only child, came out to
meet her father with timbrels and dances, accompanied by a chorus of
virgins, to celebrate his victory. On seeing her, Jephthah rent his
clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low;
for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.” His
daughter intimated her readiness to accede to any vow he might have made
in which she was personally interested; only claiming a respite of two
months, during which she might go up to the mountains and bewail her
virginity with her companions. Jephthah yielded to this request, and at
the end of two months, according to the opinion of many, her father
offered her up in sacrifice, as a burnt-offering to the Lord, Judges xi,
34–39. It is, however, scarcely necessary to mention, that almost from
the days of Jephthah to the present time, it has been a subject of warm
contest among the critics and commentators, whether the judge of Israel
really sacrificed his daughter, or only devoted her to a state of
celibacy. Among those who contend for the former opinion, may be
particularly mentioned the very learned Professor Michaëlis, who insists
most peremptorily that the words, “did with her as he had vowed,” cannot
mean any thing else but that her father put her to death, and burned her
body as a burnt-offering. On this point, however, the remarks of Dr.
Hales are of great weight:--When Jephthah went forth to battle against
the Ammonites “he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt
surely give the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that
whatsoever cometh out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return
in peace from the children of Ammon, shall either be the Lord’s, or I
will offer it up [for] a burnt-offering,” Judges xi, 30, 31. According
to this rendering of the two conjunctions, ו, in the last clause,
_either_, _or_, which is justified by the Hebrew idiom, the paucity of
connecting particles in that language making it necessary that this
conjunction should often be understood disjunctively, the vow consisted
of two parts, 1. That what _person_ soever met him should be the Lord’s,
or be dedicated to his service. 2. That what _beast_ soever met him, if
clean, should be offered up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord. This
rendering, and this interpretation, is warranted by the Levitical law
about vows. The נדר, or _vow_ in general, included either persons,
beasts, or things, dedicated to the Lord for pious uses; which, if it
was a simple vow, was redeemable at certain prices, if the person
repented of his vow, and wished to commute it for money, according to
the age and sex of the person, Lev. xxvii, 1–8. This was a wise
regulation to remedy rash vows. But if the vow was accompanied with חרם,
_devotement_, it was irredeemable, as in the following cases:
“Notwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord,
[either] of man, or of beast, or of land of his own property, shall be
sold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy unto the Lord,” Lev.
xxvii, 28. Here the three _vaus_ in the original should necessarily be
rendered disjunctively, _or_, as the last actually is in our public
translation, because there are three distinct subjects of devotement, to
be applied to distinct uses; the _man_, to be dedicated to the service
of the Lord, as Samuel by his mother, Hannah, 1 Sam. i, 11; the
_cattle_, if clean, such as oxen, sheep, goats, turtle doves, or
pigeons, to be sacrificed; and if unclean, as camels, horses, asses, to
be employed for carrying burdens in the service of the tabernacle or
temple; and the _lands_, to be sacred property. This law, therefore,
expressly applied, in its first branch, to Jephthah’s case, who had
_devoted_ his daughter to the Lord, or opened his mouth unto the Lord,
and therefore could not go back; as he declared in his grief at seeing
his daughter, and his only child, coming to meet him with timbrels and
dances. She was, therefore, necessarily devoted, but with her own
consent, to perpetual virginity, in the service of the tabernacle,
Judges xi, 36, 37. And such service was customary; for in the division
of the spoils taken in the first Midianite war, of the whole number of
captive virgins, “the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons,” Num. xxxi,
35–40. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her
devotement. Her father’s extreme grief on this occasion, and her
requisition of a respite of two months to bewail her virginity, are both
perfectly natural: having no other issue, he could only look forward to
the extinction of his name or family; and a state of celibacy, which is
reproachful among women every where, was peculiarly so among the
Israelites; and was therefore no ordinary sacrifice on her part, who,
though she generously gave up, could not but regret the loss of becoming
“a mother in Israel.” And he did with her according to his vow which he
had vowed, and she knew no man,” or remained a virgin all her life,
Judges xi, 34–49. There was also another case of devotement which was
irredeemable, and follows the former: “No one devoted, who shall be
devoted of man, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death,”
Levit. xxvii, 29. This case differs materially from the former: 1. It is
confined to persons devoted, omitting beasts and lands. 2. It does not
relate to private property, as in the foregoing. 3. The subject of it
was to be utterly destroyed, instead of being “most holy unto the Lord.”
This law, therefore, related to aliens or public enemies devoted to
destruction, either by God, by the people, or by the magistrate. Of all
these we have instances in the Scriptures: 1. The Amalekites and
Canaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul, therefore, was guilty of a
breach of this law for sparing Agag, the king of the Amalekites, as
Samuel reproached him, 1 Sam. xv, 23: and “Samuel hewed Agag in pieces
before the Lord,” not as a sacrifice, according to Voltaire, but as a
criminal, “whose sword had made many women childless.” By this law the
Midianite women, who had been spared in battle, were slain, Num. xxxi,
14–17. 2. In Mount Hor, when the Israelites were attacked by Arad, king
of the southern Canaanites, who took some of them prisoners, they vowed
a vow unto the Lord, that they would utterly destroy these Canaanites,
and their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand; which
the Lord ratified. Whence the place was called Hhormah, because the vow
was accompanied by _cherem_, or devotement to destruction, Num. xxi,
1–3. And the vow was accomplished, Judges i, 17. 3. In the Philistine
war, Saul adjured the people, and cursed any one that should taste food
until the evening. His own son, Jonathan, inadvertently ate a honey
comb, not knowing of his father’s oath, for which Saul sentenced him to
die. But the people interposed, and rescued him, for his public
services; thus assuming the power of dispensing, in their collective
capacity, with an unreasonable oath, 1 Sam. xiv, 24–45. This latter
case, therefore, is utterly irrelative to Jephthah’s vow, which did not
regard a foreign enemy, or a domestic transgressor, devoted to
destruction, but, on the contrary, was a vow of thanksgiving, and
therefore properly came under the former case. And that Jephthah could
not possibly have sacrificed his daughter, according to the vulgar
opinion, founded on incorrect translation, may appear from the following
considerations: 1. The sacrifice of children to Moloch was an
abomination to the Lord, of which in numberless passages, he expresses
his detestation; and it was prohibited by an express law, under pain of
death, as “a defilement of God’s sanctuary, and a profanation of his
holy name,” Levit. xx, 2, 3. Such a sacrifice, therefore, unto the Lord
himself, must be a still higher abomination. And there is no precedent
of any such under the law, in the Old Testament. 2. The case of Isaac
before the law, is irrelevant; for Isaac was not sacrificed; and it was
only proposed for a trial of Abraham’s faith. 3. No father, merely by
his own authority, could put an offending, much less an innocent, child
to death, upon any account, without the sentence of the magistrates,
Deut. xxi, 18–21, and the consent of the people, as in Jonathan’s case.
4. The Mischna, or traditional law of the Jews, is pointedly against it:
“If a Jew should devote his son or daughter, his man or maid servant,
who are Hebrews, the devotement would be void; because no man can devote
what is not his own, or of whose life he has not the absolute disposal.”

These arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that
Jephthah could not even have devoted his daughter to celibacy against
her will, is evident from the history, and from the high estimation in
which she was always held by the daughters of Israel, for her filial
duty, and her hapless fate, which they celebrated by a regular
anniversary commemoration four days in the year, Judges xi, 40. We may,
however, remark, that, if it could be more clearly established that
Jephthah actually immolated his daughter, there is not the least
evidence that his conduct was sanctioned by God. Jephthah was manifestly
a superstitious and ill-instructed man, and, like Samson, an instrument
of God’s power, rather than an example of his grace.

JEREMIAH. The Prophet Jeremiah was of the sacerdotal race, being, as he
records himself, one of the priests that dwelt at Anathoth, in the land
of Benjamin, a city appropriated out of that tribe to the use of the
priests, the sons of Aaron, Joshua xxi, 18, and situate, as we learn
from St. Jerom, about three miles north of Jerusalem. Some have supposed
his father to have been that Hilkah, the high priest, by whom the book
of the law was found in the temple in the reign of Josiah: but for this
there is no better ground than his having borne the same name, which was
no uncommon one among the Jews; whereas, had he been in reality the high
priest, he would doubtless have been mentioned by that distinguishing
title, and not put upon a level with priests of an ordinary and inferior
class. Jeremiah appears to have been very young when he was called to
the exercise of the prophetical office, from which he modestly
endeavoured to excuse himself by pleading his youth and incapacity; but
being overruled by the divine authority, he set himself to discharge the
duties of his function with unremitted diligence and fidelity during a
period of at least forty-two years, reckoned from the thirteenth year of
Josiah’s reign. In the course of his ministry he met with great
difficulties and opposition from his countrymen of all degrees, whose
persecution and ill usage sometimes wrought so far upon his mind, as to
draw from him expressions, in the bitterness of his soul, which many
have thought hard to reconcile with his religious principles; but which,
when duly considered, may be found to demand our pity for his unremitted
sufferings, rather than our censure for any want of piety and reverence
toward God. He was, in truth, a man of unblemished piety and
conscientious integrity; a warm lover of his country, whose misery he
pathetically deplores; and so affectionately attached to his countrymen,
notwithstanding their injurious treatment of him, that he chose rather
to abide with them, and undergo all hardships in their company, than
separately to enjoy a state of ease and plenty, which the favour of the
king of Babylon would have secured to him. At length, after the
destruction of Jerusalem, being carried with the remnant of the Jews
into Egypt, whither they had resolved to retire, though contrary to his
advice, upon the murder of Gedaliah, whom the Chaldeans had left
governor in Judea, he there continued warmly to remonstrate against
their idolatrous practices, foretelling the consequences that would
inevitably follow. But his freedom and zeal are said to have cost him
his life; for the Jews at Tahpanhes, according to tradition, took such
offence at him that they stoned him to death. This account of the manner
of his end, though not absolutely certain, is at least very probable,
considering the temper and disposition of the parties concerned. Their
wickedness, however, did not long pass without its reward; for, in a few
years after, they were miserably destroyed by the Babylonian armies
which invaded Egypt according to the prophet’s prediction, Jer. xliv,
27, 28.

The idolatrous apostasy, and other criminal enormities of the people of
Judah, and the severe judgments which God was prepared to inflict upon
them, but not without a distant prospect of future restoration and
deliverance, are the principal subject matters of the prophecies of
Jeremiah; excepting only the forty-fifth chapter, which relates
personally to Baruch, and the six succeeding chapters, which respect the
fortunes of some particular Heathen nations. It is observable, however,
that though many of these prophecies have their particular dates annexed
to them, and other dates may be tolerably well conjectured from certain
internal marks and circumstances, there appears much disorder in the
arrangement, not easy to be accounted for on any principle of regular
design, but probably the result of some accident or other, which has
disturbed the original order. The best arrangement of the chapters
appears to be according to the list which will be subjoined; the
different reigns in which the prophecies were delivered were most
probably as follows: The first twelve chapters seem to contain all the
prophecies delivered in the reign of the good King Josiah. During the
short reign of Shallum, or Jehoahaz, his second son, who succeeded him,
Jeremiah does not appear to have had any revelation. Jehoiakim, the
eldest son of Josiah, succeeded. The prophecies of this reign are
continued on from the thirteenth to the twentieth chapter inclusively;
to which we must add the twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fifth,
twenty-sixth, thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth chapters, together with the
forty-fifth, forty-sixth, forty-seventh, and most probably the
forty-eighth, and as far as the thirty-fourth verse of the forty-ninth
chapter. Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, succeeded. We read of no
prophecy that Jeremiah actually delivered in this king’s reign; but the
fate of Jeconiah, his being carried into captivity, and continuing an
exile till the time of his death, were foretold early in his father’s
reign, as may be particularly seen in the twenty-second chapter. The
last king of Judah was Zedekiah, the youngest son of Josiah. The
prophecies delivered in his reign are contained in the twenty-first and
twenty-fourth chapters, the twenty-seventh to the thirty-fourth, and the
thirty-seventh to the thirty-ninth inclusively, together with the last
six verses of the forty-ninth chapter, and the fiftieth and fifty-first
chapters concerning the fall of Babylon. The siege of Jerusalem, in the
reign of Zedekiah, and the capture of the city, are circumstantially
related in the fifty-second chapter; and a particular account of the
subsequent transactions is given in the fortieth to the forty-fourth
inclusively. The arrangement of the chapters, alluded to above, is here
subjoined: i-xx, xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxxv, xxxvi, xlv, xxiv,
xxix-xxxi, xxvii, xxviii, xxi, xxxiv, xxxvii, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxviii,
xxxix, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth verse, xxxix, from the first
to the fourteenth verse, xl-xliv, xlvi, and so on.

The prophecies of Jeremiah, of which the circumstantial accomplishment
is often specified in the Old and New Testament, are of a very
distinguished and illustrious character. He foretold the fate of
Zedekiah, Jer. xxxiv, 2–5; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 11–21; 2 Kings xxv, 5; Jer.
lii, 11; the Babylonish captivity, the precise time of its duration, and
the return of the Jews. He describes the destruction of Babylon, and the
downfall of many nations, Jer. xxv, 12; ix, 26; xxv, 19–25; xlii, 10–18;
xlvi, and the following chapters, in predictions, of which the gradual
and successive completion kept up the confidence of the Jews for the
accomplishment of those prophecies, which he delivered relative to the
Messiah and his period, Jer. xxiii, 5, 6; xxx, 9; xxxi, 15; xxxii,
14–18; xxxiii, 9–26. He foreshowed the miraculous conception of Christ,
Jer. xxxi, 22, the virtue of his atonement, the spiritual character of
his covenant, and the inward efficacy of his laws, Jer. xxxi, 31–36;
xxxiii, 8. Jeremiah, contemplating those calamities which impended over
his country, represented, in the most descriptive terms, and under the
most impressive images, the destruction that the invading enemy should
produce. He bewailed, in pathetic expostulation, the shameless
adulteries which had provoked the Almighty, after long forbearance, to
threaten Judah with inevitable punishment, at the time that false
prophets deluded the nation with the promises of “assured peace,” and
when the people, in impious contempt of “the Lord’s word,” defied its
accomplishment. Jeremiah intermingles with his prophecies some
historical relations relative to his own conduct, and to the completion
of those predictions which he had delivered. The reputation of Jeremiah
had spread among foreign nations, and his prophecies were deservedly
celebrated in other countries. Many Heathen writers also have
undesignedly borne testimony to the truth and accuracy of his prophetic
and historical descriptions.

As to the style of Jeremiah, says Bishop Lowth, this prophet is by no
means wanting either in elegance or sublimity, although, generally
speaking, inferior to Isaiah in both. His thoughts, indeed, are somewhat
less elevated, and he is commonly more large and diffuse in his
sentences; but the reason of this may be, that he is mostly taken up
with the gentler passions of grief and pity, for the expression of which
he has a peculiar talent. This is most evident in the Lamentations,
where those passions altogether predominate; but it is often visible
also in his prophecies, in the former part of the book more especially,
which is principally poetical; the middle parts are chiefly historical;
but the last part, consisting of six chapters, is entirely poetical, and
contains several oracles distinctly marked, in which this prophet falls
very little short of the lofty style of Isaiah. But of the whole book of
Jeremiah it is hardly the one half which I look upon as poetical.

Jeremiah survived to behold the sad accomplishment of all his darkest
predictions. He witnessed all the horrors of the famine, and, when that
had done its work, the triumph of the enemy. He saw the strong holds of
the city cast down, the palace of Solomon, the temple of God, with all
its courts, its roofs of cedar and of gold, levelled to the earth, or
committed to the flames; the sacred vessels, the ark of the covenant
itself, with the cherubim, pillaged by profane hands. What were the
feelings of a patriotic and religious Jew at this tremendous crisis, he
has left on record in his unrivalled elegies. Never did city suffer a
more miserable fate, never was ruined city lamented in language so
exquisitely pathetic. Jerusalem is, as it were, personified, and
bewailed with the passionate sorrow of private and domestic attachment;
while the more general pictures of the famine, the common misery of
every rank, and age, and sex, all the desolation, the carnage, the
violation, the dragging away into captivity, the remembrance of former
glories, of the gorgeous ceremonies and the glad festivals, the awful
sense of the divine wrath heightening the present calamities, are
successively drawn with all the life and reality of an eye-witness. They
combine the truth of history with the deepest pathos of poetry.

JERICHO was a city of Benjamin, about seven leagues from Jerusalem, and
two from the Jordan, Joshua xviii, 21. Moses calls it the city of palm
trees, Deut. xxxiv, 3, because of palm trees growing in the plain of
Jericho. Josephus says, that in the territory of this city were not only
many palm trees, but also the balsam tree. The valley of Jericho was
watered by a rivulet which had been formerly salt and bitter, but was
sweetened by the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings ii, 19. Jericho was the first
city in Canaan taken by Joshua, ii, 1, 2, &c. He sent thither spies, who
were received by Rahab, lodged in her house, and preserved from the king
of Jericho. Joshua received orders to besiege Jericho, soon after his
passage over Jordan, Joshua vi, 1–3, &c. God commanded the Hebrews to
march round the city once a day for seven days together. The soldiers
marched first, probably out of the reach of the enemies’ arrows, and
after them the priests, the ark, &c. On the seventh day, they marched
seven times round the city; and at the seventh, while the trumpets were
sounding, and all the people shouting, the walls fell down. The rabbins
say, that the first day was our Sunday, and the seventh the Sabbath day.
During the first six days, the people continued in profound silence; but
on the seventh Joshua commanded them to shout. Accordingly they all
exerted their voices, and the walls being overthrown, they entered the
city, every man in the place opposite to him. Jericho being devoted by
God, they set fire to the city, and consecrated all the gold, silver,
and brass. Then Joshua said, “Cursed be the man before the Lord who
shall rebuild Jericho.” About five hundred and thirty years after this,
Hiel, of Bethel, undertook to rebuild it; but he lost his eldest son,
Abiram, at laying the foundations, and his youngest son, Segub, when he
hung up the gates. However, we are not to imagine that there was no city
of Jericho till the time of Hiel. There was a city of palm trees,
probably the same as Jericho, under the Judges, Judges iii, 13. David’s
ambassadors, who had been insulted by the Ammonites, resided at Jericho
till their beards were grown, 2 Sam. x, 4. There was, therefore, a city
of Jericho which stood in the neighbourhood of the original Jericho.
These two places are distinguished by Josephus. After Hiel of Bethel had
rebuilt old Jericho, no one scrupled to dwell there. Our Saviour wrought
miracles at Jericho.

According to Pococke, the mountains to which the absurd name of
Quarantania has been arbitrarily given, are the highest in all Judea;
and he is probably correct; they form part of a chain extending from
Scythopolis into Idumea. The fountain of Elisha he states to be a soft
water, rather warm; he found in it some small shell fish of the
turbinated kind. Close by the ruined aqueduct are the remains of a fine
paved way, with a fallen column, supposed to be a Roman milestone. The
hills nearest to Jerusalem consist, according to Hasselquist, of a very
hard limestone; and different sorts of plants are found on them, in
particular the myrtle, the carob tree, and the turpentine tree; but
farther toward Jericho they are bare and barren, the hard limestone
giving way to a looser kind, sometimes white and sometimes grayish, with
interjacent layers of a reddish micaceous stone, _saxum purum micaceum_.
The vales, though now bare and uncultivated, and full of pebbles,
contain good red mould, which would amply reward the husbandman’s toil.
Nothing can be more savage than the present aspect of these wild and
gloomy solitudes, through which runs the very road where is laid the
scene of that exquisite parable, the good Samaritan, and from that time
to the present, it has been the haunt of the most desperate bandits,
being one of the most dangerous in Palestine. Sometimes the track leads
along the edges of cliffs and precipices, which threaten destruction on
the slightest false step; at other times it winds through craggy passes,
overshadowed by projecting or perpendicular rocks. At one place the road
has been cut through the very apex of a hill, the rocks overhanging it
on either side. Here, in 1820, an English traveller, Sir Frederick
Henniker, was attacked by the Arabs with fire-arms, who stripped him
naked, and left him severely wounded: “It was past mid-day, and burning
hot,” says Sir Frederick; “I bled profusely; and two vultures, whose
business it is to consume corpses, were hovering over me. I should
scarcely have had strength to resist, had they chosen to attack me.”

The modern village of Jericho is described by Mr. Buckingham as a
settlement of about fifty dwellings, all very mean in their appearance,
and fenced in front with thorny bushes, while a barrier of the same
kind, the most effectual that could be raised against mounted Arabs,
encircles the town. A fine brook flows by it, which empties itself into
the Jordan; the nearest point of that river is about three miles
distant. The grounds in the immediate vicinity of the village, being
fertilized by this stream, bear crops of dourra, Indian corn, rice, and
onions. The population is entirely Mohammedan, and is governed by a
sheikh: their habits are those of Bedouins, and robbery and plunder form
their chief and most gainful occupation. The whole of the road from
Jerusalem to the Jordan, is held to be the most dangerous in Palestine;
and indeed, in this portion of it, the very aspect of the scenery is
sufficient, on the one hand, to tempt to robbery and murder, and, on the
other, to occasion a dread of it in those who pass that way. One must be
amid these wild and gloomy solitudes, surrounded by an armed band, and
feel the impatience of the traveller who rushes on to catch a new view
at every pass and turn; one must be alarmed at the very tramp of the
horses’ hoofs rebounding through the caverned rocks, and at the savage
shouts of the footmen, scarcely less loud than the echoing thunder
produced by the discharge of their pieces in the valleys; one must
witness all this upon the spot, before the full force and beauty of the
admirable story of the good Samaritan can be perceived. Here, pillage,
wounds, and death would be accompanied with double terror, from the
frightful aspect of every thing around. Here, the unfeeling act of
passing by a fellow creature in distress, as the priest and Levite are
said to have done, strikes one with horror, as an act almost more than
inhuman. And here, too, the compassion of the good Samaritan is doubly
virtuous, from the purity of the motive which must have led to it, in a
spot where no eyes were fixed on him to draw forth the performance of
any duty, and from the bravery which was necessary to admit of a man’s
exposing himself, by such delay, to the risk of a similar fate to that
from which he was endeavouring to rescue his fellow creature.

JEROBOAM, the son of Nebat and Zeruah, was born at Zereda, in the tribe
of Ephraim, 1 Kings xi, 26. He is the subject of frequent mention in
Scripture, as having been the cause of the ten tribes revolting from the
dominion of Rehoboam, and also of his having “made Israel to sin,” by
instituting the idolatrous worship of the golden calves at Dan and
Bethel, 1 Kings xii, 26–33. He seems to have been a bold, unprincipled,
and enterprising man, with much of the address of a deep politician
about him; qualities which probably pointed him out to King Solomon as a
proper person to be entrusted with the obnoxious commission of levying
certain taxes throughout the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. On a
certain day, as Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem into the country,
having a new cloak wrapped about his shoulders, the Prophet Ahijah met
him in a field where they were alone, and seizing the cloak of Jeroboam,
he cut it into twelve pieces, and then addressing him, said, “Take ten
of them to thyself; for thus saith the Lord, I will divide and rend the
kingdom of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee. If, therefore,
thou obeyest my word and walkest in my ways as David my servant has
done, I will be with thee, and will establish thy house for ever, and
put thee in possession of the kingdom of Israel,” 1 Kings xi, 14–39.
Whether it were that the promises thus made by Ahijah prompted Jeroboam
to aim at taking their accomplishment into his own hands, and, with a
view to that, began to solicit the subjects of Solomon to revolt; or
whether the bare information of what had passed between the prophet and
Jeroboam, excited his fear and jealousy, it appears evident that the
aged monarch took the alarm, and attempted to apprehend Jeroboam, who,
getting notice of what was intended him, made a precipitate retreat into
Egypt, where he remained till the death of Solomon. He then returned,
and found that Rehoboam, who had succeeded his father Solomon in the
throne of David, had already excited the disgust of ten of the tribes by
some arbitrary proceedings, in consequence of which they had withdrawn
their allegiance from the new monarch. These tribes no sooner heard of
his return than they invited him to appear among them in a general
assembly, in which they elected him to be king over Israel. Jeroboam
fixed his residence at Shechem, and there fortified himself; he also
rebuilt Penuel, a city beyond Jordan, putting it into a state of
defence, in order to keep the tribes quiet which were on that side
Jordan, 1 Kings xii, 1–25.

But Jeroboam soon forgot the duty which he owed to God, who had given
him the kingdom; and thought of nothing but how to maintain himself in
the possession of it, though he discarded the worship of the true God.
The first suggestion of his unbelieving heart was, that if the tribes
over whom he reigned were to go up to Jerusalem to sacrifice and keep
the annual festivals, they would be under continual temptations to
return to the house of David. To counteract this, he caused two golden
calves to be made as objects of religious worship, one of which he
placed at Dan, and the other at Bethel, the two extremities of his
dominions; and caused a proclamation to be made throughout all his
territories, that in future none of his subjects should go up to
Jerusalem to worship; and, directing them to the two calves which had
been recently erected, he cried out, “Behold thy gods, O Israel, which
brought thee up out of Egypt!” He also caused idolatrous temples to be
built, and priests to be ordained of the lowest of the people, who were
neither of the family of Aaron nor of the tribe of Levi, 1 Kings xii,
26–33. Having appointed a solemn public festival to be observed on the
fifteenth day of the eighth month, in order to dedicate his new altar
and consecrate his golden calves, he assembled the people at Bethel, and
himself went up to the altar for the purpose of offering incense and
sacrifices. At that instant a prophet, who had come, divinely directed,
from Judah to Bethel, accosted Jeroboam, and said, “O altar, altar, thus
saith the Lord, A child shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by
name; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the high places
who now burn incense upon thee: he shall burn men’s bones upon thee.” To
confirm the truth of this threatening, the prophet also added a sign,
namely, that the altar should immediately be rent asunder, and the ashes
and every thing upon it poured upon the earth. Jeroboam, incensed at
this interference of the prophet, stretched out his hand and commanded
him to be seized; but the hand which he had stretched out was instantly
paralyzed, and he was unable to draw it back again. The altar, too, was
broken, and the ashes upon it fell to the ground according to the
prediction of the prophet. Jeroboam now solicited his prayers that his
hand might be restored to him. The man of God interposed his
supplication to Heaven, and the king’s hand was restored to him sound as
before. Jeroboam then entreated him that he would accompany him to his
own house, and accept a reward; but he answered, “Though thou shouldst
give me the half of thine house, I would not go with thee, nor will I
taste any thing in this place, for the Lord hath expressly forbidden me
to do so,” 1 Kings xiii, 1–10. But notwithstanding this manifest
indication of the displeasure of Heaven, it failed of recovering
Jeroboam from his impious procedure. He continued to encourage his
subjects in idolatry, by appointing priests of the high places, and
engaging them in such worship as was contrary to the divine law. This
was the sin of Jeroboam’s family, and it was the cause of its utter
extirpation. Some time after his accession to the throne of Israel, his
favourite son Abijah fell sick, and, to relieve his parental solicitude,
Jeroboam instructed his wife to disguise herself, and in that state to
go and consult the Prophet Ahijah concerning his recovery. This was the
same prophet who had foretold to Jeroboam that he should be king of
Israel. He was now blind through old age; but the prophet was warned of
her approach, and, before she entered his threshold, he called her by
name, told her that her son should die, and then, in appalling terms,
denounced the impending ruin of Jeroboam’s whole family, which shortly
after came to pass. After a reign of two-and-twenty years, Jeroboam
died, and Nadab, his son, succeeded to the crown, 1 Kings xiii, 33, 34;
xiv, 1–20.

2. JEROBOAM, the second of that name, was the son of Jehoash, king of
Israel. He succeeded to his father’s royal dignity, A. M. 3179, and
reigned forty-one years. Though much addicted to the idolatrous
practices of the son of Nebat, yet the Lord was pleased so far to
prosper his reign, that by his means, according to the predictions of
the Prophet Jonah, the kingdom of the ten tribes was restored from a
state of great decay, into which it had fallen, and was even raised to a
pitch of extraordinary splendour. The Prophets Amos and Hosea, as well
as Jonah, lived during this reign.

JERUSALEM, formerly called Jebus, or Salem, Joshua xviii, 28; Heb. vii,
2, the capital of Judea, situated partly in the tribe of Benjamin, and
partly in that of Judah. It was not completely reduced by the Israelites
till the reign of David, 2 Sam. v, 6–9. As Jerusalem was the centre of
the true worship, Psalm cxxii, 4, and the place where God did in a
peculiar manner dwell, first in the tabernacle, 2 Sam. vi, 7, 12; 1
Chron. xv, 1; xvi, 1; Psalm cxxxii, 13; cxxxv, 2, and afterward in the
temple, 1 Kings vi, 13; so it is used figuratively to denote the church,
or the celestial society, to which all that believe, both Jews and
Gentiles, are come, and in which they are initiated, Gal. iv, 26; Heb.
xii, 22; Rev. iii, 12; xxi, 2, 10. Jerusalem was situated in a stony and
barren soil, and was about sixty furlongs in length, according to
Strabo. The territory and places adjacent were well watered, having the
fountains of Gihon and Siloam, and the brook Kidron, at the foot of its
walls; and, beside these, there were the waters of Ethan, which Pilate
had conveyed through aqueducts into the city. The ancient city of
Jerusalem, or Jebus, which David took from the Jebusites, was not very
large. It was seated upon a mountain southward of the temple. The
opposite mountain, situated to the north, is Sion, where David built a
new city, which he called the city of David, wherein was the royal
palace, and the temple of the Lord. The temple was built upon Mount
Moriah, which was one of the little hills belonging to Mount Sion.

Through the reigns of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was the metropolis of
the whole Jewish kingdom, and continued to increase in wealth and
splendour. It was resorted to at the festivals by the whole population
of the country; and the power and commercial spirit of Solomon,
improving the advantages acquired by his father David, centred in it
most of the eastern trade, both by sea, through the ports of Elath and
Ezion-Geber, and over land, by the way of Tadmor or Palmyra. Or, at
least, though Jerusalem might not have been made a depot of merchandise,
the quantity of precious metals flowing into it by direct importation,
and by duties imposed on goods passing to the ports of the
Mediterranean, and in other directions, was unbounded. Some idea of the
prodigious wealth of Jerusalem at this time may be formed by stating,
that the quantity of gold left by David for the use of the temple
amounted to £21,600,000 sterling, beside £3,150,000 in silver; and
Solomon obtained £3,240,000 in gold by one voyage to Ophir, while silver
was so abundant, “that it was not any thing accounted of.” These were
the days of Jerusalem’s glory. Universal peace, unmeasured wealth, the
wisdom and clemency of the prince, and the worship of the true God,
marked Jerusalem, above every city, as enjoying the presence and the
especial favour of the Almighty. But these days were not to last long:
intestine divisions and foreign wars, wicked and tyrannical princes,
and, last of all, the crime most offensive to Heaven, and the one least
to be expected among so favoured a people, led to a series of
calamities, through the long period of nine hundred years, with which no
other city or nation can furnish a parallel. After the death of Solomon,
ten of the twelve tribes revolted from his successor Rehoboam, and,
under Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, established a separate kingdom: so
that Jerusalem, no longer the capital of the whole empire, and its
temple frequented only by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, must have
experienced a mournful declension. Four years after this, the city and
temple were taken and plundered by Shishak, king of Egypt, 1 Kings xiv,
26, 27; 2 Chron. xii, 2–9. One hundred and forty-five years after, under
Amaziah, they sustained the same fate from Joash, king of Israel, 2
Kings xiv; 2 Chron. xxv. One hundred and sixty years from this period,
the city was again taken, by Esarhaddon, king of Assyria; and Manasseh,
the king, carried a prisoner to Babylon, 2 Chron. xxxiii. Within the
space of sixty-six years more it was taken by Pharaoh-Necho, king of
Egypt, whom Josiah, king of Judah, had opposed in his expedition to
Carchemish; and who, in consequence, was killed at the battle of
Megiddo, and his son Eliakim placed on the throne in his stead by Necho,
who changed his name to Jehoiakim, and imposed a heavy tribute upon him,
having sent his elder brother, Jehoahaz, who had been proclaimed king at
Jerusalem, a prisoner to Egypt, where he died, 2 Kings xxiii; 2 Chron.
xxxv. Jerusalem was three times besieged and taken by Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, within a very few years. The first, in the reign of the
last mentioned king, Jehoiakim, who was sent a prisoner to Babylon, and
the vessels of the temple transported to the same city, 2 Chron. xxxvi.
The second, in that of his son Jehoiachin; when all the treasures of the
palace and the temple, and the remainder of the vessels of the latter
which had been hidden or spared in the first capture, were carried away
or destroyed, and the best of the inhabitants, with the king, led into
captivity, 2 Kings xxiv; 2 Chron. xxxvi. And the third, in the reign of
Zedekiah, the successor of Jehoiachin; in whose ninth year the most
formidable siege which this ill fated city ever sustained, except that
of Titus, was commenced. It continued two years; during a great part of
which the inhabitants suffered all the horrors of famine: when, on the
ninth day of the fourth month, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, which
answers to July in the year B. C. 588, the garrison, with the king,
endeavoured to make their escape from the city, but were pursued and
defeated by the Chaldeans in the plains of Jericho; Zedekiah taken
prisoner; his sons killed before his face at Riblah, whither he was
taken to the king of Babylon; and he himself, after his eyes were put
out, was bound with fetters of brass, and carried prisoner to Babylon,
where he died: thus fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel, which declared
that he should be carried to Babylon, but should not see the place,
though he should die there, Ezekiel xii, 13. In the following month, the
Chaldean army, under their general, Nebuzaradan, entered the city, took
away every thing that was valuable, and then burned and utterly
destroyed it, with its temple and walls, and left the whole razed to the
ground. The entire population of the city and country, with the
exception of a few husbandmen, were then carried captive to Babylon.

During seventy years, the city and temple lay in ruins: when those Jews
who chose to take immediate advantage of the proclamation of Cyrus,
under the conduct of Zerubbabel, returned to Jerusalem, and began to
build the temple; all the vessels of gold and silver belonging to which,
that had been taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, being restored by Cyrus.
Their work, however, did not proceed far without opposition; for in the
reign of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, who in Scripture is called
Ahasuerus, the Samaritans presented a petition to that monarch to put a
stop to the building, Ezra iv, 6. Cambyses appears to have been too
busily engaged in his Egyptian expedition to pay any attention to this
malicious request. His successor, Smerdis, the Magian, however, who in
Scripture is called Artaxerxes, to whom a similar petition was sent,
representing the Jews as a factious and dangerous people, listened to
it, and, in the true spirit of a usurper, issued a decree putting a stop
to the farther building of the temple, Ezra iv, 7, &c; which, in
consequence, remained in an unfinished state till the second year,
according to the Jewish, and third, according to the Babylonian and
Persian account, of Darius Hystaspes, who is called simply Darius in
Scripture. To him also a representation hostile to the Jews was made by
their inveterate enemies, the Samaritans; but this noble prince refused
to listen to it, and having searched the rolls of the kingdom, and found
in the palace at Acmetha the decree of Cyrus, issued a similar one,
which reached Jerusalem in the subsequent year, and even ordered these
very Samaritans to assist the Jews in their work; so that it was
completed in the sixth year of the same reign, Ezra iv, 24; v; vi, 1–15.
But the city and walls remained in a ruinous condition until the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the Artaxerxes Longimanus of profane
history; by whom Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem, with a power granted to
him to rebuild them. Accordingly, under the direction of this zealous
servant of God, the walls were speedily raised, but not without the
accustomed opposition on the part of the Samaritans; who, despairing of
the success of an application to the court of Persia, openly attacked
the Jews with arms. But the building, notwithstanding, went steadily on;
the men working with an implement of work in one hand, and a weapon of
war in the other; and the wall, with incredible labour, was finished in
fifty-two days, in the year B. C. 445; after which, the city itself was
gradually rebuilt, Neh. ii, iv, vi. From this time Jerusalem remained
attached to the Persian empire, but under the local jurisdiction of the
high priests, until the subversion of that empire by Alexander, fourteen
years after. See ALEXANDER.

At the death of Alexander, and the partition of his empire by his
generals, Jerusalem, with Judea, fell to the kings of Syria. But in the
frequent wars which followed between the kings of Syria and those of
Egypt, called by Daniel, the kings of the north and south, it belonged
sometimes to one and sometimes to the other,--an unsettled and unhappy
state, highly favourable to disorder and corruption,--the high
priesthood was openly sold to the highest bidder; and numbers of the
Jews deserted their religion for the idolatries of the Greeks. At
length, in the year B. C. 170, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria,
enraged at hearing that the Jews had rejoiced at a false report of his
death, plundered Jerusalem, and killed eighty thousand men. Not more
than two years afterward, this cruel tyrant, who had seized every
opportunity to exercise his barbarity on the Jews, sent Apollonius with
an army to Jerusalem; who pulled down the walls, grievously oppressed
the people, and built a citadel on a rock adjoining the temple, which
commanded that building, and had the effect of completely overawing the
seditious. Having thus reduced this unfortunate city into entire
submission, and rendered resistance useless, the next step of Antiochus
was to abolish the Jewish religion altogether, by publishing an edict
which commanded all the people of his dominions to conform to the
religion of the Greeks: in consequence of which, the service of the
temple ceased, and a statue of Jupiter Olympus was set up on the altar.
But this extremity of ignominy and oppression led, as might have been
expected, to rebellion; and those Jews who still held their insulted
religion in reverence, fled to the mountains, with Mattathias and Judas
Maccabeus; the latter of whom, after the death of Mattathias, who with
his followers and successors, are known by the name of Maccabees, waged
successful war with the Syrians; defeated Apollonius, Nicanor, and
Lysias, generals of Antiochus; obtained possession of Jerusalem,
purified the temple, and restored the service, after three years’
defilement by the Gentile idolatries.

From this time, during several succeeding Maccabean rulers, who were at
once high priests and sovereigns of the Jews, but without the title of
king, Jerusalem was able to preserve itself from Syrian violence. It
was, however, twice besieged, first by Antiochus Eupator, in the year
163, and afterward by Antiochus Sidetes, in the year B. C. 134. But the
Jews had caused themselves to be sufficiently respected to obtain
conditions of peace on both occasions, and to save their city; till, at
length, Hyrcanus, in the year 130 B. C., shook off the Syrian yoke, and
reigned, after this event, twenty-one years in independence and
prosperity. His successor, Judas, made an important change in the Jewish
government, by taking the title of king, which dignity was enjoyed by
his successors forty-seven years, when a dispute having arisen between
Hyrcanus II. and his brother Aristobulus, and the latter having overcome
the former, and made himself king, was, in his turn, conquered by the
Romans under Pompey, by whom the city and temple were taken, Aristobulus
made prisoner, and Hyrcanus created high priest and prince of the Jews,
but without the title of king. By this event Judea was reduced to the
condition of a Roman province, in the year 63 B. C. Nor did Jerusalem
long after enjoy the dignity of a metropolis, that honour being
transferred to Cæsarea. Julius Cæsar, having defeated Pompey, continued
Hyrcanus in the high priesthood, but bestowed the government of Judea
upon Antipater, an Idumæan by birth, but a Jewish proselyte, and father
of Herod the Great. For the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the
Romans, see JEWS.

Jerusalem lay in ruins about forty-seven years, when the Emperor Ælius
Adrian began to build it anew, and erected a Heathen temple, which he
dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus. The city was finished in the twentieth
year of his reign, and called, after its founder, Ælia, or Ælia
Capitolina, from the Heathen deity who presided over it. In this state
Jerusalem continued, under the name of Ælia, and inhabited more by
Christians and Pagans than by Jews, till the time of the Emperor
Constantine, styled the Great; who, about the year 323, having made
Christianity the religion of the empire, began to improve it, adorned it
with many new edifices and churches, and restored its ancient name.
About thirty-five years afterward, Julian, named the Apostate, not from
any love he bore the Jews, but out of hatred to the Christians, whose
faith he had abjured, and with the avowed design of defeating the
prophecies, which had declared that the temple should not be rebuilt,
wrote to the Jews, inviting them to their city, and promising to restore
their temple and nation. He accordingly employed great numbers of
workmen to clear the foundations; but balls of fire bursting from the
earth, soon put a stop to their proceeding. This miraculous
interposition of Providence is attested by many credible witnesses and
historians; and, in particular, by Ammianus Marcellinus, a Heathen, and
friend of Julian; Zemuch David, a Jew; Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose
Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates, who wrote his account within
fifty years after the transaction, and while many eye-witnesses of it
were still living. So stubborn, indeed, is the proof of this miracle,
that even Gibbon, who strives to invalidate it, is obliged to
acknowledge the general fact.

Jerusalem continued in nearly the same condition till the beginning of
the seventh century, when it was taken and plundered by the celebrated
Chosroes, king of Persia, by whom many thousands of the Christian
inhabitants were killed, or sold for slaves. The Persians, however, did
not hold it long, as they were soon after entirely defeated by the
Emperor Heraclius, who rescued Jerusalem, and restored it, not to the
unhappy Jews, who were forbidden to come within three miles of it, but
to the Christians. A worse calamity was, however, speedily to befall
this ill fated city. The Mohammedan imposture arose about this time; and
the fanatics who had adopted its creed carried their arms and their
religion with unprecedented rapidity over the greater part of the east.
The Caliph Omar, the third from Mohammed, invested the city, which,
after once more suffering the horrors of a protracted siege, surrendered
on terms of capitulation in the year 637; and has ever since, with the
exception of the short period that it was occupied by the crusaders,
been trodden under foot by the followers of the false prophet.

2. The accounts of modern Jerusalem by travellers are very numerous. Mr.
Conder, in his “Palestine,” has abridged them with judgment; and we give
the following extract: The approach to Jerusalem from Jaffa is not the
direction in which to see the city to the best effect. Dr. E. D. Clarke
entered it by the Damascus gate: and he describes the view of Jerusalem,
when first descried from the summit of a hill, at about an hour’s
distance, as most impressive. He confesses, at the same time, that there
is no other point of view in which it is seen to so much advantage. In
the celebrated prospect from the Mount of Olives, the city lies too low,
is too near the eye, and has too much the character of a bird’s eye
view, with the formality of a topographical plan. “We had not been
prepared,” says this lively traveller, “for the grandeur of the
spectacle which the city alone exhibited. Instead of a wretched and
ruined town, by some described as the desolated remnant of Jerusalem, we
beheld, as it were, a flourishing and stately metropolis, presenting a
magnificent assemblage of domes, towers, palaces, churches, and
monasteries; all of which, glittering in the sun’s rays, shone with
inconceivable splendour. As we drew nearer, our whole attention was
engrossed by its noble and interesting appearance. The lofty hills
surrounding it give the city itself an appearance of elevation less than
it really has.” Dr. Clarke was fortunate in catching this first view of
Jerusalem under the illusion of a brilliant evening sunshine; but his
description is decidedly overcharged. M. Chateaubriand, Mr. Buckingham,
Mr. Brown, Mr. Jolliffe, Sir F. Henniker, and almost every other modern
traveller, confirm the representation of Dr. Richardson. Mr. Buckingham
says, “The appearance of this celebrated city, independent of the
feelings and recollections which the approach to it cannot fail to
awaken, was greatly inferior to my expectations, and had certainly
nothing of grandeur or beauty, of stateliness or magnificence, about it.
It appeared like a walled town of the third or fourth class, having
neither towers, nor domes, nor minarets within it, in sufficient numbers
to give even a character to its impressions on the beholder; but showing
chiefly large flat-roofed buildings of the most unornamented kind,
seated amid rugged hills, on a stony and forbidding soil, with scarcely
a picturesque object in the whole compass of the surrounding view.”
Chateaubriand’s description is very striking and graphical. After citing
the language of the Prophet Jeremiah, in his lamentations on the
desolation of the ancient city, as accurately portraying its present
state, Lam. i, 1–6; ii, 1–9, 15, he thus proceeds: “When seen from the
Mount of Olives, on the other side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
Jerusalem presents an inclined plane, descending from west to east. An
embattled wall, fortified with towers, and a Gothic castle, encompasses
the city all round; excluding, however, part of Mount Zion, which it
formerly enclosed. In the western quarter, and in the centre of the
city, the houses stand very close; but, in the eastern part, along the
brook Kedron, you perceive vacant spaces; among the rest, that which
surrounds the mosque erected on the ruins of the temple, and the nearly
deserted spot where once stood the castle of Antonia and the second
palace of Herod. The houses of Jerusalem are heavy square masses, very
low, without chimneys or windows: they have flat terraces or domes on
the top, and look like prisons or sepulchres. The whole would appear to
the eye one uninterrupted level, did not the steeples of the churches,
the minarets of the mosques, the summits of a few cypresses, and the
clumps of nopals, break the uniformity of the plan. On beholding these
stone buildings, encompassed by a stony country, you are ready to
inquire if they are not the confused monuments of a cemetry in the midst
of a desert. Enter the city, but nothing will you there find to make
amends for the dulness of its exterior. You lose yourself among narrow,
unpaved streets, here going up hill, there down, from the inequality of
the ground; and you walk among clouds of dust or loose stones. Canvas
stretched from house to house increases the gloom of this labyrinth.
Bazaars, roofed over, and fraught with infection, completely exclude the
light from the desolate city. A few paltry shops expose nothing but
wretchedness to view; and even these are frequently shut, from
apprehension of the passage of a cadi. Not a creature is to be seen in
the streets, not a creature at the gates, except now and then a peasant
gliding through the gloom, concealing under his garments the fruits of
his labour, lest he should be robbed of his hard earnings by the
rapacious soldier. Aside, in a corner, the Arab butcher is slaughtering
some animal, suspended by the legs from a wall in ruins: from his
haggard and ferocious look, and his bloody hands, you would suppose that
he had been cutting the throat of a fellow creature, rather than killing
a lamb. The only noise heard from time to time in the city is the
galloping of the steed of the desert: it is the janissary who brings the
head of the Bedouin, or who returns from plundering the unhappy Fellah.
Amid this extraordinary desolation, you must pause a moment to
contemplate two circumstances still more extraordinary. Among the ruins
of Jerusalem, two classes of independent people find in their religion
sufficient fortitude to enable them to surmount such complicated horrors
and wretchedness. Here reside communities of Christian monks, whom
nothing can compel to forsake the tomb of Christ; neither plunder, nor
personal ill treatment, nor menaces of death itself. Night and day they
chant their hymns around the holy sepulchre. Driven by the cudgel and
the sabre, women, children, flocks, and herds, seek refuge in the
cloisters of these recluses. What prevents the armed oppressor from
pursuing his prey, and overthrowing such feeble ramparts? The charity of
the monks: they deprive themselves of the last resources of life to
ransom their suppliants. Cast your eyes between the temple and Mount
Zion; behold another petty tribe cut off from the rest of the
inhabitants of this city. The particular objects of every species of
degradation, these people bow their heads without murmuring; they endure
every kind of insult without demanding justice; they sink beneath
repeated blows without sighing; if their head be required, they present
it to the scimitar. On the death of any member of this proscribed
community, his companion goes at night, and inters him by stealth in the
Valley of Jehoshaphat, in the shadow of Solomon’s temple. Enter the
abodes of these people, you will find them, amid the most abject
wretchedness, instructing their children to read a mysterious book,
which they in their turn will teach their offspring to read. What they
did five thousand years ago, these people still continue to do.
Seventeen times have they witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, yet
nothing can discourage them, nothing can prevent them from turning their
faces toward Sion. To see the Jews scattered over the whole world,
according to the word of God, must doubtless excite surprise. But to be
struck with supernatural astonishment, you must view them at Jerusalem;
you must behold these rightful masters of Judea living as slaves and
strangers in their own country; you must behold them expecting, under
all oppressions, a king who is to deliver them. Crushed by the cross
that condemns them, skulking near the temple, of which not one stone is
left upon another, they continue in their deplorable infatuation. The
Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, are swept from the earth; and a petty
tribe, whose origin preceded that of those great nations, still exists
unmixed among the ruins of its native land.” To the same effect are the
remarks of Dr. Richardson: “In passing up to the synagogue, I was
particularly struck with the mean and wretched appearance of the houses
on both sides of the streets, as well as with the poverty of their
inhabitants. The sight of a poor Jew in Jerusalem has in it something
peculiarly affecting. The heart of this wonderful people, in whatever
clime they roam, still turns to it as the city of their promised rest.
They take pleasure in her ruins, and would kiss the very dust for her
sake. Jerusalem is the centre around which the exiled sons of Judah
build, in imagination, the mansions of their future greatness. In
whatever part of the world he may live, the heart’s desire of a Jew is
to be buried in Jerusalem. Thither they return from Spain and Portugal,
from Egypt and Barbary, and other countries among which they have been
scattered: and when, after all their longings, and all their struggles
up the steeps of life, we see them poor, and blind, and naked, in the
streets of their once happy Zion, he must have a cold heart that can
remain untouched by their sufferings, without uttering a prayer that God
would have mercy on the darkness of Judah; and that the Day Star of
Bethlehem might arise in their hearts.”

“Jerusalem,” remarks Sir Frederick Henniker, “is called, even by
Mohammedans, the Blessed City (_El Gootz, El Koudes_.) The streets of it
are narrow and deserted, the houses dirty and ragged, the shops few and
forsaken; and throughout the whole there is not one symptom of either
commerce, comfort, or happiness. The best view of it is from the Mount
of Olives: it commands the exact shape and nearly every particular;
namely, the church of the holy sepulchre, the Armenian convent, the
mosque of Omar, St. Stephen’s gate, the round-topped houses, and the
barren vacancies of the city. Without the walls are a Turkish burial
ground, the tomb of David, a small grove near the tombs of the kings,
and all the rest is a surface of rock, on which are a few numbered
trees. The mosque of Omar is the St. Peter’s of Turkey, and the
respective saints are held respectively by their own faithful in equal
veneration. The building itself has a light pagoda appearance; the
garden in which it stands occupies a considerable part of the city, and,
contrasted with the surrounding desert, is beautiful. The burial place
of the Jews is over the valley of Kedron, and the fees for breaking the
soil afford a considerable revenue to the governor. The burial place of
the Turks is under the walls, near St. Stephen’s gate. From the opposite
side of the valley, I was witness to the ceremony of parading a corpse
round the mosque of Omar, and then bringing it forth for burial. I
hastened to the grave, but was soon driven away: as far as my _on dit_
tells me, it would have been worth seeing. The grave is strown with red
earth, supposed to be of the _Ager Damascenus_ of which Adam was made;
by the side of the corpse is placed a stick, and the priest tells him
that the devil will tempt him to become a Christian, but that he must
make good use of his stick; that his trial will last three days, and
that he will then find himself in a mansion of glory,” &c.

The Jerusalem of sacred history is, in fact, no more. Not a vestige
remains of the capital of David and Solomon; not a monument of Jewish
times is standing. The very course of the walls is changed, and the
boundaries of the ancient city are become doubtful. The monks pretend to
show the sites of the sacred places; but neither Calvary, nor the holy
sepulchre, much less the Dolorous Way, the house of Caiaphas, &c, have
the slightest pretensions to even a probable identity with the real
places to which the tradition refers. Dr. E. D. Clarke has the merit of
being the first modern traveller who ventured to speak of the
preposterous legends and clumsy forgeries of the priests with the
contempt which they merit. “To men interested in tracing, within its
walls, antiquities referred to by the documents of sacred history, no
spectacle,” remarks the learned traveller, “can be more mortifying than
the city in its present state. The mistaken piety of the early
Christians, in attempting to preserve, has either confused or
annihilated the memorials it was anxious to render conspicuous. Viewing
the havoc thus made, it may now be regretted that the Holy Land was ever
rescued from the dominion of Saracens, who were far less barbarous than
their conquerors. The absurdity, for example, of hewing the rocks of
Judea into shrines and chapels, and of disguising the face of nature
with painted domes and guilded marble coverings, by way of commemorating
the scenes of our Saviour’s life and death, is so evident and so
lamentable, that even Sandys, with all his credulity, could not avoid a
happy application of the reproof conveyed by the Roman satirist against
a similar violation of the Egerian fountain.” Dr. Richardson remarks,
“It is a tantalizing circumstance for the traveller who wishes to
recognise in his walks the site of particular buildings, or the scenes
of memorable events, that the greater part of the objects mentioned in
the description both of the inspired and the Jewish historian, are
entirely removed, and razed from their foundation, without leaving a
single trace or name behind to point out where they stood. Not an
ancient tower, or gate, or wall, or hardly even a stone, remains. The
foundations are not only broken up, but every fragment of which they
were composed is swept away, and the spectator looks upon the bare rock
with hardly a sprinkling of earth to point out her gardens of pleasure,
or groves of idolatrous devotion. And when we consider the palaces, and
towers, and walls about Jerusalem, and that the stones of which some of
them were constructed were thirty feet long, fifteen feet broad, and
seven and a half feet thick, we are not more astonished at the strength,
and skill, and perseverance, by which they were constructed, than
shocked by the relentless and brutal hostility by which they were
shattered and overthrown, and utterly removed from our sight. A few
gardens still remain on the sloping base of Mount Zion, watered from the
pool of Siloam; the gardens of Gethsemane are still in a sort of ruined
cultivation; the fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying,
as if the hand that dressed and fed them were withdrawn; the Mount of
Olives still retains a languishing verdure, and nourishes a few of those
trees from which it derives its name; but all round about Jerusalem the
general aspect is blighted and barren; the grass is withered; the bare
rock looks through the scanty sward; and the grain itself, like the
staring progeny of famine, seems in doubt whether to come to maturity,
or die in the ear. The vine that was brought from Egypt is cut off from
the midst of the land; the vineyards are wasted; the hedges are taken
away; and the graves of the ancient dead are open and tenantless.”

3. On the accomplishment of prophecy in the condition in which this
celebrated city has lain for ages, Keith well remarks:--It formed the
theme of prophecy from the death bed of Jacob; and, as the seat of the
government of the children of Judah, the sceptre departed not from it
till the Messiah appeared, on the expiration of seventeen hundred years
after the death of the patriarch, and till the period of its desolation,
prophesied of by Daniel, had arrived. It was to be trodden down of the
Gentiles, till the time of the Gentiles should be fulfilled. The time of
the Gentiles is not yet fulfilled, and Jerusalem is still trodden down
of the Gentiles. The Jews have often attempted to recover it: no
distance of space or of time can separate it from their affections: they
perform their devotions with their faces toward it, as if it were the
object of their worship as well as of their love; and, although their
desire to return be so strong, indelible, and innate, that every Jew, in
every generation, counts himself an exile, yet they have never been able
to rebuild their temple, nor to recover Jerusalem from the hands of the
Gentiles. But greater power than that of a proscribed and exiled race
has been added to their own, in attempting to frustrate the counsel that
professed to be of God. Julian, the emperor of the Romans, not only
permitted but invited the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and their temple;
and promised to reëstablish them in their paternal city. By that single
act, more than by all his writings, he might have destroyed the
credibility of the Gospel, and restored his beloved but deserted
Paganism. The zeal of the Jews was equal to his own; and the work was
begun by laying again the foundations of the temple. It was never
accomplished, and the prophecy stands fulfilled. But even if the attempt
of Julian had never been made, the truth of the prophecy itself is
unassailable. The Jews have never been reinstated in Judea. Jerusalem
has ever been trodden down of the Gentiles. The edict of Adrian was
renewed by the successors of Julian; and no Jews could approach unto
Jerusalem but by bribery or by stealth. It was a spot unlawful for them
to touch. In the crusades, all the power of Europe was employed to
rescue Jerusalem from the Heathens, but equally in vain. It has been
trodden down for nearly eighteen centuries by its successive masters; by
Romans, Grecians, Persians, Saracens, Mamelukes, Turks, Christians, and
again by the worst of rulers, the Arabs and the Turks. And could any
thing be more improbable to have happened, or more impossible to have
been foreseen by man, than that any people should be banished from their
own capital and country, and remain expelled and expatriated for nearly
eighteen hundred years? Did the same fate ever befall any nation, though
no prophecy existed respecting it? Is there any doctrine in Scripture so
hard to be believed as was this single fact at the period of its
prediction? And even with the example of the Jews before us, is it
likely, or is it credible, or who can foretel, that the present
inhabitants of any country upon earth shall be banished into all
nations, retain their distinctive character, meet with an unparalleled
fate, continue a people, without a government and without a country, and
remain for an indefinite period, exceeding seventeen hundred years, till
the fulfilment of a prescribed event which has yet to be accomplished?
Must not the knowledge of such truths be derived from that prescience
alone which scans alike the will and the ways of mortals, the actions of
future nations, and the history of the latest generations?

JESHURUN, a name given to the collective political body of Israelites.
Some derive the word from ישר, _just_ or _righteous_, and so make it to
signify a righteous people. Montanus renders it _rectitudo_, and so does
the Samaritan version. But it seems a considerable objection against
this sense, that Israel is called Jeshurun at the very time that they
are upbraided with their sins and their rebellion: “Jeshurun waxed fat,
and kicked,” &c, Deut. xxxii, 15. It is replied, Jeshurun is the
diminutive of ישר, (for _nomen auctum in fine est nomen diminutivum_,)
and so imports, that though, in general and on the whole, they were a
righteous people, yet they were not without great faults. Perhaps
Cocceius has given as probable an interpretation as any. He derives the
word from שור, which signifies _to see_, _behold_, _or discover_; from
whence, in the future tense, plural, comes ישורו, which, with the
addition of nun _paragogicum_, makes Jeshurun; that is, “the people who
had the vision of God.” This makes the name of Jeshurun to be properly
applied to Israel, not only when Moses is called their king, but when
they are upbraided with their rebellion against God; since the peculiar
manifestation which God had made of himself to them was a great
aggravation of their ingratitude and rebellion.

JESSE. See DAVID and RUTH.

JESUITS, or the society of Jesus, one of the most celebrated monastic
orders of the Romish church, was founded in the year 1540, by Ignatius
Loyola, Forsaking the military for the ecclesiastical profession, he
engaged himself in the wildest and most extravagant adventures, as the
knight of the blessed virgin. After performing a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, and pursuing a multitude of visionary schemes, he returned to
prosecute his theological studies in the universities of Spain, when he
was about thirty-three years of age. He next went to Paris, where he
collected a small number of associates; and, prompted by his fanatical
spirit, or the love of distinction, began to conceive the establishment
of a new religious order. He produced a plan of its constitution and
laws, which he affirmed to have been suggested by the immediate
inspiration of Heaven, and applied to the Roman pontiff, Paul III. for
the sanction of his authority to confirm the institution. At a time when
the papal authority had received so severe a shock from the progress of
the Reformation, and was still exposed to the most powerful attacks in
every quarter, this was an offer too tempting to be resisted. The
reigning pontiff, though naturally cautious, and though scarcely
capable, without the spirit of prophecy, of foreseeing all the
advantages to be derived from the services of this nascent order, yet
clearly perceiving the benefit of multiplying the number of his devoted
servants, instantly confirmed by his bull the institution of the
Jesuits, granted the most ample privileges to the members of the
society, and appointed Loyola to be the first general of the order.

2. The simple and primary object of the society, says a writer in the
Edinburgh Encyclopædia, was to establish a spiritual dominion over the
minds of men, of which the pope should appear as the ostensible head,
while the real power should reside with themselves. To accomplish this
object, the whole constitution and policy of the order were singularly
adapted, and exhibited various peculiarities which distinguished it from
all other monastic orders. The immediate design of every other religious
society was to separate its members from the world; that of the Jesuits,
to render them masters of the world. The inmate of the convent devoted
himself to work out his own salvation by extraordinary acts of devotion
and self-denial; the follower of Loyola considered himself as plunging
into all the bustle of secular affairs, to maintain the interests of the
Romish church. The monk was a retired devotee of heaven; the Jesuit a
chosen soldier of the pope. That the members of the new order might have
full leisure for this active service, they were exempted from the usual
functions of other monks. They were not required to spend their time in
the long ceremonial offices and numberless mummeries of the Romish
worship. They attended no processions, and practised no austerities.
They neither chanted nor prayed. “They cannot sing,” said their enemies;
“for birds of prey never do.” They were sent forth to watch every
transaction of the world which might appear to affect the interests of
religion, and were especially enjoined to study the dispositions and
cultivate the friendship of persons in the higher ranks. Nothing could
be imagined more open and liberal than the external aspect of the
institution, yet nothing could be more strict and secret than its
internal organization. Loyola, influenced, perhaps, by the notions of
implicit obedience which he had derived from his military profession,
resolved that the government of the Jesuits should be absolutely
monarchical. A general, chosen for life by deputies from the several
provinces, possessed supreme and independent power, extending to every
person, and applying to every case. Every member of the order, the
instant that he entered its pale, surrendered all freedom of thought and
action; and every personal feeling was superseded by the interests of
that body to which he had attached himself. He went wherever he was
ordered; he performed whatever he was commanded; he suffered whatever he
was enjoined; he became a mere passive instrument incapable of
resistance. The gradation of ranks was only a gradation in slavery; and
so perfect a despotism over a large body of men, dispersed over the face
of the earth, was never before realized.

The maxims of policy adopted by this celebrated society were, like its
constitution, remarkable for their union of laxity and rigour. Nothing
could divert them from their original object; and no means were ever
scrupled which promised to aid its accomplishment. They were in no
degree shackled by prejudice, superstition, or real religion.
Expediency, in its most simple and licentious form, was the basis of
their morals, and their principles and practices were uniformly
accommodated to the circumstances in which they were placed; and even
their bigotry, obdurate as it was, never appears to have interfered with
their interests. The paramount and characteristic principle of the
order, from which none of its members ever swerved, was simply this,
that its interests were to be promoted by all possible means, at all
possible expense. In order to acquire more easily an ascendancy over
persons of rank and power, they propagated a system of the most relaxed
morality, which accommodated itself to the passions of men, justified
their vices, tolerated their imperfections, and authorized almost every
action which the most audacious or crafty politician would wish to
perpetrate. To persons of stricter principles they studied to recommend
themselves by the purity of their lives, and sometimes by the austerity
of their doctrines. While sufficiently compliant in the treatment of
immoral practices, they were generally rigidly severe in exacting a
strict orthodoxy in opinions. “They are a sort of people,” said the Abbé
Boileau, “who lengthen the creed and shorten the decalogue.” They
adopted the same spirit of accommodation in their missionary
undertakings; and their Christianity, chamelionlike, readily assumed the
colour of every religion where it happened to be introduced. They freely
permitted their converts to retain a full proportion of the old
superstitions, and suppressed, without hesitation, any point in the new
faith which was likely to bear hard on their prejudices or propensities.
They proceeded to still greater lengths; and, beside suppressing the
truths of revelation, devised the most absurd falsehoods, to be used for
attracting disciples, or even to be taught as parts of Christianity. One
of them in India produced a pedigree to prove his own descent from
Brama; and another in America assured a native chief that Christ had
been a valiant and victorious warrior, who, in the space of three years,
had scalped an incredible number of men, women, and children. It was, in
fact, their own authority, not the authority of true religion, which
they wished to establish; and Christianity was generally as little
known, when they quitted the foreign scenes of their labours as when
they entered them.

These detestable objects and principles, however, were long an
impenetrable secret: and the professed intention of the new order was to
promote, with unequalled and unfettered zeal, the salvation of mankind.
Its progress, nevertheless, was at first remarkably slow. Charles V.,
who is supposed, with his usual sagacity, to have discerned its
dangerous tendency, rather checked than encouraged its advancement; and
the universities of France resisted its introduction into that kingdom.
Thus, roused by obstacles, and obliged to find resources within
themselves, the Jesuits brought all their talents and devices into
action. They applied themselves to every useful function and curious
art; and neither neglected nor despised any mode, however humble, of
gaining employment or reputation. The satirist’s description of the
Greeks in Rome has been aptly chosen to describe their indefatigable and
universal industry:--

          _Grammaticus, rhetor, geometres, pictor, aliptes,
          Augur, schœnobates, medicus, magus; omnia novit
          Græculus._
                                       Juvenal, lib. iii, 76.

            “A Protean tribe, one knows not what to call,
            Which shifts to every form, and shines in all:
            Grammarian, painter, augur, rhetorician,
            Rope-dancer, conjuror, fiddler, and physician,--
            All trades his own, your hungry Greekling counts.”
                                            GIFFORD.

They laboured with the greatest assiduity to qualify themselves as the
instructers of youth; and succeeded, at length, in supplanting their
opponents in every Catholic kingdom. They aimed, in the next place, to
become the spiritual directors of the higher ranks; and soon established
themselves in most of the courts which were attached to the papal faith,
not only as the confessors, but frequently also as the guides and
ministers, of superstitious princes. The governors of the society
pursuing one uniform system with unwearied perseverance, became entirely
successful; and, in the space of half a century, had in a wonderful
degree extended the reputation, the number, and influence of the order.
When Loyola, in 1540, petitioned the pope to authorize the institution
of the Jesuits, he had only ten disciples; but in 1608 the number
amounted to 10,581. Before the expiration of the sixteenth century they
had obtained the chief direction of the education of youth in every
Catholic country in Europe, and had become the confessors of almost all
its noblest monarchs. In spite of their vow of poverty, their wealth
increased with their power; and they soon rivalled, in the extent and
value of their possessions, the most opulent monastic fraternities.
About the beginning of the seventeenth century, they obtained from the
court of Madrid the grant of the large and fertile province of Paraguay,
which stretches across the southern continent of America, from the
mountains of Potosi to the banks of the river La Plata; and, after every
deduction which can reasonably be made from their own accounts of their
establishment, enough will remain to excite the astonishment and
applause of mankind. They found the inhabitants in the first stage of
society, ignorant of the arts of life, and unacquainted with the first
principles of subordination. They applied themselves to instruct and
civilize these savage tribes. They commenced their labours by collecting
about fifty families of wandering Indians, whom they converted and
settled in a small township. They taught them to build houses, to
cultivate the ground, and to rear tame animals; trained them to arts and
manufactures, and brought them to relish the blessings of security and
order. By a wise and humane policy, they gradually attracted new
subjects and converts; till at last they formed a powerful and well
organized state of three hundred thousand families.

Though the power of the Jesuits had become so extensive, and though
their interests generally prospered during a period of more than two
centuries, their progress was by no means uninterrupted; and, by their
own misconduct, they soon excited the most formidable counteractions.
Scarcely had they effected their establishment in France, in defiance of
the parliaments and universities, when their existence was endangered by
the fanaticism of their own members. John Chastel, one of their pupils,
made an attempt upon the life of Henry IV.; and Father Guiscard, another
of the order, was convicted of composing writings favourable to
regicide. The parliaments seized the moment of their disgrace, and
procured their banishment from every part of the kingdom, except the
provinces of Bourdeaux and Toulouse. From these rallying points, they
speedily extended their intrigues in every quarter, and in a few years
obtained their re-establishment. Even Henry, either dreading their
power, or pleased with the exculpation of his licentious habits, which
he found in their flexible system of morality, became their patron, and
selected one of their number as his confessor. They were favoured by
Louis XIII. and his minister Richelieu, on account of their literary
exertions; but it was in the succeeding reign of Louis XIV. that they
reached the summit of their prosperity. The Fathers La Chaise and Le
Teltier were successively confessors to the king; and did not fail to
employ their influence for the interest of their order: but the latter
carried on his projects with so blind and fiery a zeal, that one of the
Jesuits is reported to have said of him, “He drives at such a rate, that
he will overturn us all.” The Jansenists were peculiarly the objects of
his machinations, and he rested not till he had accomplished the
destruction of their celebrated college and convent at Port Royal.
Before the fall, however, of this honoured seminary, a shaft from its
bow had reached the heart of its proud oppressor. The “Provincial
Letters of Pascal” had been published, in which the quibbling morality
and unintelligible metaphysics of the Jesuits were exposed in a strain
of inimitable humour, and a style of unrivalled elegance. The impression
which they produced was wide and deep, and gradually sapped the
foundation of public opinion, on which the power of the order had
hitherto rested. Under the regency of the duke of Orleans, the Jesuits,
and all theological personages and principles were disregarded with
atheistical superciliousness; but under Louis XV. they partly recovered
their influence at court, which, even under Cardinal Fleury, they
retained in a considerable degree. But they soon revived the odium of
the public by their intolerant treatment of the Jansenists, and probably
accelerated their ruin by refusing, from political rather than religious
scruples, to undertake the spiritual guidance of Madame de la Pampadour,
as well as by imprudently attacking the authors of the “_Encyclopêdie_.”
Voltaire directed against them all the powers of his ridicule, and
finished the piece which Pascal had sketched. Their power was brought to
a very low ebb, when the war of 1756 broke out, which occasioned the
famous law-suit that led to their final overthrow.

In the mean time the king of Portugal was assassinated; and Carvalho,
the minister, who detested the Jesuits, found means to load them with
the odium of the crime. Malagrida, and a few more of these fathers, were
charged with advising and absolving the assassins; and, having been
found guilty, were condemned to the stake. The rest were banished with
every brand of infamy, and were treated with the most iniquitous
cruelty. They were persecuted without discrimination, robbed of their
property without pity, and embarked for Italy without previous
preparation; so that, no provision having been made for their reception,
they were literally left to perish with hunger in their vessels. These
incidents prepared the way for a similar catastrophe in France. In
March, 1762, the French court received intelligence of the capture of
Martinico by the British; and, dreading a storm of public indignation,
resolved to divert the exasperated feelings of the nation, by yielding
the Jesuits to their impending fate. On the sixth of August, 1762, their
institute was condemned by the parliament, as contrary to the laws of
the state, to the obedience due to the sovereign, and to the welfare of
the kingdom. The order was dissolved, and their effects alienated. But
in certain quarters, where the provincial parliaments had not decided
against them, Jesuits still subsisted; and a royal edict was afterward
promulgated, which formally abolished the society in France, but
permitted its members to reside within the kingdom under certain
restrictions.

In Spain, where they conceived their establishment to be perfectly
secure, they experienced an overthrow equally complete, and much more
unexpected. The necessary measures were concerted under the direction of
De Choiseul, by the Marquis D'Ossun, the French ambassador at Madrid,
with Charles III., king of Spain, and his prime minister, the Count
D'Aranda. The execution of their purposes was as sudden as their plans
had been secret. At midnight, March 31st, 1767, large bodies of military
surrounded the six colleges of the Jesuits in Madrid, forced the gates,
secured the bells, collected the fathers in the refectory, and read to
them the king’s order for their instant transportation. They were
immediately put into carriages previously placed at proper stations; and
were on their way to Carthagena before the inhabitants of the city had
any intelligence of the transaction. Three days afterward, the same
measures were adopted with regard to every other college of the order in
the kingdom; and, ships having been provided at the different sea ports,
they were all embarked for the ecclesiastical states in Italy. All their
property was confiscated, and a small pension assigned to each
individual as long as he should reside in a place appointed, and satisfy
the Spanish court as to his peaceable demeanour. All correspondence with
the Jesuits was prohibited, and the strictest silence on the subject of
their expulsion was enjoined under penalties of high treason. A similar
seizure and deportation took place in the Indies, and an immense
property was acquired by the government. Many crimes and plots were laid
to the charge of the order; but whatever may have been their demerit,
the punishment was too summary to admit of justification; and many
innocent individuals were subjected to sufferings beyond the deserts
even of the guilty. Pope Clement III. prohibited their landing in his
dominions; and, after enduring extreme miseries in crowded transports,
the survivors, to the number of two thousand three hundred, were put
ashore on Corsica. The example of the king of Spain was immediately
followed by Ferdinand VI. of Naples, and soon after by the prince of
Parma. They had been expelled from England in 1604; from Venice in 1606;
and from Portugal in 1759, upon the charge of having instigated the
families of Tavora and D'Aveiro to assassinate King Joseph I. Frederick
the Great, of Prussia, was the only monarch who showed a disposition to
afford them protection; but in 1773 the order was entirely suppressed by
Pope Clement XIV., who is supposed to have fallen a victim to their
vengeance. In 1801 the society was restored in Russia by the Emperor
Paul; and in 1804, by King Ferdinand, in Sardinia. In August, 1814, a
bull was issued by Pope Pius VII., restoring the order to all their
former privileges, and calling upon all Catholic princes to afford them
protection and encouragement. This act of their revival is expressed in
all the solemnity of papal authority; and even affirmed to be above the
recall or revision of any judge, with whatever power he may be clothed;
but to every enlightened mind it cannot fail to appear as a measure
altogether incapable of justification, from any thing either in the
history of Jesuitism, or in the character of the present times.

3. It would be in vain to deny that many considerable advantages were
derived by mankind from the labours of the Jesuits. Their ardour in the
study of ancient literature, and their labours in the instruction of
youth, greatly contributed to the progress of polite learning. They have
produced a greater number of ingenious authors than all the other
religious fraternities taken together; and though there never was known
among their order one person who could be said to possess an enlarged
philosophical mind, they can boast of many eminent masters in the
separate branches of science, many distinguished mathematicians,
antiquarians, critics, and even some orators of high reputation. They
were in general, also, as individuals, superior in decency, and even
purity of manners, to any other class of regular clergy in the church of
Rome. But all these benefits by no means counterbalanced the pernicious
effects of their influence and intrigues on the best interests of
society.

The essential principles of the institution, namely, that their order is
to be maintained at the expense of the society at large, and that the
end sanctifies the means, are utterly incompatible with the welfare of
any community of men. Their system of lax and pliant morality,
justifying every vice, and authorizing every atrocity, has left deep and
lasting ravages on the face of the moral world. Their zeal to extend the
jurisdiction of the court of Rome over every civil government, gave
currency to tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes who were
hostile to the Catholic faith, which shook the basis of all political
allegiance, and loosened the obligations of every human law. Their
indefatigable industry, and countless artifices in resisting the
progress of reformed religion, perpetuated the most pernicious errors of
Popery, and postponed the triumph of tolerant and Christian principles.
Whence, then, it may well be asked, whence the recent restoration? What
long latent proof has been discovered of the excellence, or even the
expedience, of such an institution? The sentence of their abolition was
passed by the senates, and monarchs, and statesmen, and divines, of all
religions, and of almost every civilized country in the world. Almost
every land has been stained and torn by their crimes; and almost every
land bears on its public records the most solemn protests against their
existence.

JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, the
first and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in
the Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of
the Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The
name Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, יהושוע, _Jehoshua_, or
_Joshua_, Ἰησούς, signifies, _he who shall save_. No one ever bore this
name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification
of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath
merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary
here to narrate the history of our Saviour’s life, which can no where be
read with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but
there are several general views which require to be noticed under this
article.

1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old
Testament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the
prophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his
appearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that
character by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is
certain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently
definite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly
known at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our
Lord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books
of the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his
claim by _miracles_; and in those _predictions_ respecting him, so many
circumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and
so, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as
far as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we
refer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works
wrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because,
from their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be
the Messiah, they necessarily imply a _divine attestation_. With respect
to PROPHECY, the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as
conclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will
only be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred
books of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person
the founder of the Christian religion.

The time of the Messiah’s appearance in the world, as predicted in the
Old Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring
circumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ.
The last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather
themselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in
the last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: “The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until
Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” Gen.
xlix, 10. The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or
the Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of
Judah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among
them, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their
judges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds
another standard for measuring the time: “Behold, I send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts,”
Mal. iii, 1. No words can be more expressive of the coming of the
promised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second
temple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the
Messiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai
are remarkably explicit: “The desire of all nations shall come, and I
will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of
this latter house shall be greater than of the former, and in this place
will I give peace,” Hag. ii, 7. The Saviour was thus to appear,
according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the
continuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the
temple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is
rendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of
the Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth
monarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to
precede his coming are plainly intimated: “Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand,
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore
and two weeks,” Dan. ix, 24, 25. Computation by weeks of years was
common among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year;
seventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these
words the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of
Messiah, the Prince; so entirely is all ambiguity done away. The
plainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them,
while, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of
futurity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known
for ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they
refer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly
undeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in
perfect unison to a single precise period where all their different
lines terminate at once,--the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared.
A king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed
by their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its
authority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct
or dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last
sceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the
temple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might
have stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring
testimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During
the very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly
appeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished;
Coponius was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last
remnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the
province of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the
crown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the
death of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another;
their commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in
pieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a
name but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years
posterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the
herald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the
account given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted
the time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the
crucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with
respect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote
period, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most
learned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the
edict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, to the
commencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in
the prophecy.

The predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the
family out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his
birth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to
Christ, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be
an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the
town of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus
Christ; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and
lineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in
the testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the
genealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the
custom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the
enemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a
single surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the
earliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the
records of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour’s birth by
order of Cæsar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the
exact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and
irreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially
accomplished. The spot of Christ’s nativity was distant from the place
of the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his
ministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy
respecting him was in this manner verified: “In the land of Zebulun and
Naphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the
light shined,” Isaiah ix, 1, 2; Matt. iv, 16. Thus, the time at which
the predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the
family from which he was to be descended; and the place of his
birth,--no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,--were
all clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet
their completion in him.

But the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also
drawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the
meanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus
represented: “He shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and
as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when
we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus
saith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation
abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes
also shall worship,” Isaiah liii, 2; xlix, 7. That such was the
condition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life
abundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts
for an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were
deceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling,
where, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have
discovered an evidence of the Messiah. “Is not this the carpenter’s son?
Is not this the son of Mary? said they and they were offended at him.”
His riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for
thirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffeted, and spit upon; the
piercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of
vinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his
vesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again
without seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these
predictions were literally fulfilled, Zech. ix, 9; xi, 12; Isaiah l, 6;
Psalm xxii, 16; lxix, 21; xxii, 18; Isaiah liii, 9; Psalm xvi, 10. If
all these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life
of any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity.
And what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually
foretold of its founder?

The death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies
are as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not
only did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the
families of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be
without blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood
sprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken;
not only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen
serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed,
and many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of
Christ’s death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many
express declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to
suffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet,
the glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the
accuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies
which were to precede the triumphs of the Redeemer of a world; and the
history of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the
completion of his every prediction. In a single passage, Isaiah lii, 13,
&c; liii, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity
indisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant
of God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he
who was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the
ends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, Isa.
xiii, 10; xlix, 6) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is
requisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy
thus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his
dignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and
his agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were
disbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he
opened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In
diametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is
registered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence
suffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect
obedience; God’s righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was
perfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling
many nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying
many by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the
spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death.
This prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event,
renders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts
the scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and
presents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in
some of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed
at once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these
prophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his
spiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the
opposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of
which equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him
out as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected.

2. But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his Deity
also is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with
attributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as
certainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of “the
Christ.” Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity
of divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, (see _Trinity_,) it is
sufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament
Scriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very
first promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant
spirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair
creation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the
Divine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in
the patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was
understood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a
being distinct from Jehovah and yet Jehovah himself; bearing that
incommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of
unquestionable divinity. As the “Redeemer” of Job, he is the object of
his trust and hope, and is said to be then a “living Redeemer;” to see
whom at the last was to “see God.” As “Shiloh,” in the prophecy of
Jacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over
“the people” gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions
respecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect,
so influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men,
that no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising
it. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it
has been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this
Psalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far
transcend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature.
But if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with
parallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the
extraordinary person here spoken of called, “the Son of God,” but that
title is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a
manner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he
is said to be begotten of God, verse 7, and is called, by way of
eminence, “the Son,” verse 12; that the danger of provoking him to anger
is spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses
in speaking of the anger of any mere creature, “Kiss the Son, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a
little;” that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to
serve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the
Son, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of
adoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain
awful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the
Psalmist nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son
here spoken of;--all these things taken together make up a character of
unequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God
would set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, verse 6,
this, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of
that subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to
be incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The
former part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St.
Paul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, “Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom.” In the same manner Psalm cii, 25–29, is applied
to Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the
Creator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet
himself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of
the universe. In Psalm cx, David says, “Jehovah said unto my Lord,
(_Adonai_,) Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool.” And in Isaiah vi, the same Adonai is seen by the prophet
“seated upon a throne, high and lifted up,” receiving the adoration of
seraphs, and bearing the title, “Jehovah, Lord of Hosts,” of which
passage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts
his birth of a virgin, under the title of “Immanuel, God with us.” The
same prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of “the Mighty
God,” the Everlasting Father,” and the “Prince of Peace;” so that, as
Dr. Pye Smith justly observes, “if there be any dependence on words, the
Messiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and
Deity,--the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the
incommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God.” Twice is
he called by Jeremiah, “Jehovah our righteousness.” Daniel terms him the
“Ancient of Days,” or “The Immortal;” and Micah declares, in a passage
which the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the
Messiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was “even he whose
comings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting
period.” Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the
appellation of “Wonderful,” since he should be, in a sense peculiar to
himself, the Son of God, Psalm ii, 7; Isaiah ix, 6; as existing and
acting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from
eternity, Psalm xl, 7–9; Micah v, 2; as the guardian and protector of
his people, Isaiah xl, 9–11; as the proper object of the various
affections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most
important blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, Psalm
ii, 12; xcvii, 7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and
immutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim,
Jehovah.

In perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of
himself. He asserts his preëxistence, as having “come down from heaven;”
and as existing “before Abraham;” and as being “in heaven” while yet
before the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner
does he apply the term “Son of God” to himself, and that with so
manifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the
Jews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole
force of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked
how the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David’s Lord,
in reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of
the doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity; and when he claims that all men
should honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the
Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in
himself, that he “quickeneth whom he will,” that “where two or three
meet in his name he is in the midst of them,” and would be with his
disciples “to the end of the world;” who does not see that the Jews
concluded right, when they said that he made himself “equal with
God,”--an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own
moral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that
conclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts,
and qualities, are ascribed to Christ, in the apostolical epistles, and
so unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the
Deity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his
inspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it
is not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old
Testament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the
proofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also
by farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is
a union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their
properties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity
absorbed by his humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one
Person. How this union exists, is above our comprehension; and, indeed,
if we cannot explain how our bodies and souls are united, it is not to
be supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of “God manifest in the
flesh.” So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in
prophecy,--“Wonderful.”

3. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from
the consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and
often apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How,
for instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity,
and yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?--that he is
addressed, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” and yet that it
should follow “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows?”--that he should be God, and yet, by a human
birth, “God with us?”--that he should, say, “I and my Father are one,”
and, “My Father is greater than I?”--that he is supreme, and yet a
servant?--that he is equal and yet subordinate?--that he, a man, should
require and receive worship and trust?--that he should be greater than
angels, and yet “made lower than the angels?”--that he should be “made
flesh,” and yet be the Creator of all things?--that he should raise
himself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father?
These and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the
orthodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state
the facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of
interpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to
him a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on
the other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to
evade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious
criticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as
would not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an
attempt to interpret any other ancient writing.

4. Being, therefore, not only “a teacher sent from God,” but the divine
Son of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers,
“Never man spake like this man.” On our Lord’s character as a teacher,
therefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different
writers, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect,
have been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence.
This article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for
an estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be
concluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:--

“When our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the
justest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the
duties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every
particular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest
philosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased
their most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in
general, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most
awful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were,
overpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature;
representing himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer,
our Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and
died for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does
not labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all
characters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no
display of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of
them with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty. Supernatural
truths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to
other men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and
enforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing
new beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as
such, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws
which serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts,
when rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their
tendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an
occasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of
his instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered,
we find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though
occasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons
of them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as
rational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of
his subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed
throughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is
remarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best
lessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked
and open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the
emotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. Difficult
situations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind,
serve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish
all his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every
occasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare
of ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly,
as wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every
prejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses
parables to conceal or to enforce his lessons: and he powerfully
impresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs
of his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of
prophecies, and by a variety of mighty works.

“He sets an example of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most
extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not
merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity.
His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does
not degenerate into apathy. His humility is signal, amidst a splendour
of qualities more than human. His fortitude is eminent and exemplary, in
enduring the most formidable external evils and the sharpest actual
sufferings: his patience is invincible; his resignation entire and
absolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though
of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly
parents. He approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities
in the human race. He respects authority, religious and civil; and he
evidences his regard for his country by promoting its most essential
good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its
calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of
his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both
wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of
his enemies. Never was a character at the same time so commanding and
natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is
a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and
majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness.
He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next
instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the
blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than
Solomon, one who can command legions of angels, the Giver of life to
whomsoever he pleaseth, the Son of God who shall sit on his glorious
throne to judge the world. At other times we find him embracing young
children, not lifting up his voice in the streets, not breaking the
bruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples, not
servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an
exuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our
minds with the idea of one who knew all things heavenly and earthly,
searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart, rectified every
prejudice, and removed every mistake, of a moral and religious kind, by
a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden
events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality,
had the keys of life and death, claimed a union with the Father; and yet
was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly,
affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each
separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast; and the
union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the
glory of that God ‘who inhabiteth light inaccessible.’ Such a character
must have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so
perfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus
supported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by
men confessedly unlearned and obscure.” We may add, that such a
character must also have been _divine_. His virtues are human in their
class and kind, so that he was our “example;” but they were sustained
and heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from
which they derived their intense and full perfection.

5. A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and
stature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the
noblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was
no beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not
expressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom
believes that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour’s
face were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the
generality of his Apostles with so much ease to him; it was this majesty
which struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St.
Bernard and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of
Jesus Christ’s person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged,
that he was not at all handsome. _Homo indecorus et passibilis_, says
Irenæus. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man,
was little, and ill made, which Origen acknowledged in his answer to
have been written of him. Clemens Alexandrinus owns, in several places,
that the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also Cyril of
Alexandria. Tertullian says plainly, _vultu et aspectu inglorius_; that
his outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and
respect. St. Austin confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without
beauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients,
as Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage
in the Psalms, “Thou art fairer than the children of men,” as relating
to the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference
in opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this
subject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and
attractive in the person of our Lord, was in the _expression_ of the
countenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his
confidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general
appearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer.

JEWS, the appropriate denomination of the descendants of Judah, which
soon included under it the Benjamites, who joined themselves to the
tribe of Judah, on the revolt of the other ten tribes from the house of
David. After the Babylonish captivity, when many individuals of these
ten tribes returned with the men of Judah and Benjamin to rebuild
Jerusalem, the term JEWS included them also, or rather was then extended
to all the descendants of Israel who retained the Jewish religion,
whether they belonged to the two or to the ten tribes, whether they
returned into Judea or not. Hence, not only all the Israelites of future
times have been called Jews, but all the descendants of Jacob, from the
earliest times, are frequently so called by us at present, and we speak
even of their original dispensation as the Jewish dispensation. The
history of this singular people is recorded in the sacred books of the
Old Testament; and in place of epitomizing the accounts of the sacred
writers, it will be more useful to fill up the chasm between the close
of the historical books there contained, and the coming of our Lord.

When the kingdom of Judah had been seventy years in captivity, and the
period of their affliction was completed, Cyrus, (B. C. 536,) under whom
were united the kingdoms of Persia, Media, and Babylon, issued a decree,
permitting all the Jews to return to their own land, and to rebuild
their temple at Jerusalem. This decree had been expressly foretold by
the Prophet Isaiah, who spoke of Cyrus by name, above a hundred years
before his birth, as the deliverer of God’s chosen people from their
predicted captivity. Though the decree issued by Cyrus was general, a
part only of the nation took advantage of it. The number of persons who
returned at this time was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,
and seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven servants. They were
conducted by Zerubbabel and Joshua. Zerubbabel, frequently called in
Scripture Shashbazzar, was the grandson of Jeconias, and consequently
descended from David. He was called “the prince of Judah,” and was
appointed their governor by Cyrus, and with his permission carried back
a part of the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had taken out
the temple of Jerusalem. The rest of the treasures of the temple were
carried thither afterward by Ezra. Joshua was the son of Josedec, the
high priest, and grandson of Seraiah, who was high priest when the
temple was destroyed. Darius, the successor of Cyrus, confirmed this
decree, and favoured the reëstablishment of the people. But it was in
the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, called in Scripture Ahasuerus, that
Ezra obtained his commission, and was made governor of the Jews in their
own land, which government he held thirteen years: then Nehemiah was
appointed with fresh powers, probably through the interest of Queen
Esther; and Ezra applied himself solely to correcting the canon of the
Scriptures, and restoring and providing for the continuance of the
worship of God in its original purity. The first care of the Jews, after
their arrival in Judea, was to build an altar for burnt-offerings to
God: they then collected materials for rebuilding the temple; and all
necessary preparations being made, in the beginning of the second year
after their return under Zerubbabel, they began to build it upon the old
foundations. The Samaritans, affirming that they worshipped the God of
Israel, offered to assist the Jews; but their assistance being refused,
they did all in their power to impede the work; and hence originated
that enmity which ever after subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans.
The temple, after a variety of obstructions and delays, was finished and
dedicated, in the seventh year of King Darius, B. C. 515, and twenty
years after it was begun. Though this second temple, or, as it is
sometimes called, the temple of Zerubbabel, who was at that time
governor of the Jews, was of the same size and dimensions as the first,
or Solomon’s temple, yet it was very inferior to it in splendour and
magnificence; and the ark of the covenant, the Shechinah, the holy fire
upon the altar, the Urim and Thummim, and the spirit of prophecy, were
all wanting to this temple of the remnant of the people. At the feast of
the dedication, offerings were made for the twelve tribes of Israel,
which seems to indicate that some of all the tribes returned from
captivity; but by far the greater number were of the tribe of Judah, and
therefore from this period the Israelites were generally called Judæi or
Jews, and their country Judea. Many, at their own desire, remained in
those provinces where they had been placed by the kings of Assyria and
Babylon. The settlement of the people, “after their old estate,”
according to the word of the Lord, together with the arrangement of all
civil and ecclesiastical matters, and the building of the walls of
Jerusalem, were completed by Ezra and Nehemiah. But we soon after find
Malachi, the last of the prophets under the Old Testament, reproving
both priests and people very severely, not for idolatry, but for their
scandalous lives and gross corruptions.

The Scriptural history ends at this period, B. C. 430; and we must have
recourse to uninspired writings, principally to the books of the
Maccabees, and to Josephus, for the remaining particulars of the Jewish
history, to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Judea continued
subject to the kings of Persia about two hundred years; but it does not
appear that it had a separate governor after Nehemiah. From his time it
was included in the jurisdiction of the governor of Syria, and under him
the high priest had the chief authority. When Alexander the Great was
preparing to besiege Tyre, he sent to Jaddua, the high priest at
Jerusalem, to supply him with that quantity of provisions which he was
accustomed to send to Persia. Jaddua refused, upon the ground of his
oath of fidelity to the king of Persia. This refusal irritated
Alexander; and when he had taken Tyre, he marched toward Jerusalem to
revenge himself upon the Jews. Jaddua had notice of his approach, and,
by the direction of God, went out of the city to meet him, dressed in
his pontifical robes, and attended by the Levites in white garments.
Alexander, visibly struck with this solemn appearance, immediately laid
aside his hostile intentions, advanced toward the high priest, embraced
him, and paid adoration to the name of God, which was inscribed upon the
frontlet of his mitre: he afterward went into the city with the high
priest, and offered sacrifices in the temple to the God of the Jews.
This sudden change in the disposition of Alexander excited no small
astonishment among his followers; and when his favourite Parmenio
inquired of him the cause, he answered, that it was occasioned by the
recollection of a remarkable dream he had in Macedonia, in which a
person, dressed precisely like the Jewish high priest, had encouraged
him to undertake the conquest of Persia, and had promised him success:
he therefore adored the name of that God by whose direction he believed
he acted, and showed kindness to his people. It is also said, that while
he was at Jerusalem the prophecies of Daniel were pointed out to him,
which foretold that “the king of Grecia” should conquer Persia, Dan.
viii, 21. Before he left Jerusalem he granted the Jews the same free
enjoyment of their laws and their religion, and exemption from tribute
every sabbatical year, which they had been allowed by the kings of
Persia; and when he built Alexandria, he placed a great number of Jews
there, and granted them many favours and immunities. Whether any Jews
settled in Europe so early as while the nation was subject to the
Macedonian empire, is not known; but it is believed that they began to
Hellenize about this time. The Greek tongue became more common among
them, and Grecian manners and opinions were soon introduced. See
ALEXANDER.

At the death of Alexander, (B. C. 323,) in the division of his empire
among his generals, Judea fell to the share of Laomedon. But Ptolemy
Soter, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, soon after made himself master of it
by a stratagem: he entered Jerusalem on a Sabbath day, under pretence of
offering sacrifice, and took possession of the city without resistance
from the Jews, who did not on this occasion dare to transgress their law
by fighting on a Sabbath day. Ptolemy carried many thousands captive
into Egypt, both Jews and Samaritans, and settled them there: he
afterward treated them with kindness, on account of their acknowledged
fidelity to their engagements, particularly in their conduct toward
Darius, king of Persia; and he granted them equal privileges with the
Macedonians themselves at Alexandria. Ptolemy Philadelphus is said to
have given the Jews who were captives in Egypt their liberty, to the
number of a hundred and twenty thousand. He commanded the Jewish
Scriptures to be translated into the Greek language, which translation
is called the Septuagint. (See _Alexandria_.) After the Jewish nation
had been tributary to the kings of Egypt for about a hundred years, it
became subject to the kings of Syria. They divided the land, which now
began to be called Palestine, into five provinces, three of which were
on the west side of the Jordan, namely, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, and
two on the east side, namely, Trachonitis and Peræa; but they suffered
them to be governed by their own laws, under the high priest and council
of the nation. Seleucus Nicanor gave them the right of citizens in the
cities which he built in Asia Minor and Cœlo-Syria, and even in
Antioch, his capital, with privileges, which they continued to enjoy
under the Romans. Antiochus the Great granted considerable favours and
immunities to the city of Jerusalem; and, to secure Lydia and Phrygia,
he established colonies of Jews in those provinces. In the series of
wars which took place between the kings of Syria and Egypt, Judea, being
situated between those two countries, was, in a greater or less degree,
affected by all the revolutions which they experienced, and was
frequently the scene of bloody and destructive battles. The evils to
which the Jews were exposed from these foreign powers were considerably
aggravated by the corruption and misconduct of their own high priests,
and other persons of distinction among them. To this corruption and
misconduct, and to the increasing wickedness of the people, their
sufferings ought indeed to be attributed, according to the express
declarations of God by the mouth of his prophets. It is certain that
about this time a considerable part of the nation was become much
attached to Grecian manners and customs, though they continued perfectly
free from the sin of idolatry. Near Jerusalem places were appropriated
to gymnastic exercises; and the people were led by Jason, who had
obtained the high priesthood from Antiochus Epiphanes by the most
dishonourable means, to neglect the temple worship, and the observance
of the law, in a far greater degree than at any period since their
return from the captivity. It pleased God to punish them for this
defection, by the hand of the very person whom they particularly sought
to please. Antiochus Epiphanes, irritated at having been prevented by
the Jews from entering the holy place when he visited the temple, soon
after made a popular commotion the pretence for the exercise of tyranny:
he took the city, (B. C. 170,) plundered the temple, and slew or
enslaved great numbers of the inhabitants, with every circumstance of
profanation and of cruelty which can be conceived. For three years and a
half, the time predicted by Daniel, the daily sacrifice was taken away,
the temple defiled and partly destroyed, the observance of the law
prohibited under the most severe penalties, every copy burned which the
agents of the tyrant could procure, and the people required to sacrifice
to idols, under pain of the most agonizing death. Numerous as were the
apostates, (for the previous corruption of manners had but ill prepared
the nation for such a trial,) a remnant continued faithful; and the
complicated miseries which the people endured under this cruel yoke
excited a general impatience. At length the moment of deliverance
arrived. Mattathias, a priest, (B. C. 167,) eminent for his piety and
resolution, and the father of five sons, equally zealous for their
religion, encouraged the people by his example and exhortations, “to
stand up for the law;” and having soon collected an army of six thousand
men, he eagerly undertook to free Judea from the oppression and
persecution of the Syrians, and to restore the worship of the God of
Israel; but being very old when he engaged in this important and arduous
work, he did not live to see its completion. At his death, his son,
Judas Maccabæus, succeeded to the command of the army; and having
defeated the Syrians in several engagements, he drove them out of Judea,
and established his own authority in the country. His first care was to
repair and purify the temple for the restoration of divine worship; and,
to preserve the memory of this event, the Jews ordained a feast of eight
days, called the feast of the dedication, to be yearly observed. Judas
Maccabæus was slain in battle, and his brother Jonathan succeeded him in
the government. He was also made high priest, and from that time the
Maccabæan princes continued to be high priests. Judas Maccabæus and his
brothers were so successful, by their valour and conduct, in asserting
the liberty of their country, that in a few years they not only
recovered its independence, but regained almost all the possessions of
the twelve tribes, destroying at the same time the temple on Mount
Gerizim, in Samaria. But they and their successors were almost always
engaged in wars, in which, though generally victorious, they were
sometimes defeated, and their country for a short time oppressed.
Aristobulus was the first of the Maccabees who assumed the name of king.
About forty-two years after, a contest arising between the two brothers,
Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of Alexander Jaddæus, relative to the
succession of the crown, both parties applied to the Romans for their
support and assistance. Scaurus, the Roman general, suffered himself to
be bribed by Aristobulus, and placed him on the throne. Not long after,
Pompey returned from the east into Syria, and both the brothers applied
to him for his protection, and pleaded their cause before him, (B. C.
63.) Pompey considered this as a favourable opportunity for reducing
Palestine under the power of the Romans, to which the neighbouring
nations had already submitted; and therefore, without deciding the
points in dispute between the two brothers, he marched his army into
Judea, and, after some pretended negociation with Aristobulus and his
party, besieged and took possession of Jerusalem. He appointed Hyrcanus
high priest, but would not allow him to take the title of king: he gave
him, however, the specious name of prince, with very limited authority.
Pompey did not take away the holy utensils or treasures of the temple,
but he made Judea subject and tributary to the Romans; and Crassus,
about nine years after, plundered the temple of every thing valuable
belonging to it. Julius Cæsar confirmed Hyrcanus in the pontificate, and
granted fresh privileges to the Jews; but about four years after the
death of Julius Cæsar, Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, with the
assistance of the Parthians, while the empire of Rome was in an
unsettled state, deposed his uncle Hyrcanus, (B. C. 41,) seized the
government, and assumed the title of king.

Herod, by birth an Idumean, but of the Jewish religion, whose father,
Antipater, as well as himself, had enjoyed considerable posts of honour
and trust under Hyrcanus, immediately set out for Rome, and prevailed
upon the senate, through the interest of Antony and Augustus, to appoint
him king of Judea. Armed with this authority, he returned, and began
hostilities against Antigonus. About three years after, he took
Jerusalem, and put an end to the government of the Maccabees or
Asmonæans, after it had lasted nearly a hundred and thirty years.
Antigonus was sent prisoner to Rome, and was there put to death by
Antony. Herod married Mariamne, who lived to be the only representative
of the Asmonæan family, and afterward caused her to be publicly executed
from motives of unfounded jealousy. Herod considerably enlarged the
kingdom of Judea, but it continued tributary to the Romans; he greatly
depressed the civil power of the high priesthood, and changed it from
being hereditary and for life to an office granted and held at the
pleasure of the monarch; and this sacred office was now often given to
those who paid the highest price for it, without any regard to merit: he
was an inexorable, cruel tyrant to his people, and even to his children,
three of whom he put to death; a slave to his passions, and indifferent
by what means he gratified his ambition; but to preserve the Jews in
subjection, and to erect a lasting monument to his own name, he repaired
the temple of Jerusalem at a vast expense, and added greatly to its
magnificence.

At this time there was a confident expectation of the Messiah among the
Jews; and indeed, a general idea prevailed among the Heathen, also, that
some extraordinary conqueror or deliverer would soon appear in Judea. In
the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Herod, while Augustus was emperor
of Rome, the Saviour of mankind was born of the virgin Mary, of the
lineage of David, in the city of Bethlehem of Judea, according to the
word of prophecy. Herod, misled by the opinion, which was then common
among the Jews, that the Messiah was to appear as the temporal prince,
and judging from the inquiries of the wise men of the east, that the
child was actually born, sent to Bethlehem, and ordered that all the
children of two years old and under should be put to death, with the
hope of destroying one whom he considered as the rival of himself, or at
least of his family. He was soon after smitten with a most loathsome and
tormenting disease, and died, a signal example of divine justice, about
a year and a quarter after the birth of our Saviour, and in the
thirty-seventh year of his reign, computing from the time he was
declared king by the Romans. See HEROD.

Herod made his will not long before his death, but left the final
disposal of his dominions to Augustus. The emperor ratified this will in
all its material points, and suffered the countries over which Herod had
reigned to be divided among his three sons. Archelaus succeeded to the
largest share, namely, to Judea Propria, Samaria, and Idumea. Herod
Antipas, called Herod the Tetrarch, who afterward beheaded John the
Baptist, succeeded to Galilee and Peræa; and Philip, to Trachonitis, and
to the neighbouring region of Iturea. The sons of Herod the Great were
not suffered to take the title of king: they were only called ethnarchs
or tetrarchs. Beside the countries already mentioned, Abilene, which had
belonged to Herod during the latter part of his life, and of which
Lysanias is mentioned in Luke iii, 1, as tetrarch, and some cities were
given to Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, (A. D. 7.) Archelaus
acted with great cruelty and injustice; and in the tenth year of his
government, upon a regular complaint being made against him by the Jews,
Augustus banished him to Vienne, in Gaul, where he died.

After the banishment of Archelaus, Augustus sent Publius Sulpitius
Quirinus, who, according to the Greek way of writing that name, is by
St. Luke called Cyrenius, president of Syria, to reduce the countries
over which Archelaus had reigned, to the form of a Roman province; and
appointed Coponius, a Roman of the equestrian order, to be governor,
under the title of procurator of Judea, but subordinate to the president
of Syria. The power of life and death was now taken out of the hands of
the Jews, and taxes were from this time paid immediately to the Roman
emperor. Justice was administered in the name and by the laws of Rome;
though in what concerned their religion, their own laws, and the power
of the high priest, and sanhedrim, or great council, were continued to
them; and they were allowed to examine witnesses, and exercise an
inferior jurisdiction in other causes, subject to the control of the
Romans, to whom their tetrarchs or kings were also subject; and it may
be remarked that, at this very period of time, our Saviour, who was now
in the twelfth year of his age, being at Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary
upon occasion of the passover, appeared first in the temple in his
prophetic office, and in the business of his Father, on which he was
sent, sitting among the doctors of the temple, and declaring the truth
of God to them. After Coponius, Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus,
and Pontius Pilate, were successively procurators; and this was the
species of government to which Judea and Samaria were subject during the
ministry of our Saviour. Herod Antipas was still tetrarch of Galilee,
and it was he to whom our Saviour was sent by Pontius Pilate. Lardner is
of opinion that there was no procurator in Judea after Pontius Pilate,
who was removed A. D. 36, but that it was governed for a few years by
the presidents of Syria, who occasionally sent officers into Judea.
Philip continued tetrarch of Trachonitis thirty-seven years, and died in
the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius. Caligula gave his tetrarchy
to Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great, with the title of king; and
afterward he added the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, whom he deposed and
banished after he had been tetrarch forty-three years. The Emperor
Claudius gave him Judea, Samaria, the southern parts of Idumea, and
Abilene; and thus at last the dominions of Herod Agrippa became nearly
the same as those of his grandfather, Herod the Great. It was this
Agrippa, called also Herod Agrippa, and by St. Luke Herod only, who put
to death James, the brother of John, and imprisoned Peter. He died in
the seventh year of his reign, and left a son called also Agrippa, then
seventeen years old; and Claudius, thinking him too young to govern his
father’s extensive dominions, made Cuspus Fadus governor of Judea. Fadus
was soon succeeded by Tiberius, and he was followed by Alexander
Cumanus, Felix, and Festus; but Claudius afterward gave Trachonitis and
Abilene to Agrippa, and Nero added a part of Galilee and some other
cities. It was this younger Agrippa, who was also called king, before
whom Paul pleaded at Cæsarea, which was at that time the place of
residence of the governor of Judea. Several of the Roman governors
severely oppressed and persecuted the Jews; and at length, in the reign
of Nero, and in the government of Florus, who had treated them with
greater cruelty than any of his predecessors, they openly revolted from
the Romans. Then began the Jewish war, which was terminated, after an
obstinate defence and unparalleled sufferings on the part of the Jews,
by the total destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, by the
overthrow of their civil and religious polity, and the reduction of the
people to a state of the most abject slavery; for though, in the reign
of Adrian, numbers of them collected together, in different parts of
Judea, it is to be observed, they were then considered and treated as
rebellious slaves; and these commotions were made a pretence for the
general slaughter of those who were taken, and tended to complete the
work of their dispersion into all countries under heaven. Since that
time the Jews have no where subsisted as a nation.

2. JEWS, MODERN. The Jews divide the books of the Old Testament into
three classes: the law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, or holy
writings. They have counted not only the large and small sections, the
verses and the words, but even the letters in some of the books; and
they have likewise reckoned which is the middle letter of the
Pentateuch, which is the middle clause of each book, and how often each
letter of the alphabet occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. Beside the
Scriptures, the Jews pay great attention to the Targums, or Chaldee
paraphrases of them. It seems probable that these were written either
during the Babylonish captivity, or immediately afterward, when the Jews
had forgotten their own language, and acquired the Chaldee of the
Targums, at present received by the Jews. The most ancient are that of
Onkelos on the law, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets: the
former is supposed to be of greater antiquity than the latter, and it
approaches, in simplicity and purity of style, to the Chaldee of Daniel
and Ezra. The Targum on the prophets is believed to have been written
before the birth of Christ; and, though inferior in respect of style to
the Targum of Onkelos, is much superior to any other Targum.

The Jews also regard with great veneration, what is called the Talmud.
This work consists of two parts: the Mishna, which signifies a second
law; and the Gemara, which means either a supplement or a commentary.
The Jews suppose that God first dictated the text of the law to Moses,
which he commanded to be put in writing, and which exists in the
Pentateuch, and then gave him an explication of every thing comprehended
in it, which he ordered to be committed to memory. Hence the former is
called the written, and the latter the oral, law. These two laws were
recited by Moses to Aaron four times, to his sons three times, to the
seventy elders twice, and to the rest of the people once: after this,
the repetition was renewed by Aaron, his two sons, and the seventy
elders. The last month of Moses’s life was spent, according to the Jews,
in repeating and explaining the law to the people, and especially to
Joshua, his successor. A prophet might suspend any law, or authorize the
violation of any precept, except those against idolatry. If there was
any difference of opinion respecting the meaning of any law or precept,
it was determined by the majority. When Joshua died, all the
interpretations he had received from Moses, as well as those made in his
time, were transmitted to the elders: they conveyed them to the
prophets, and by one prophet they were delivered to another. This law
was only oral till the days of Rabbi Jehuda, who, perceiving that the
students of the law were gradually decreasing, and that the Jews were
dispersed over the face of the earth, collected all the traditions,
arranged them under distinct heads, and formed them into a methodical
code of traditional law; thus the Mishna was formed. It is written in a
concise style, chiefly in the form of aphorisms, which admit of a
variety of interpretations. On this account, a Gemara or commentary was
written by a president of a school in Palestine, which, together with
the Mishna, forms the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jews in Chaldea, however,
not being satisfied with this Gemara, one of their rabbies compiled
another; which, together with the Mishna, forms the Babylonian Talmud.

One of the principal branches of modern Judaism is the cabala, the study
of which is regarded as the sublimest of all sciences. By the cabala,
the Jews mean those mystical interpretations of the Scripture, and
metaphysical speculations concerning the Deity, angels, &c, which they
regard as having been handed down by a secret tradition from the
earliest ages. In the eleventh century, the famous Rabbi Maimonides drew
up a summary of the doctrines of Judaism, which every Jew is required to
believe, on pain of excommunication in this world, and condemnation in
the next. This summary consists of thirteen articles, which he calls
foundations or roots of the faith. The articles are as follows: 1. That
God is the Creator and active Supporter of all things. 2. That God is
one, and eternally unchangeable. 3. That God is incorporeal, and cannot
have any material properties. 4. That God must eternally exist. 5. That
God alone is to be worshipped. 6. That whatever is taught by the
prophets is true. 7. That Moses is the head and father of all
contemporary doctors, and of all those who lived before or shall live
after him. 8. That the law was given by Moses. 9. That the law shall
always exist, and never be altered. 10. That God knows all the thoughts
and actions of men. 11. That God will reward the observance, and punish
the breach, of the laws. 12. That the Messiah is to come, though he
tarry a long time. 13. That there shall be a resurrection of the dead,
when God shall think fit.

The Jewish religion is, perhaps, more a religion of minute and trifling
rites and ceremonies than even the Catholic religion. The minutest
circumstances in dressing and undressing, washing and wiping the face
and hands, and other necessary actions of common and daily life, are
enjoined by the rabbies to be performed exactly according to the
prescribed regulations. Their prayers also are numerous, and some of
them relate to the most trifling circumstances. Those esteemed the most
solemn and important are called _Shemoneh Esreh_, or the eighteen
prayers, though they actually consist of nineteen, the last having been
added against heretics and apostates. They are enjoined to be said by
all Jews above the age of thirteen, wherever they may be, three times a
day. The members of the synagogue are required to repeat at least a
hundred benedictions every day. A son who survives his father is
enjoined to attend the nocturnal service in the synagogue every evening
for a year, and to repeat the Kodesh, in order that his father may be
delivered from hell. This service may be suspended by any person going
up to the desk and closing the book. This is not unfrequently done in
case of quarrels; and the prayers cannot be renewed till a
reconciliation takes place.

Nothing is to be undertaken on Friday which cannot be finished before
the evening. In the afternoon they wash and clean themselves, trim their
hair, and pare their nails. Every Jew, of whatever rank, must assist in
the preparation for the Sabbath. Two loaves, baked on the Friday, are
set on a table. This is done in memory of the manna, of which a double
portion fell on the sixth day of the week. The table remains spread all
the Sabbath. Before the sun is set the candles are to be lighted; one,
at least, with seven wicks, in allusion to the number of days in a week,
is to be lighted in each house. The Talmudical directions respecting the
wicks and oil form part of the Sabbath evening service; they are most
ridiculously and childishly minute. The lesson appointed for the Sabbath
is divided into seven parts, and read to seven persons at the altar. The
first called up to hear it is a descendant of Aaron, the second of Levi,
the third an Israelite of any tribe; the same order is then repeated:
the seventh may be of any tribe. The portion read from the law is
followed by a portion from the prophets. There are three services;
morning, afternoon, and evening.

Of the festivals of the Jews we can mention only a few, and those merely
in a cursory manner. The principal are those of the new moon, of the
passover, of pentecost, of the new year, the fast of atonement, and the
feast of tabernacles. That the festival of the new moon might be
celebrated as nearly as possible on the day of the moon’s conjunction
with the sun, most of the months contain alternately twenty-nine and
thirty days; and the feast of the new moon is held on the first, or on
the first and second days of the month. The women are not allowed to
work: the men may. Good eating and drinking particularly distinguish
this festival. The feast of the passover commences on the fifteenth day
of the month Nisan, and continues among Jews who live in or near
Jerusalem seven days, and elsewhere eight days. The Sabbath preceding is
called the great Sabbath, and is kept with most scrupulous strictness.
The mode and materials for making the unleavened cakes for the passover
are most minutely described by the rabbies, as well as all the
ceremonies of this feast. It is customary for every Jew to honour it by
an exhibition of the most sumptuous furniture he can afford. The table
for the feast is covered with a clean linen cloth, on which are placed
several dishes: on one is the shank bone of a shoulder of lamb or kid,
and an egg; on another, three cakes, wrapped in two napkins; on a third,
some lettuce, parsley, celery, or other herbs: these are their bitter
herbs. Near the salad is a cruet of vinegar, and some salt and water.
There is also a dish representing the bricks which their forefathers
were required to make in Egypt: this is composed of apples, almonds,
nuts, and figs, formed into a paste, dressed in wine and cinnamon. The
first two days, and the last two, are kept with particular solemnity and
strictness. Contracts of marriage may be made, but no marriage is to be
solemnized during this festival. The feast of pentecost, on the sixth
day of the month Sivan, continues two days, and is kept with the same
strictness as the first two days of the passover. It is a received
opinion of the Jews, that the world was created on the day of their new
year; and they therefore celebrate the festival of the new year by a
discontinuance of all labour, and by repeated services in the synagogue.
The fast of atonement is on the tenth day of Tisri: the first ten days
of the month are called days of penitence during which the Jews believe
that God examines the actions of mankind; but he defers passing sentence
till the tenth. On the eve of the fast, a ceremony, evidently designed
as a substitute for their ancient sacrifices, is performed. This
consists in killing a cock with great formality. The cocks must on no
account be red: white is the preferable colour. Before the fast begins,
they endeavour to settle all their disputes. In the afternoon they make
a hearty meal, to prepare for the fast, which is of the most rigid kind.
The feast of tabernacles commences on the fifteenth of Tisri, and is
kept nine days. Every Jew who has a court or garden is required to erect
a tabernacle on this occasion; respecting the materials and erection of
which the rabbies have given special directions. The eighth and ninth
are high days, particularly the last, which is called the day of the
rejoicing of the land.

Such are the opinions, traditions, rites, and ceremonies of the great
majority of the modern Jews; but, beside these, there is a small sect
denominated Caraites, that is, textualists,--persons attached to the
text of the Scriptures. They reside chiefly in the Crimea, Lithuania,
and Persia; and at Damascus, Constantinople, and Cairo: their whole
number is very inconsiderable. They agree with other Jews in denying the
advent of the Messiah. The principal difference between them consists in
their adherence to the letter of the Scripture, and in the rejection of
all paraphrases and interpretations of the rabbies. They also differ
from the rabbies in various particulars respecting the feasts of the
passover, pentecost, and tabernacles. They observe the Sabbath with far
greater strictness. They extend the degrees of affinity within which
marriage is prohibited; but they are more strict in matters of divorce.

3. JEWS, CALAMITIES OF THE. All history cannot furnish us with a
parallel to the calamities and miseries of the Jews: rapine and murder,
famine and pestilence within, fire and sword, and all the terrors of war
without. Our Saviour wept at the foresight of these calamities; and it
is almost impossible for persons of any humanity to read the account
without being affected. The predictions concerning them were remarkable,
and the calamities that came upon them were the greatest the world ever
saw. See Deut. xxviii, xxix; Matt. xxiv. Now, what heinous sin was it
that could be the cause of such heavy judgments? Can any other be
assigned than that which the Scripture assigns? “They both killed the
Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and persecuted the Apostles,” 1
Thess. ii, 15; and so filled up their sins, and wrath came upon them to
the utmost. It is hardly possible to consider the nature and extent of
their sufferings, and not conclude their own imprecation to be
singularly fulfilled upon them: “His blood be on us, and on our
children,” Matt. xxvii, 25. At Cæsarea twenty thousand of the Jews were
killed by the Syrians in their mutual broils. At Damascus, ten thousand
unarmed Jews were killed; and at Bethshan, the Heathen inhabitants
caused their Jewish neighbours to assist them against their brethren,
and then murdered thirteen thousand of these inhabitants. At Alexandria,
the Jews murdered multitudes of the Heathens, and were murdered, in
their turn, to about sixty thousand. The Romans, under Vespasian,
invaded the country, and took the cities of Galilee, Chorazin,
Bethsaida, Capernaum, &c, where Christ had been especially rejected, and
murdered numbers of the inhabitants. At Jerusalem the scene was most
wretched of all. At the passover, when there might have been two or
three millions of people in the city, the Romans surrounded it with
troops, trenches, and walls, that none might escape. The three different
factions within murdered one another. Titus did all in his power to
persuade them to an advantageous surrender, but they scorned every
proposal. The multitudes of unburied carcasses corrupted the air, and
produced a pestilence. The people fed on one another; and even ladies,
it is said, boiled their suckling infants, and ate them. After a siege
of six months, the city was taken. They murdered almost every Jew they
met with. Titus was bent to save the temple, but could not: six thousand
Jews who had taken shelter in it were all burned or murdered. The
outcries of the Jews, when they saw it, were most dreadful: the whole
city, except three towers, and a small part of the wall, was razed to
the ground, and the foundations of the temple and other places were
ploughed up. Soon after the forts of Herodian and Machæron were taken,
the garrison of Massada murdered themselves rather than surrender. At
Jerusalem alone, it is said, one million one hundred thousand perished
by sword, famine, and pestilence. In other places, we hear of two
hundred and fifty thousand that were cut off, beside vast numbers sent
into Egypt, to labour as slaves. About fifty years after, the Jews
murdered about five hundred thousand of the Roman subjects, for which
they were severely punished by Trajan. About A. D. 130, one Barcocaba
pretended that he was the Messiah, and raised a Jewish army of two
hundred thousand, who murdered all the Heathens and Christians that came
in their way; but he was defeated by Adrian’s forces. In this war, it is
said, about six hundred thousand Jews were slain, or perished by famine
and pestilence. Adrian built a city on Mount Calvary, and erected a
marble statue of a swine over the gate that led to Bethlehem. No Jew was
allowed to enter the city, or to look to it at a distance, under pain of
death. In A. D. 360, the Jews, encouraged by Julian, Constantine’s
nephew, and now emperor, wishing to give Jesus the lie, began to rebuild
their city and temple; but a terrible earthquake, and flames of fire
issuing from the earth, killed the workmen, and scattered their
materials. And after the death of Julian, the edict of Adrian being
revived against them, and Roman guards prohibiting their approach, till
the seventh century they durst not so much as creep over the rubbish to
bewail the destruction of the city, without bribing the guards. In the
third, fourth, and fifth centuries they were many of them furiously
harassed and murdered. In the sixth century, twenty thousand of them
were slain, and as many taken and sold for slaves. They were severely
punished, A. D. 602, for their horrible massacre of the Christians at
Antioch. In Spain, A. D. 700, they were ordered to be enslaved. In the
eighth and ninth centuries they were greatly derided and abused; in some
places they were made to wear leathern girdles, and ride without
stirrups upon asses and mules. In France and Spain they were much
insulted. In the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, their miseries
rather increased; and they were greatly persecuted in Egypt. Beside what
they suffered in the east by the Turkish and sacred war, it is shocking
to think what multitudes of them the eight crusades murdered in Germany,
Hungary, Lesser Asia, and elsewhere. In France multitudes were burned.
In England, A. D. 1020, they were banished; and at the coronation of
Richard I. the mob fell upon them, and murdered a great many of them.
About one thousand five hundred of them were burned in the palace in the
city of York, which they themselves set fire to, after killing their
wives and children. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, their
condition was no better. In Egypt, Canaan, and Syria, the crusaders
still harassed them. Provoked with their mad running after pretended
Messiahs, Califf Nasser scarce left any of them alive in his dominions
of Mesopotamia. In Persia, the Tartars murdered them in multitudes. In
Spain, Ferdinand persecuted them furiously. About 1349, the terrible
massacre of them at Toledo forced many of them to murder themselves, or
change their religion. About 1253, many were murdered in, and others
banished from, France, but in 1275, recalled. The crusades of the
fanatic shepherds, A. D. 1320 and 1330, who wasted the south of France,
massacred them; beside fifteen thousand of them that were murdered on
another occasion. They were finally banished from France, A. D. 1358;
since which, few of them have entered that country. King Edward expelled
them from England, A. D. 1291, to the number of a hundred and sixty
thousand. In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, their
misery continued. In Persia they have been terribly used; from 1663 to
1666, the murder of them was so universal, that but a few escaped to
Turkey. In Portugal and Spain they have been miserably treated. About
1492, six or eight hundred thousand of them were banished from Spain.
Some were drowned in their passage to Africa; some perished by hard
usage; and many of their carcasses lay in the fields till wild beasts
devoured them. In Germany, they have endured many hardships. They have
been banished from Bohemia, Bavaria, Cologne, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and
Vienna; they have been terribly massacred in Moravia, and plundered in
Bonn and Bamberg. Except in Portugal and Spain, their present condition
is generally tolerable.

4. JEWS, PRESERVATION OF THE. The preservation of the Jews, says
Basnage, in the midst of the miseries which they have undergone during
one thousand eight hundred years, is the greatest prodigy that can be
imagined. As most religions depend on temporal prosperity, they triumph
under the protection of a conqueror; they languish and sink with sinking
monarchies. Paganism, which once covered the earth, is, in the civilized
world, extinct. The Christian church was considerably diminished by the
persecutions to which it was exposed; nor was it easy to repair the
wastes made in it by those acts of violence. But here we behold a people
hated and persecuted for one thousand eight hundred years, and yet
sustaining itself, and widely extended. Kings have often employed the
severity of edicts and the hand of executioners to ruin it. The
seditious multitudes, by murders and massacres, have committed outrages
against it still more violent and tragical. Princes and people, Pagans,
Mohammedans, Christians, disagreeing in so many things, have united in
the design of exterminating it, and have not been able to succeed. The
bush of Moses, surrounded with flames, ever burns, and is not consumed.
The Jews have been expelled, in different times, from every part of the
world, which hath only served to spread them in all regions. From age to
age they have been exposed to misery and persecution; yet still they
subsist, in spite of the ignominy and the hatred which hath pursued them
in all places, while the greatest monarchies are fallen, and nothing
remains of them beside the name. The judgments which God hath exercised
upon this people are terrible, extending to the men, the religion, and
the very land in which they dwelt. The ceremonies essential to their
religion can no more be observed: the ritual law, which cast a splendour
on the national worship, and struck the Pagans so much that they sent
their presents and their victims to Jerusalem, is absolutely fallen; for
they have no temple, no altar, no sacrifices. Their land itself seems to
lie under a never-ceasing curse. Pagans, Christians, Mohammedans, in a
word, almost all nations have, by turns, seized and held Jerusalem. To
the Jews only hath God refused the possession of this small tract of
ground, so supremely necessary for them, since, as Jews, they ought to
worship on Mount Zion. In all this there is no exaggeration: we are only
pointing out known facts; and far from having the least design to raise
an odium against the nation from its miseries, we conclude that it ought
to be looked upon as one of those prodigies which we admire without
comprehending; since, in spite of evils so durable, and a patience so
long exercised, it is preserved by a particular providence. The Jew
ought to be weary of expecting a Messiah, who so unkindly disappoints
his vain hopes; and the Christian ought to have his attention and his
regard excited toward men whom God preserves, for so great a length of
time under calamities which would have been the total ruin of any other
people. The whole is a standing proof of the truth of the word of God;
as it so signally, and beyond all contradiction, fulfils, even to
particulars wonderfully minute, its ancient and numerous predictions.

The long protracted existence of the Jews as a separate people, is not
only a standing evidence of the truth of the Bible, but is of that kind
which defies hesitation, imitation, or parallel. Were this people
totally extinct, some might affect to say, that they never had existed;
or, that if they had existed, they never practised such rites as were
imputed to them; or, that they were not a numerous people, but merely a
small tribe of ignorant and unsettled Arabs. The care with which the
Jews preserve their sacred books, and the conformity of those preserved
in the east with those of the west, as lately attested, is a
satisfactory argument in favour of the genuineness of both; and farther,
the dispersion of the nation has proved the security of these documents;
as it has not been in the power of any one enemy, however potent, to
destroy the entire series, or to consign the whole to oblivion.

JEZEBEL, daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians, and wife of Ahab,
king of Israel, 1 Kings xvi, 31. This princess introduced into the
kingdom of Samaria the public worship of Baal, Astarte, and other
Phenician deities, which the Lord had expressly forbidden; and with this
impious worship, a general prevalence of those abominations which had
formerly incensed God against the Canaanites, to their utter
extirpation. Jezebel was so zealous, that she fed at her own table four
hundred prophets belonging to the goddess Astarte; and her husband Ahab,
in like manner, kept four hundred of Baal’s prophets, as ministers of
his false gods. The name of Jezebel is used proverbially, Rev. ii, 20.
See JEHU.

JEZREEL, a royal city of the kings of Israel, who sometimes resided here
as well as at Samaria. Ahab, in particular, is known to have made this
his residence; near to whose palace was the vineyard of the unfortunate
Naboth. The name of Jezreel was by the Greeks moulded into that of
Esdraela; which is described by Eusebius and Jerom, in the fourth
century, as a considerable town. In like manner, the valley of Jezreel
obtained the name of the valley or plain of Esdraelon; which is still
described as very fertile, and much frequented by the Arabs for its fine
pasturage. This is the largest, and at the same time the most fertile,
plain in the land of Canaan; and is called, by way of eminence, the
Great Plain. It may be estimated at thirty miles in length, and twenty
in breadth. The river Kishon flows through it. See ESDRAELON.

JOAB was the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and brother to Abishai and
Asahel. He was one of the most valiant soldiers and greatest generals in
David’s time; but he was also cruel, revengeful, and imperious. He
performed great services for David, to whose interests he was always
firm, and was commander-in-chief of his troops, when David was king of
Judah only. His history is related in the second book of Samuel and the
first book of Kings. See DAVID, ABNER, and AMASA.

JOANNA, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, was one of those women who,
having been cured by our Saviour, followed him as disciples, and
ministered to his necessities, Luke viii, 3.

JOASH, son of Ahaziah, king of Judah. When the impious Athaliah
undertook to extinguish the race of the kings of Judah, that she might
seize the crown herself, she ordered all the princes, her grandchildren,
to be murdered. But Jehosheba, the sister of Ahaziah, and wife to the
High Priest Jehoiada, rescued young Joash, then a child, from the
cruelty of Athaliah, and lodged him in the temple with his nurse. Here
he abode six years. In the seventh year Jehoiada procured him to be
acknowledged king, and so well concerted his plan, that young Joash was
placed on the throne, and saluted king in the temple, before the queen
was informed of it. She was killed without the temple, 2 Kings xi, 1,
&c. Joash received the diadem, together with the book of the law, from
the hands of Jehoiada, the high priest, who, in the young king’s name,
made a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, for their
future fidelity to God. He also obliged the people to take an oath of
fidelity to the king. Joash was only seven years old when he began to
reign, and he reigned forty years at Jerusalem. His mother’s name was
Zibiah of Beersheba. He governed with justice and piety, so long as he
was guided by the High Priest Jehoiada. Yet he did not abolish the high
places.

Jehoiada, during the king’s minority, had issued orders for collecting
voluntary offerings to the holy place, with the design of repairing the
temple; but his orders were ill executed till the twentieth year of
Joash. Then this prince directed chests to be placed at the entrance of
the temple, and an account to be given him of what money was received
from them, that it might be faithfully employed in repairing the house
of God. Jehoiada dying at the age of a hundred and thirty years, Joash
was misled by the evil counsel of his courtiers, who had before been
restrained by the high priest’s authority. They began to forsake the
temple of the Lord, and to worship idols, and groves consecrated to
idols. Then the Spirit of the Lord coming upon the High Priest
Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, he reproved the people; but they who heard
him stoned him, according to orders from their king. It was not long
before God inflicted on Joash the just punishment of his ingratitude to
Jehoiada, whose son he had so lately murdered. Hazael, king of Syria,
besieged Gath, which belonged to Judah; and having taken it he marched
against Jerusalem. Joash, to redeem himself from the difficulties of a
siege, and from the danger of being plundered, took what money he could
find in the temple, which had been consecrated by Ahaziah his father,
Jehoram his grandfather, and himself, and gave the whole to Hazael. It
is believed by some, that the next year the Syrian army marched again
into Judah; but Hazael was not there in person. The Syrians made great
havoc, defeated the troops of Joash, entered Jerusalem, slew the princes
of Judah, and sent a great booty to the king of Syria at Damascus. They
treated Joash himself with great ignominy, and left him extremely ill.
His servants then revolted against him, and killed him in his bed, by
which the blood of Zechariah the high priest was avenged. He was buried
in Jerusalem, but not in the royal sepulchre. Amaziah his son succeeded
him.

JOB, a patriarch celebrated for his patience, and the constancy of his
piety and virtue. That Job was a real, and not a fictitious, character,
may be inferred from the manner in which he is mentioned in the
Scriptures. Thus, the Prophet Ezekiel speaks of him: “Though these three
men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their
own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God,” Ezek. xiv, 14.
Now since Noah and Daniel were unquestionably real characters, we must
conclude the same of Job. “Behold,” says the Apostle James, “we count
them happy which endure: ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have
seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender
mercy,” James v, 11. It is scarcely to be believed that a divinely
inspired Apostle would refer to an imaginary character as an example of
patience, or in proof of the mercy of God. But, beside the authority of
the inspired writers, we have the strongest internal evidence, from the
book itself, that Job was a real person; for it expressly specifies the
names of persons, places, facts, and other circumstances usually related
in true histories. Thus, we have the name, country, piety, wealth, &c,
of Job described, Job i; the names, number, and acts of his children are
mentioned; the conduct of his wife is recorded as a fact, ii; his
friends, their names, countries, and discourses with him in his
afflictions are minutely delineated, Job ii, 11, &c. Farther: no
reasonable doubt can be entertained respecting the real existence of
Job, when we consider that it is proved by the concurrent testimony of
all eastern tradition: he is mentioned by the author of the book of
Tobit, who lived during the Assyrian captivity; he is also repeatedly
mentioned by Arabian writers as a real character. The whole of his
history, with many fabulous additions, was known among the Syrians and
Chaldeans; and many of the noblest families among the Arabs are
distinguished by his name, and boast of being descended from him.

Since, then, says Horne, the book of Job contains the history of a real
character, the next point is the age in which he lived, a question
concerning which there is as great a diversity of opinion, as upon any
other subject connected with this venerable monument of sacred
antiquity. One thing, however, is generally admitted with respect to the
age of the book of Job, namely, its remote antiquity. Even those who
contend for the later production of the book of Job are compelled to
acquiesce in this particular. Grotius thinks the events of the history
are such as cannot be placed later than the sojourning of the Israelites
in the wilderness. Bishop Warburton, in like manner, admits them to bear
the marks of high antiquity; and Michaëlis confesses the manners to be
perfectly Abrahamic, that is, such as were common to all the seed of
Abraham, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Idumeans. The following are the
principal circumstances from which the age of Job may be collected and
ascertained:--1. The Usserian or Bible chronology dates the trial of Job
about the year 1520 before the Christian era, twenty-nine years before
the departure of the Israelites from Egypt; and that the book was
composed before that event, is evident from its total silence respecting
the miracles which accompanied the exode; such as the passage of the Red
Sea, the destruction of the Egyptians, the manna in the desert, &c; all
of which happened in the vicinity of Job’s country, and were so apposite
in the debate concerning the ways of Providence that some notice could
not but have been taken of them, if they had been coeval with the poem
of Job. 2. That it was composed before Abraham’s migration to Canaan,
may also be inferred from its silence respecting the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, which were still
nearer to Idumea, where the scene is laid. 3. The length of Job’s life
places him in the patriarchal times. He survived his trial one hundred
and forty years, Job xlii, 16, and was probably not younger at that
time; for we read that his seven sons were all grown up, and had been
settled in their own houses for a considerable time, Job i, 4, 5. He
speaks of the sins of his youth, Job xiii, 26, and of the prosperity of
his youth; and yet Eliphaz addresses him as a novice: “With us are both
the gray-headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father,” Job xv,
10. 4. That he did not live at an earlier period, may be collected from
an incidental observation of Bildad, who refers Job to their forefathers
for instruction in wisdom:--

          “Inquire, I pray thee, of the former age,
          And prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:”

assigning as a reason the comparative shortness of human life, and
consequent ignorance of the present generation:--

           “For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing;
           Because our days upon earth are a shadow.”
                                             Job viii, 8, 9.

But the fathers of the former age, or grandfathers of the present, were
the contemporaries of Peleg and Joktan, in the fifth generation after
the deluge; and they might easily have learned wisdom from the fountain
head by conversing with Shem, or perhaps with Noah himself; whereas, in
the seventh generation, the standard of human life was reduced to about
two hundred years, which was a shadow compared with the longevity of
Noah and his sons. 5. The general air of antiquity which pervades the
manners recorded in the poem, is a farther evidence of its remote date.
The manners and customs, indeed, critically correspond with that early
period. Thus, Job speaks of the most ancient kind of writing, by
sculpture, Job xix, 24; his riches also are reckoned by his cattle, Job
xlii, 12. Farther: Job acted as high priest in his family, according to
the patriarchal usage, Gen. viii, 20; for the institution of an
established priesthood does not appear to have taken place any where
until the time of Abraham. Melchizedec, king of Salem, was a priest of
the primitive order, Gen. xiv, 18; such also was Jethro, the
father-in-law of Moses, in the vicinity of Idumea, Exod. xviii, 12. The
first regular priesthood was probably instituted in Egypt, where Joseph
was married to the daughter of the priest of On, Gen. xli, 45. 6. The
slavish homage of prostration to princes and great men, which prevailed
in Egypt, Persia, and the east in general, and which still subsists
there, was unknown in Arabia at that time. Though Job was one of the
greatest men of all the east, we do not find any such adoration paid to
him by his contemporaries, in the zenith of his prosperity, among the
marks of respect so minutely described in the twenty-ninth chapter:
“When the young men saw him, they hid themselves,” (rather, _shrunk
back_, through respect or rustic bashfulness,) “the aged arose and stood
up” in his presence, (more correctly, _ranged themselves about him_,)
“the princes refrained from talking, and laid their hand upon their
mouth; the nobles held their peace,” and were all attention while he
spoke. All this was highly respectful, indeed, but still it was manly,
and showed no cringing or servile adulation. With this description
correspond the manners and conduct of the genuine Arabs of the present
day, a majestic race, who were never conquered, and who have retained
their primitive customs, features, and character, with scarcely any
alteration. 7. The allusion made by Job to that species of idolatry
alone, which by general consent is admitted to have been the most
ancient, namely, Zabianism, or the worship of the sun and moon, and also
to the exertion of the judicial authority against it, Job xxxi, 26–28,
is an additional and most complete proof of the high antiquity of the
poem, as well as a decisive mark of the patriarchal age. 8. A farther
evidence of the remote antiquity of this book is the language of Job and
his friends; who, being all Idumeans, or at least Arabians of the
adjacent country, yet conversed in Hebrew. This carries us up to an age
so early as that in which all the posterity of Abraham, Israelites,
Idumeans, and Arabians, yet continued to speak one common language, and
had not branched into different dialects.

The country in which the scene of this poem is laid, is stated, Job i,
1, to be the land of Uz, which by some geographers has been placed in
Sandy, and by others in Stony, Arabia. Bochart strenuously advocated the
former opinion, in which he has been powerfully supported by Spanheim,
Calmet, Carpzov, Heidegger, and some later writers; Michaëlis and Ilgen
place the scene in the valley of Damascus; but Bishops Lowth and Magee,
Dr. Hales, Dr. Good, and some later critics and philologers, have shown
that the scene is laid in Idumea. In effect, nothing is clearer than
that the history of an inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem
which bears the name of Job, and that all the persons introduced into it
were Idumeans, dwelling in Idumea, in other words, Edomite Arabs. These
characters are, Job himself, of the land of Uz; Eliphaz, of Teman, a
district of as much repute as Uz, and which, it appears from the joint
testimony of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Obadiah, Jer. xlix, 7, 20;
Ezek. xxv, 13; Amos i, 11, 12; Obadiah 8, 9, formed a principal part of
Idumea; Bildad, of Shuah, who is always mentioned in conjunction with
Sheba and Dedan, the first of whom was probably named after one of the
brothers of Joktan or Kahtan, and the two last from two of his sons, all
of them being uniformly placed in the vicinity of Idumea, Gen. xxv, 2,
3; Jer. xlix, 8; Zophar of Naama, a city importing pleasantness, which
is also stated by Joshua, xv, 21, 41, to have been situate in Idumea,
and to have lain in a southern direction toward its coast, on the shores
of the Red Sea; and Elihu, of Buz, which, as the name of a place, occurs
only once in Sacred Writ, Jer. xxv, 23, but is there mentioned in
conjunction with Teman and Dedan; and hence necessarily, like them, a
border city upon Uz or Idumea. Allowing this chorography to be correct,
(and such, upon a fair review of facts, we may conclude it to be,) there
is no difficulty in conceiving that hordes of nomadic Chaldeans as well
as Sabeans, a people addicted to rapine, and roving about at immense
distances for the sake of plunder, should have occasionally infested the
defenceless country of Idumea, and roved from the Euphrates even to
Egypt.

The different parts of the book of Job are so closely connected
together, that they cannot be detached from each other. The exordium
prepares the reader for what follows, supplies us with the necessary
notices concerning Job and his friends, unfolds the scope, and places
the calamities full in our view as an object of attention. The epilogue,
or conclusion, again, has reference to the exordium, and relates the
happy termination of Job’s trials; the dialogues which intervene flow in
regular order. Now, if any of these parts were to be taken away, the
poem would be extremely defective. Without the prologue the reader would
be utterly ignorant who Job was, who were his friends, and the cause of
his being so grievously afflicted. Without the discourse of Elihu, Job
xxxii-xxxvii, there would be a sudden and abrupt transition from the
last words of Job to the address of God, for which Elihu’s discourse
prepares the reader. And without the epilogue, or conclusion, we should
remain in ignorance of the subsequent condition of Job. Hence it is
evident, that the poem is the composition of a single author; but who
that was, is a question concerning which the learned are very much
divided in their sentiments. Elihu, Job, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, an
anonymous writer in the reign of Manasseh, Ezekiel, and Ezra, have all
been contended for. The arguments already adduced respecting the age of
Job, prove that it could not be either of the latter persons. Dr.
Lightfoot, from an erroneous version of Job xxxii, 16, 17, has
conjectured that it is the production of Elihu; but the correct
rendering of that passage refutes this notion. Ilgen ascribes it
probably to a descendant of Elihu. Another and more generally received
opinion attributes this book to Moses; this conjecture is founded on
some apparent striking coincidences of sentiment, as well as from some
marks of later date which are supposed to be discoverable in it. But,
independently of the characters of antiquity already referred to, and
which place the book of Job very many centuries before the time of
Moses, the total absence of even the slightest allusion to the manners,
customs, ceremonies, or history of the Israelites, is a direct evidence
that the great legislator of the Hebrews was not, and could not have
been, the author. To which may be added, that the style of Job, as
Bishop Lowth has remarked, is materially different from the poetical
style of Moses; for it is much more compact, concise, or condensed, more
accurate in the poetical conformation of the sentences; as may be
observed also in the prophecies of Balaam the Mesopotamian, a foreigner,
indeed, with respect to the Israelites, but not unacquainted either with
their language, or with the worship of the true God. Upon the whole,
then, we have sufficient ground to conclude that this book was not the
production of Moses, but of some earlier age. Bishop Lowth favours the
opinion of Schultens, Peters, and others, which is adopted by Bishop
Tomline and Dr. Hales, who suppose Job himself, or some contemporary, to
have been the author of this poem; and there seems to be no good reason
for supposing that it was not written by Job himself. It appears,
indeed, highly probable that Job was the writer of his own story, of
whose inspiration we have the clearest evidence in the forty-second
chapter of this book, in which he thus addresses the Almighty: “I have
heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee.”
It is plain that in this passage some privilege is intended which he
never had enjoyed before, and which he calls the sight of God.

The book of Job contains the history of Job, a man equally distinguished
for purity and uprightness of character, and for honours, wealth, and
domestic felicity, whom God permitted, for the trial of his faith, to be
suddenly deprived of all his numerous blessings, and to be at once
plunged into the deepest affliction, and most accumulated distress. It
gives an account of his eminent piety, patience, and resignation under
the pressure of these severe calamities, and of his subsequent elevation
to a degree of prosperity and happiness, still greater than that which
he had before enjoyed. How long the sufferings of Job continued, we are
not informed; but it is said, that after God turned his captivity, and
blessed him a second time, he lived one hundred and forty years, Job
xlii, 16. Its style is in many parts peculiarly sublime; and it is not
only adorned with poetical embellishments, but most learned men consider
it as written in metre. Through the whole work we discover religious
instruction shining forth amidst the venerable simplicity of ancient
manners. It every where abounds with the noblest sentiments of piety,
uttered with the spirit of inspired conviction. It is a work unrivalled
for the magnificence of its language, and for the beautiful and sublime
images which it presents. In the wonderful speech of the Deity, Job
xxxviii, xxxix, every line delineates his attributes, every sentence
opens a picture of some grand object in creation, characterized by its
most striking features. Add to this, that its prophetic parts reflect
much light on the economy of God’s moral government; and every admirer
of sacred antiquity, every inquirer after religious instruction, will
seriously rejoice that the enraptured sentence of Job, xix, 23, is
realized to a more effectual and unforeseen accomplishment; that while
the memorable records of antiquity have mouldered from the rock, the
prophetic assurance and sentiments of Job are graven in Scriptures that
no time shall alter, no changes shall efface.

JOEL, the second of the twelve lesser prophets. It is impossible to
ascertain the age in which he lived, but it seems most probable that he
was contemporary with Hosea. No particulars of his life or death are
certainly known. His prophecies are confined to the kingdom of Judah. He
inveighs against the sins and impieties of the people, and threatens
them with divine vengeance; he exhorts to repentance, fasting, and
prayer; and promises the favour of God to those who should be obedient.
The principal predictions contained in this book are the Chaldean
invasion, under the figurative representation of locusts; the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; the blessings of the Gospel
dispensation; the conversion and restoration of the Jews to their own
land; the overthrow of the enemies of God; and the glorious state of the
Christian church in the end of the world. The style of Joel is
perspicuous and elegant, and his descriptions are remarkably animated
and poetical.

JOHN THE BAPTIST, the forerunner of the Messiah, was the son of
Zechariah and Elizabeth, and was born about six months before our
Saviour. His birth was foretold by an angel, sent purposely to deliver
this joyful message, when his mother Elizabeth was barren, and both his
parents far advanced in years. The same divine messenger foretold that
he should be great in the sight of the Lord; that he should be filled
with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb; that he should prepare the
way of the Lord by turning many of the Jews to the knowledge of God; and
that he should be the greatest of all the prophets, Luke i, 5–15. Of the
early part of the Baptist’s life we have but little information. It is
only observed that “he grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the
deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel,” Luke i, 80. Though
consecrated from the womb to the ministerial office, John did not enter
upon it in the heat of youth, but after several years spent in solitude
and a course of self-denial.

The prophetical descriptions of the Baptist in the Old Testament are
various and striking. That by Isaiah is: “The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a high way for our God,” Isaiah xl, 3. Malachi has the following
prediction: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to
the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. iv, 5.
That this was meant of the Baptist, we have the testimony of our Lord
himself, who declared, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied
until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias who was to come,”
Matt. xi, 14. The appearance and manners of the Baptist, when he first
came out into the world, excited general attention. His clothing was of
camel’s hair, bound round him with a leathern girdle, and his food
consisted of locusts and wild honey, Matt. iii, 4. The message which he
declared was authoritative: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand;” and the impression produced by his faithful reproofs and
admonitions was powerful and extensive, and in a great number of
instances lasting. Most of the first followers of our Lord appear to
have been awakened to seriousness and religious inquiry by John’s
ministry. His character was so eminent, that many of the Jews thought
him to be the Messiah; but he plainly declared that he was not that
honoured person. Nevertheless, he was at first unacquainted with the
person of Jesus Christ; only the Holy Ghost had told him that he on whom
he should see the Holy Spirit descend and rest was the Messiah. When
Jesus Christ presented himself to receive baptism from him, this sign
was vouchsafed; and from that time he bore his testimony to Jesus, as
the Christ.

Herod Antipas, having married his brother Philip’s wife while Philip was
still living, occasioned great scandal. John the Baptist, with his usual
liberty and vigour, reproved Herod to his face; and told him that it was
not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife, while his brother was yet
alive. Herod, incensed at this freedom, ordered him into custody, in the
castle of Machœrus; and he was ultimately put to death. (See
_Antipas_.) Thus fell this honoured prophet, a martyr to ministerial
faithfulness. Other prophets testified of Christ; he pointed to him as
already come. Others saw him afar off; he beheld the advancing glories
of his ministry eclipsing his own, and rejoiced to “decrease” while his
Master “increased.” His ministry stands as a type of the true character
of evangelical repentance: it goes before Christ and prepares his way;
it is humbling, but not despairing; for it points to “the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sins of the world.”

The Jews had such an opinion of this prophet’s sanctity, that they
ascribed the overthrow of Herod’s army, which he had sent against his
father-in-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for putting John the
Baptist to death. The death of John the Baptist happened, as is
believed, about the end of the thirty-first year of the vulgar era, or
in the beginning of the thirty-second.

The baptism of John was much more perfect than that of the Jews, but
less perfect than that of Jesus Christ. “It was,” says St. Chrysostom,
“as it were, a bridge, which, from the baptism of the Jews, made a way
to that of our Saviour, and was more exalted than the first, but
inferior to the second.” That of St. John promised what that of Jesus
Christ executed. Notwithstanding St. John did not enjoin his disciples
to continue the baptism of repentance, which was of his institution,
after his death, because, after the manifestation of the Messiah, and
the establishment of the Holy Ghost, it became of no use; yet there were
many of his followers who still administered it, and several years after
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not so much as know that
there was any other baptism than that of John. Of this number was
Apollos, a learned and zealous man, who was of Alexandria, and came to
Ephesus twenty years after the resurrection of our Saviour, Acts xviii,
25. And when St. Paul came after Apollos to the same city, there were
still many Ephesians who had received no other baptism, and were not yet
informed that the Holy Ghost was received by baptism in the name of
Jesus Christ, Acts xix, 1. The Jews are said by the Apostle Paul to have
been “baptized unto Moses,” at the time when they followed him through
the Red Sea, as the servant of God sent to be their leader. Those who
went out to John “were baptized unto John’s baptism;” that is, into the
expectation of the person whom John announced, and into repentance of
those sins which John condemned. Christians are “baptized into the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” because in this expression
is implied that whole system of truth which the disciples of Christ
believe; into the name of the Father, the one true and living God whom
Christians profess to serve; of the Son, that divine person revealed in
the New Testament whom the Father sent to be the Saviour of the world;
of the Holy Ghost, the divine person also revealed there as the
Comforter, the Sanctifier, and the Guide of Christians.

JOHN THE EVANGELIST was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, son of
Zebedee and Salome, by profession a fisherman. Some have thought that he
was a disciple of John the Baptist before he attended Jesus Christ. He
was brother to James the greater. It is believed that St. John was the
youngest of the Apostles. Tillemont is of opinion that he was
twenty-five or twenty-six years of age when he began to follow Jesus.
Our Saviour had a particular friendship for him; and he describes
himself by the name of “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” St. John was
one of the four Apostles to whom our Lord delivered his predictions
relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the approaching calamities
of the Jewish nation, Mark xiii, 3. St. Peter, St. James, and St. John
were chosen to accompany our Saviour on several occasions, when the
other Apostles were not permitted to be present. When Christ restored
the daughter of Jairus to life, Mark v, 37; Luke viii, 51; when he was
transfigured on the mount, Matt. xvii, 1, 2; Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 28;
and when he endured his agony in the garden, Matt. xxvi, 36, 37; Mark
xiv, 32, 33; St. Peter, St. James, and St. John were his only
attendants. That St. John was treated by Christ with greater familiarity
than the other Apostles, is evident from St. Peter desiring him to ask
Christ who should betray him, when he himself did not dare to propose
the question, John xiii, 24. He seems to have been the only Apostle
present at the crucifixion, and to him Jesus, just as he was expiring
upon the cross, gave the strongest proof of his confidence and regard,
by consigning to him the care of his mother, John xix, 26, 27. As St.
John had been witness to the death of our Saviour, by seeing the blood
and water issue from his side, which a soldier had pierced, John xix,
34, 35, so he was one of the first made acquainted with his
resurrection. Without any hesitation, he believed this great event,
though “as yet he knew not the Scripture, that Christ was to rise from
the dead,” John xx, 9. He was also one of those to whom our Saviour
appeared at the sea of Galilee; and he was afterward, with the other ten
Apostles, a witness of his ascension into heaven, Mark xvi, 19; Luke
xxiv, 51. St. John continued to preach the Gospel for some time at
Jerusalem: he was imprisoned by the sanhedrim, first with Peter only,
Acts iv, 1, &c, and afterward with the other Apostles, Acts v, 17, 18.
Some time after this second release, he and St. Peter were sent by the
other Apostles to the Samaritans, whom Philip the deacon had converted
to the Gospel, that through them they might receive the Holy Ghost, Acts
viii, 14, 15. St. John informs us, in his Revelations, that he was
banished to Patmos, an island in the Ægean Sea, Rev. i, 9.

This banishment of the Apostle to the isle of Patmos is mentioned by
many of the early ecclesiastical writers; all of whom, except Epiphanius
in the fourth century, agree in attributing it to Domitian. Epiphanius
says that John was banished by command of Claudius; but this deserves
the less credit, because there was no persecution of the Christians in
the time of that emperor, and his edicts against the Jews did not extend
to the provinces. Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion that John was banished
to Patmos in the time of Nero; but even the authority of this great man
is not of sufficient weight against the unanimous voice of antiquity.
Dr. Lardner has examined and answered his arguments with equal candour
and learning. It is not known at what time John went into Asia Minor.
Lardner thought that it was about the year 66. It is certain that he
lived in Asia Minor the latter part of his life, and principally at
Ephesus. He planted churches at Smyrna, Pergamos, and many other places;
and by his activity and success in propagating the Gospel, he is
supposed to have incurred the displeasure of Domitian, who banished him
to Patmos at the end of his reign. He himself tells us that he “was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ;” and Irenæus, speaking of the vision which he
had there, says, “It is not very long ago that it was seen, being but a
little before our time, at the latter end of Domitian’s reign.” On the
succession of Nerva to the empire in the year 96, John returned to
Ephesus, where he died at an advanced age, in the third year of Trajan’s
reign, A. D. 100. An opinion has prevailed, that he was, by order of
Domitian, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome, and came out
unhurt; but this account rests almost entirely on the authority of
Tertullian, and seems to deserve little credit.

2. The genuineness of St. John’s Gospel has always been unanimously
admitted by the Christian church. It is universally agreed that St. John
published his Gospel in Asia; and that, when he wrote it, he had seen
the other three Gospels. It is, therefore, not only valuable in itself,
but also a tacit confirmation of the other three; with none of which it
disagrees in any material point. The time of its publication is placed
by some rather before, and by others considerably after, the destruction
of Jerusalem. If we accede to the opinion of those who contend for the
year 97, this late date, exclusive of the authorities which support it,
seems favoured by the contents and design of the Gospel itself. The
immediate design of St. John in writing his Gospel, as we are assured by
Irenæus, Jerom, and others, was to refute the Cerinthians, Ebionites,
and other heretics, whose tenets, though they branched out into a
variety of subjects, all originated from erroneous opinions concerning
the person of Christ, and the creation of the world. These points had
been scarcely touched upon by the other evangelists; though they had
faithfully recorded all the leading facts of our Saviour’s life, and his
admirable precepts for the regulation of our conduct. St. John,
therefore, undertook, perhaps at the request of the true believers in
Asia, to write what Clement of Alexandria called a _spiritual_ Gospel;
and, accordingly, we find in it more of doctrine, and less of historical
narrative, than in any of the others. It is also to be remembered, that
this book, which contains so much additional information relative to the
doctrines of Christianity, and which may be considered as a standard of
faith for all ages, was written by that Apostle who is known to have
enjoyed, in a greater degree than the rest, the affection and confidence
of the divine Author of our religion; and to whom was given a special
revelation concerning the state of the Christian church in all
succeeding generations.

We have three epistles by this Apostle. Some critics have thought that
all these epistles were written during St. John’s exile in Patmos; the
first, to the Ephesian church; the others to individuals; and that they
were sent along with the Gospel, which the Apostle is supposed also to
have written in Patmos. Thus Hug observes, in his “Introduction:” If St.
John sent his Gospel to the continent, an epistle to the community was
requisite, commending and dedicating it to them. Other evangelists, who
deposited their works in the place of their residence, personally
superintended them, and delivered them personally; consequently they did
not require a written document to accompany them. An epistle was
therefore requisite, and, as we have abundantly proved the first of
John’s epistles to be inseparable from the Gospel, its contents
demonstrate it to be an accompanying writing, and a dedication of the
Gospel. It went consequently to Ephesus. We can particularly corroborate
this by the following observation: John, in the Apocalypse, has
individually distinguished each of the Christian communities, which lay
the nearest within his circle and his superintendence, by criteria,
taken from their faults or their virtues. The church at Ephesus he there
describes by the following traits: It was thronged with men who
arrogated to themselves the ministry and apostolical authority, and were
impostors, ψευδεις. But in particular he feelingly reproaches it because
its “first love was cooled,” τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν ϖρώτην ἀφῆκας. The
circumstance of impostors and false teachers happens in more churches.
But decreasing love is an exclusive criterion and failing, which the
Apostle reprimands in no other community. According to his judgment,
want of love was the characteristic fault of the Ephesians: but this
epistle is from beginning to the end occupied with admonitions to love,
with recommendations of its value, with corrections of those who are
guilty of this fault, 1 John ii, 5, 9–11, 15; iii, 1, 11, 12, 14–18, 23;
iv, 7–10, 12, 16–21; v, 1–3. Must not we therefore declare, if we
compare the opinion of the Apostle respecting the Ephesians with this
epistle, that, from its peculiar tenor, it is not so strikingly adapted
to any community in the first instance as to this?

The second epistle is directed to a female, who is not named, but only
designated by the honourable mention, ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, “the elect lady.”
The two chief positions, which are discussed in the first epistle,
constitute the contents of this brief address. He again alludes to the
words of our Saviour, “A new commandment,” &c, as in 1 John ii, 7, and
recommends love, which is manifested by observance of the commandments.
After this he warns her against false teachers, who deny that Jesus
entered into the world as the Christ, or Messiah, and forbids an
intercourse with them. At the end, he hopes soon to see her himself, and
complains of the want of writing materials. The whole is a short
syllabus of the first epistle, or it is the first in a renewed form. The
words also are the same. It is still full of the former epistle: nor are
they separated from each other as to time. The female appears before his
mind in the circumstances and dangers of the society, in instructing and
admonishing which he had just been employed. If we may judge from local
circumstances, she also lived at Ephesus. But as for the author, his
residence was in none of the Ionian or Asiatic cities, where the want of
writing materials is not conceivable: he was still therefore in the
place of his exile. The other circumstances noticed in it, are probably
the following: The sons of the ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία had visited John, 2 John 4.
The sister of this matron wishing to show to him an equal respect and
sympathy in his fate, sent her sons likewise to visit the Apostle. While
the latter were with the Apostle, there was an opportunity of sending to
the continent, 2 John 13, namely, of despatching the two epistles and
the Gospel.

The third epistle is written to Caius. The author consoles himself with
the hope, as in the former epistle, of soon coming himself, 3 John 14.
He still experiences the same want of writing materials, 3 John 13.
Consequently, he was still living in the same miserable place: also, if
we may judge from his hopes, the time was not very different. The
residence of Caius is determined by the following criteria: The most
general of them is the danger of being misled by false teachers, 3 John
3, 4. That which leads us nearer to the point, is the circumstance of
John sometimes sending messages thither, and receiving accounts from
thence, 3 John 5–8, that he supposes his opinions to be so well known
and acknowledged in this society, that he could appeal to them, as
judges respecting them, 3 John 12, and that, finally, he had many
particular friends among them, 3 John 15. The whole of this is
applicable to a considerable place, where the Apostle had resided for a
long time; and in the second epoch of his life, it is particularly
applicable to Ephesus. He had lately written to the community, of which
Caius was a member, ἔγραψα τῆ ἐκκλησία, “I wrote to the church,” 3 John
9. If this is to be referred to the first epistle, (for we are not aware
of any other to a community,) then certainly Ephesus is the place to
which the third epistle was also directed, and was the place where Caius
resided. From hence, the rest contains its own explanation. John had
sent his first epistle thither; it was the accompanying writing to the
Gospel, and with it he also sent the Gospel. Who was better qualified to
promulgate the Gospel among the believers than Caius, especially if it
was to be published at Ephesus?

The above view is ingenious, and in its leading parts satisfactory; but
the argument from the Apostle’s supposed want of “writing materials” is
founded upon a very forced construction of the texts. There seems,
however, no reason to doubt of the close connection, in point of time,
between the epistles and the Gospel; and, that being remembered, the
train of thought in the mind of the Apostle sufficiently explains the
peculiar character of the latter.

JONAH, son of Amittai, the fifth of the minor prophets, was born at
Gath-hepher, in Galilee. He is generally considered as the most ancient
of the prophets, and is supposed to have lived B. C. 840. The book of
Jonah is chiefly narrative. He relates that he was commanded by God to
go to Nineveh, and preach against the inhabitants of that capital of the
Assyrian empire; that, through fear of executing this commission, he set
sail for Tarshish; and that, in his voyage thither, a tempest arising,
he was cast by the mariners into the sea, and swallowed by a large fish;
that, while he was in the belly of this fish, he prayed to God, and was,
after three days and three nights, delivered out of it alive; that he
then received a second command to go and preach against Nineveh, which
he obeyed; that, upon his threatening the destruction of the city within
forty days, the king and people proclaimed a fast, and repented of their
sins; and that, upon this repentance, God suspended the sentence which
he had ordered to be pronounced in his name. Upon their repentance, God
deferred the execution of his judgment till the increase of their
iniquities made them ripe for destruction, about a hundred and fifty
years afterward. The last chapter gives an account of the murmuring of
Jonah at this instance of divine mercy, and of the gentle and
condescending manner in which it pleased God to reprove the prophet for
his unjust complaint. The style of Jonah is simple and perspicuous; and
his prayer, in the second chapter, is strongly descriptive of the
feelings of a pious mind under a severe trial of faith. Our Saviour
mentions Jonah in the Gospel, Matt. xii, 41; Luke xi, 32. See NINEVEH
and GOURD.

JONATHAN, the son of Saul, a prince of an excellent disposition, and in
all varieties of fortune a sincere and steady friend to David. Jonathan
gave signal proofs of courage and conduct upon all occasions that
offered, during the wars between his father and the Philistines. The
death of Jonathan was lamented by David, in one of the noblest and most
pathetic odes ever uttered by genius consecrated by pious friendship.
See 1 Sam. xiii, 16, &c; xiv, 1, 2, &c.

JOPPA, called also Japho in the Old Testament, which is still preserved
in its modern name of Jaffa or Yafah, a sea port of Palestine, situated
on an eminence in a sandy soil, about seventy miles north-west of
Jerusalem. Joppa was anciently the port to Jerusalem. Here all the
materials sent from Tyre for the building of Solomon’s temple were
brought and landed: it was, indeed, the only port in Judea, though rocky
and dangerous. It possesses still, in times of peace, a considerable
commerce with the places in its vicinity; and is well inhabited, chiefly
by Arabs. This was the place of landing of the western pilgrims; and
here the promised pardons commenced. Here St. Peter raised Dorcas from
the dead, and resided many days in the house of one Simon, a tanner,
Acts ix, 36–43; and it was from this place that the Prophet Jonah
embarked for Tarshish.

JORAM, the son and successor of Ahab, king of Israel. See JEHU

JORDAN, the largest and most celebrated stream in Palestine. It is much
larger, according to Dr. Shaw, than all the brooks and streams of the
Holy Land united together; and, excepting the Nile, is by far the most
considerable river either of the coast of Syria or of Barbary. He
computed it to be about thirty yards broad, and found it nine feet deep
at the brink. This river, which divides the country into two unequal
parts, has been commonly said to issue from two fountains, or to be
formed by the junction of two rivulets, the Jor and the Dan; but the
assertion seems to be totally destitute of any solid foundation. The
Jewish historian, Josephus, on the contrary, places its source at
Phiala, a fountain which rises about fifteen miles from Cæsarea
Philippi, a little on the right hand, and not much out of the way to
Trachonitis. It is called Phiala, or the Vial, from its round figure;
its water is always of the same depth, the bason being brimful, without
either shrinking or overflowing. From Phiala to Panion, which was long
considered as the real source of the Jordan, the river flows under
ground. The secret of its subterraneous course was first discovered by
Philip, the tetrarch of Trachonitis, who cast straws into the fountain
of Phiala, which came out again at Panion. Leaving the cave of Panion,
it crosses the bogs and fens of the lake Semichonitis; and after a
course of fifteen miles, passes under the city of Julias, the ancient
Bethsaida; then expands into a beautiful sheet of water, named the lake
of Gennesareth; and, after flowing a long way through the desert,
empties itself into the lake Asphaltites, or the Dead Sea. As the cave
Panion lies at the foot of Mount Lebanon, in the northern extremity of
Canaan, and the lake Asphaltites extends to the southern extremity, the
river Jordan pursues its course through the whole extent of the country
from north to south. It is evident, also, from the history of Josephus,
that a wilderness or desert of considerable extent stretched along the
river Jordan in the times of the New Testament; which was undoubtedly
the wilderness mentioned by the evangelists, where John the Baptist came
preaching and baptizing. The Jordan has a considerable depth of water.
Chateaubriand makes it six or seven feet deep close at the shore, and
about fifty paces in breadth a considerable distance from its entrance
into the Dead Sea. According to the computation of Volney, it is hardly
sixty paces wide at the mouth; but the author of “Letters from
Palestine” states, that the stream when it enters the lake Asphaltites,
is deep and rapid, rolling a considerable volume of waters; the width
appears from two to three hundred feet, and the current is so violent,
that a Greek servant belonging to the author, who attempted to cross it,
though strong, active, and an excellent swimmer, found the undertaking
impracticable. It may be said to have two banks, of which the inner
marks the ordinary height of the stream; and the outer, its ancient
elevation during the rainy season, or the melting of the snows on the
summits of Lebanon. In the days of Joshua, and, it is probable, for many
ages after his time, the harvest was one of the seasons when the Jordan
overflowed his banks. This fact is distinctly recorded by the sacred
historian: “And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the
feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the
water; for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,”
Joshua iii, 15. This happens in the first month of the Jewish year,
which corresponds with March, 1 Chronicles xii, 15. But in modern times,
whether the rapidity of the current has worn the channel deeper than
formerly, or whether its waters have taken some other direction, the
river seems to have forgotten his ancient greatness. When Maundrell
visited Jordan on the thirtieth of March, the proper time for these
inundations, he could discern no sign or probability of such
overflowing; nay, so far was it from overflowing, that it ran, says our
author, at least two yards below the brink of its channel. After having
descended the outer bank, he went about a furlong upon the level strand,
before he came to the immediate bank of the river. This inner bank was
so thickly covered with bushes and trees, among which he observed the
tamarisk, the willow, and the oleander, that he could see no water till
he had made his way through them. In this entangled thicket, so
conveniently planted near the cooling stream, and remote from the
habitations of men, several kinds of wild beasts were accustomed to
repose, till the swelling of the river drove them from their retreats.
This circumstance gave occasion to that beautiful allusion of the
prophet: “He shall come up like a lion, from the swelling of Jordan,
against the habitation of the strong,” Jer. xlix, 19. The figure is
highly poetical and striking. It is not easy to present a more terrible
image to the mind, than a lion roused from his den by the roar of the
swelling river, and chafed and irritated by its rapid and successive
encroachments on his chosen haunts, till, forced to quit his last
retreat, he ascends to the higher grounds and the open country, and
turns the fierceness of his rage against the helpless sheep cots, or the
unsuspecting villages. A destroyer equally fierce, and cruel, and
irresistible, the devoted Edomites were to find in Nebuchadnezzar and
his armies.

The water of the river at the time of Maundrell’s visit was very turbid,
and too rapid to allow a swimmer to stem its course. Its breadth might
be about twenty yards; and in depth, it far exceeded his height. The
rapidity and depth of the river, which are admitted by every traveller,
although the volume of water seems now to be much diminished, illustrate
those parts of Scripture which mention the fords and passages of Jordan.
It no longer, indeed, rolls down into the Salt Sea so majestic a stream
as in the days of Joshua; yet its ordinary depth is still about ten or
twelve feet, so that it cannot even at present be passed but at certain
places. Of this well known circumstance, the men of Gilead took
advantage in the civil war, which they were compelled to wage with their
brethren: “The Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the
Ephraimites:--then they took him, and slew him at the passages of
Jordan,” Judg. xii, 6. The people of Israel, under the command of Ehud
availed themselves of the same advantage in the war with Moab: “And they
went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and
suffered not a man to pass over,” Judg. iii, 28. But although the state
of this river in modern times completely justifies the incidental
remarks of the sacred writers, it is evident that Maundrell was
disconcerted by the shallowness of the stream, at the time of the year
when he expected to see it overflowing all its banks; and his
embarrassment seems to have increased when he contemplated the double
margin within which it flowed. This difficulty, which has perhaps
occurred to some others, may be explained by a remark which Dr. Pococke
has made on the river Euphrates: The bed of the Euphrates, says that
writer, was measured by some English gentlemen at Beer, and found to be
six hundred and thirty yards broad; but the river only two hundred and
fourteen yards over; then they thought it to be nine or ten feet deep in
the middle; and were informed that it sometimes rises twelve feet
perpendicularly. He observed that it had an inner and outer bank; but
says, it rarely overflows the inner bank; that when it does, they sow
water mellons and other fruits of that kind, as soon as the water
retires, and have a great produce. From this passage, Mr. Harmer argues:
“Might not the overflowings of the Jordan be like those of the
Euphrates, not annual, but much more rare?” The difficulty, therefore,
will be completely removed, by supposing, that it does not, like the
Nile, overflow every year, as some authors, by mistake, had supposed,
but, like the Euphrates, only in some particular years; but when it does
it is in the time of harvest. If it did not in ancient times annually
overflow its banks, the majesty of God in dividing its waters to make
way for Joshua and the armies of Israel, was certainly the more striking
to the Canaanites; who, when they looked upon themselves as defended in
an extraordinary manner by the casual swelling of the river, its breadth
and rapidity being both so extremely increased, yet, found it in these
circumstances part asunder, and leave a way on dry land for the people
of Jehovah. The common receptacle into which the Jordan empties his
waters, is the lake Asphaltites, from whence they are continually
drained off by evaporation. Some writers, unable to find a discharge for
the large body of water which is continually rushing into the lake, have
been inclined to suspect it had some communication with the
Mediterranean; but, beside that we know of no such gulf, it has been
demonstrated by accurate calculations, that evaporation is more than
sufficient to carry off the waters of the river. It is, in fact, very
considerable, and frequently becomes sensible to the eye, by the fogs
with which the lake is covered at the rising of the sun, and which are
afterward dispersed by the heat.

JOSEPH, son of Jacob and Rachel, and brother to Benjamin, Gen. xxx, 22,
24. The history of Joseph is so fully and consecutively given by Moses,
that it is not necessary to abridge so familiar an account. In place of
this, the following beautiful argument by Mr. Blunt for the veracity of
the account drawn from the _identity_ of Joseph’s character, will be
read with pleasure:--I have already found an argument for the veracity
of Moses in the identity of Jacob’s character, I now find another in the
identity of that of Joseph. There is one quality, as it has been often
observed, though with a different view from mine, which runs like a
thread through his whole history, his affection for his father. Israel
loved him, we read, more than all his children; he was the child of his
age; his mother died while he was yet young, and a double care of him
consequently devolved upon his surviving parent. He made him a coat of
many colours; he kept him at home when his other sons were sent to feed
the flocks. When the bloody garment was brought in, Jacob in his
affection for him,--that same affection which, on a subsequent occasion,
when it was told him that after all Joseph was alive, made him as slow
to believe the good tidings as he was now quick to apprehend the sad; in
this his affection for him, I say, Jacob at once concluded the worst,
and “he rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned
for his son many days, and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but
he refused to be comforted, and he said, For I will go down into the
grave unto my son mourning.”

Now, what were the feelings in Joseph which responded to these? When the
sons of Jacob went down to Egypt, and Joseph knew them, though they knew
not him; for they, it may be remarked, were of an age not to be greatly
changed by the lapse of years, and were still sustaining the character
in which Joseph had always seen them; while he himself had meanwhile
grown out of the stripling into the man, and from a shepherd boy was
become the ruler of a kingdom; when his brethren thus came before him,
his question was, “Is your father yet alive?” Gen. xliii, 7. They went
down a second time, and again the question was, “Is your father well,
the old man of whom ye spake, is he yet alive?” More he could not
venture to ask, while he was yet in his disguise. By a stratagem he now
detains Benjamin, leaving the others, if they would, to go their way.
But Judah came near unto him, and entreated him for his brother, telling
him how that he had been surety to his father to bring him back; how
that his father was an old man, and that this was the child of his old
age, and that he loved him; how it would come to pass that if he should
not see the lad with him he would die, and his gray hairs be brought
with sorrow to the grave; for “how shall I go to my father, and the lad
be not with me, lest, peradventure, I see the evil that shall come on my
father?” Here, without knowing it, he had struck the string that was the
tenderest of all. Joseph’s firmness forsook him at this repeated mention
of his father, and in terms so touching: he could not refrain himself
any longer; and, causing every man to go out, he made himself known to
his brethren. Then, even in the paroxysm which came on him, (for he wept
aloud, so that the Egyptians heard,) still his first words uttered from
the fulness of his heart were, “Doth my father yet live?” He now bids
them hasten and bring the old man down, bearing to him tokens of his
love and tidings of his glory. He goes to meet him; he presents himself
unto him, and falls on his neck, and weeps on his neck a good while; he
provides for him and his household out of the fat of the land; he sets
him before Pharaoh. By and by he hears that he is sick, and hastens to
visit him; he receives his blessing; watches his death bed; embalms his
body; mourns for him threescore and ten days; and then carries him, as
he had desired, into Canaan to bury him, taking with him, as an escort
to do him honour, “all the elders of Israel, and all the servants of
Pharaoh, and all his house, and the house of his brethren, chariots, and
horsemen, a very great company.” How natural was it now for his brethren
to think that the tie by which alone they could imagine Joseph to be
held to them was dissolved, that any respect he might have felt or
feigned for them must have been buried in the cave of Machpelah, and
that he would now requite to them the evil they had done! “And they sent
a messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died,
saying, So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the
trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil.”
And then they add of themselves, as if well aware of the surest road to
their brother’s heart, “Forgive, we pray thee, the trespass of the
servants of the God of thy father.” In every thing the father’s name is
still put foremost: it is his memory which they count upon as their
shield and buckler.

It is not the singular beauty of these scenes, or the moral lesson they
teach, excellent as it is, with which I am now concerned, but simply the
perfect artless consistency which prevails through them all. It is not
the constancy with which the son’s strong affection for his father had
lived through an interval of twenty years’ absence, and, what is more,
through the temptation of sudden promotion to the highest estate;--it is
not the noble-minded frankness with which he still acknowledges his
kindred, and makes a way for them, “shepherds” as they were, to the
throne of Pharaoh himself;--it is not the simplicity and singleness of
heart which allow him to give all the first-born of Egypt, men over whom
he bore absolute rule, an opportunity of observing his own comparatively
humble origin, by leading them in attendance upon his father’s corpse to
the valleys of Canaan and the modest cradle of his race;--it is not, in
a word, the grace, but the _identity_, of Joseph’s character, the light
in which it is exhibited by himself, and the light in which it is
regarded by his brethren, to which I now point as stamping it with marks
of reality not to be gainsayed.

Some writers have considered Joseph as a type of Christ; and it requires
not much ingenuity to find out some resemblances, as his being hated by
his brethren, sold for money, plunged into deep affliction, and then
raised to power and honour, &c; but as we have no intimation in any part
of Scripture that Joseph was constituted a figure of our Lord, and that
this was one design of recording his history at length, all such
applications want authority, and cannot safely be indulged. The account
seems rather to have been left for its moral uses, and that it should
afford, by its inimitable simplicity and truth to nature, a point of
irresistible internal evidence of the truth of the Mosaic narrative.

2. JOSEPH, the husband of Mary, and reputed father of Jesus, was the son
of Jacob, and grandson of Matthan, Matt. i, 15, 16. The place of his
stated residence was Nazareth, particularly after the time of his
marriage. We learn from the evangelists that he followed the occupation
of a carpenter, Matt. xiii, 55; and that he was a just man, or one of
those pious Israelites who looked for the coming of the Messiah, Matt.
i, 19. It is probable that Joseph died before Christ entered upon his
public ministry; for upon any other supposition we are at a loss to
account for the reason why Mary, the mother of Jesus, is frequently
mentioned in the evangelic narrative, while no allusion is made to
Joseph; and, above all, why the dying Saviour should recommend his
mother to the care of the beloved disciple John, if her husband had been
then living, John xix, 25–27.

3. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, a Jewish senator, and a believer in the divine
mission of Jesus Christ, John xix, 38. St. Luke calls him a counsellor,
and also informs us that he was a good and just man, who did not give
his consent to the crucifixion of Christ, Luke xxiii, 50, 51. And though
he was unable to restrain the sanhedrim from their wicked purposes, he
went to Pilate by night, and solicited from him the body of Jesus.
Having caused it to be taken down from the cross, he wrapped it in
linen, and laid it in his own sepulchre, which, being a rich man, he
appears to have recently purchased, and then closed the entrance with a
stone cut purposely to fit it, Matt. xxvii, 57–60; John xix, 38–42.

JOSHUA, the son of Nun. He was of the tribe of Ephraim, and born A. M.
2460. He devoted himself to the service of Moses, and in Scripture he is
commonly called the servant of Moses, Exodus xxiv, 13; xxxiii, 11;
Deuteronomy i, 38, &c. His first name was Hosea, or Oshea; Hoseah
signifying _saviour_; Jehoshua, _the salvation of God_, or _he will
save_. The first opportunity which Joshua had to signalize his valour
was in the war made by the divine command against the Amalekites, Exodus
xvii, 9, 10. He defeated and routed their whole army. When Moses
ascended Mount Sinai to receive the law of the Lord, and remained there
forty days and forty nights without eating or drinking, Joshua remained
with him, though, in all probability, not in the same place, nor with
the same abstinence, Exod. xxiv, 13; xxxii, 17. Joshua was “filled with
the spirit of wisdom,” qualifying him for the arduous and important
station of governing Israel, to which he was called by the special
command of God, Num. xxvii, 18–20; Deut. xxxi, 7, 14; xxxiv, 9; Joshua
i, 5. His piety, courage, and disinterested integrity are conspicuous
throughout his whole history; and, exclusive of the inspiration which
enlightened his mind and writings, he derived divine information,
sometimes by immediate revelation from God, Joshua iii, 7; v, 13–15; at
others from the sanctuary, through the medium of Eleazar, the high
priest, the son of Aaron, who, having on the breast plate, presented
himself before the mercy seat on which the Shechinah, or visible symbol
of the divine presence, rested, and there consulted Jehovah by the Urim
and Thummim, to which an answer was returned by an audible voice.

Joshua succeeded Moses in the government of Israel about the year of the
world 2553, and died at Timnath-serah in the hundred and tenth year of
his age, A. M. 2578. He was about the age of eighty-four when he
received the divine command to pass over Jordan, and take possession of
the promised land, Joshua i, 1, 2. Having accomplished that arduous
enterprise, and settled the chosen tribes in the peaceable possession of
their inheritance, he retired to Shechem, or, according to some Greek
copies, to Shiloh; where he assembled the elders of Israel, the heads of
families, the judges and other officers; and, presenting themselves
before God, he recapitulated the conduct of Divine Providence toward
them, from the days of Abraham to that moment; recounted the miraculous
and gracious dispensations of God toward their fathers and themselves;
reminded them of their present enviable lot, and concluded his solemn
address with an exhortation in these emphatic words: “Now, therefore,
fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and truth; and put away the
gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in
Egypt; and serve ye the Lord,” Joshua xxiv.

The book of Joshua continues the sacred history from the period of the
death of Moses to that of the death of Joshua and of Eleazar; a space of
about thirty years. It contains an account of the conquest and division
of the land of Canaan, the renewal of the covenant with the Israelites,
and the death of Joshua. There are two passages in this book which show
that it was written by a person contemporary with the events it records.
In the first verse of the fifth chapter, the author speaks of himself as
being one of those who had passed into Canaan: “And it came to pass when
all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan
westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea,
heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the
children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted.”
And from the twenty-fifth verse of the following chapter, it appears
that the book was written before the death of Rahab: “And Joshua saved
Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she
had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the
messengers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.” Though there is not a
perfect agreement among the learned concerning the author of this book,
yet by far the most general opinion is, that it was written by Joshua
himself; and, indeed, in the last chapter it is said that “Joshua wrote
these words in the book of the law of God;” which expression seems to
imply that he subjoined this history to that written by Moses. The last
five verses, giving an account of the death of Joshua, were added by one
of his successors; probably by Eleazar, Phinehas, or Samuel.

JOSIAH, king of Judah, deserves particular mention on account of his
wisdom and piety, and some memorable events that occurred in the course
of his reign. He succeeded to the throne, upon the assassination of his
father Amon, at the age of eight years, B. C. 640; and at a period when
idolatry and wickedness, encouraged by his father’s profligate example,
very generally prevailed. Josiah, who manifested the influence of pious
and virtuous principles at a very early age, began, in his sixteenth
year, to project the reformation of the kingdom, and to adopt means for
restoring the worship of the true God. At the age of twenty years he
vigorously pursued the execution of the plans which he had meditated. He
began with abolishing idolatry, first at Jerusalem, and then through
different parts of the kingdom; destroying the altars which had been
erected, and the idols which had been the objects of veneration and
worship. He then proceeded, in his twenty-sixth year, to a complete
restoration of the worship of God, and the regular service of the
temple. While he was prosecuting this pious work, and repairing the
temple, which had been long neglected, and which had sunk into a state
of dilapidation, the book of the law, which had been concealed in the
temple, was happily discovered. This was, probably, a copy of the the
Pentateuch, which had been lodged there for security by some pious
priest in the reign of Ahaz or Manasseh. Josiah, desirous of averting
from himself and the kingdom threatened judgments, determined to adhere
to the directions of the law, in the business of reformation which he
had undertaken; and to observe the festivals enjoined by Moses, which
had been shamefully neglected. With this view he assembled all the
elders of the people in the temple at Jerusalem; and, having ascended
the throne, read the book of the Mosaic law, and then entered into a
solemn covenant to observe the statutes and ordinances which it
enjoined. To this covenant the whole assembly testified their consent.
The ark was restored to its proper place; the temple was purified;
idolatrous utensils were removed, and those appropriate to the worship
of God substituted in their room. After these preparations, the passover
was observed with singular zeal and magnificence. This took place in the
eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign: but, in pursuing his laudable plans
of reformation, he was resisted by the inveterate habits of the
Israelites; so that his zealous and persevering efforts were
ineffectual. Their degeneracy was so invincible, that the almighty
Sovereign was provoked to inflict upon them those calamities which were
denounced by the Prophet Zephaniah. In the thirty-second year of
Josiah’s reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, advanced with his army
against Carchemish, a city situated on the river Euphrates. He was
opposed by the king of Judah; so that a bloody battle ensued at Megiddo,
in which Josiah received a mortal wound, which terminated in his death,
after he had been conveyed to Jerusalem, in the thirty-ninth year of his
reign, B.C. 609. His death was greatly lamented by all his subjects; and
an elegy was written on the occasion by the Prophet Jeremiah, which is
not now extant, 2 Kings xxii, xxiii; 2 Chronicles xxxiv, xxxv.

JUBAL, a son of Lamech, the inventor of musical instruments, Gen. iv,
21.

JUBILEE, among the Jews, denotes every fiftieth year; being that
following the revolution of seven weeks of years; at which time all the
slaves were made free, and all lands reverted to their ancient owners.
The jubilees were not regarded after the Babylonish captivity. The
political design of the law of the jubilee was to prevent the too great
oppression of the poor, as well as their being liable to perpetual
slavery. By this means the rich were prevented from accumulating lands
for perpetuity, and a kind of equality was preserved through all the
families of Israel. The distinction of tribes was also preserved, in
respect both to their families and possessions; that they might be able,
when there was occasion, on the jubilee year, to prove their right to
the inheritance of their ancestors. Thus, also, it would be known with
certainty of what tribe or family the Messiah sprung. It served, also,
like the Olympiads of the Greeks, and the Lustra of the Romans, for the
readier computation of time. The jubilee has also been supposed to be
typical of the Gospel state and dispensation, described by Isaiah lxi,
1, 2, in reference to this period, as “the acceptable year of the Lord.”

The word _jubilee_, in a more modern sense, denotes a grand church
solemnity or ceremony celebrated at Rome, in which the pope grants a
plenary indulgence to all sinners; at least, to as many as visit the
churches of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome. The jubilee was first
established by Boniface VII., in 1300, which was only to return every
hundred years; but the first celebration brought in such store of
wealth, that Clement VI., in 1343, reduced it to the period of fifty
years. Urban VI., in 1389, appointed it to be held every thirty-five
years, that being the age of our Saviour; and Paul II. and Sixtus IV.,
in 1475, brought it down to every twenty-five, that every person might
have the benefit of it once in his life. Boniface IX. granted the
privilege of holding jubilees to several princes and monasteries; for
instance, to the monks of Canterbury, who had a jubilee every fifty
years; when people flocked from all parts to visit the tomb of
Thomas-a-Becket. Afterward, jubilees became more frequent: there is
generally one at the inauguration of a new pope; and he grants them as
often as the church or himself have occasion for them. To be entitled to
the privileges of the jubilee, the bull enjoins fasting, alms, and
prayers. It gives the priests a full power to absolve in all cases even
those otherwise reserved to the pope; to make commutations of vows, &c;
in which it differs from a plenary indulgence. During the time of
jubilee, all other indulgences are suspended.

JUDAH, the son of Jacob and Leah, who was born in Mesopotamia, Genesis
xxix, 35. It was he who advised his brethren to sell Joseph to the
Ishmaelite merchants, rather than stain their hands with his blood, Gen.
xxxvii, 26. There is little said of his life, and the little that is
recorded does not raise him high in our estimation. In the last
prophetic blessing pronounced on him by his father Jacob, Gen. xlix, 8,
9, there is a promise of the regal power; and that it should not depart
from his family before the coming of the Messiah. The whole southern
part of Palestine fell to Judah’s lot; but the tribes of Simeon and Dan
possessed many cities which at first were given to Judah. This tribe was
so numerous, that at the departure out of Egypt it contained
seventy-four thousand six hundred men capable of bearing arms, Num. i,
26, 27. The crown passed from the tribe of Benjamin, of which Saul and
his sons were, to that of Judah, which was David’s tribe, and the tribe
of the kings, his successors, until the Babylonish captivity.

JUDAISM, the religious doctrines and rites of the Jews, the descendants
of Abraham. With Abraham Judaism may be said, in some sense, to have
begun; but it was not till the promulgation of the law upon Mount Sinai,
that the Jewish economy was established, and that to his posterity was
committed a dispensation which was to distinguish them ever after from
every other people on earth. The Mosaic dispensation consisted of three
parts; the religious faith and worship of the Jews, their civil polity,
and precepts for the regulation of their moral conduct. Their civil
government, as well as their sacred polity, was of divine institution;
and, on all important occasions, their public affairs were conducted by
the Deity himself, or by persons bearing his commission. The laws of the
Jews, religious and moral, civil, political, and ritual, that is, a
complete system of pure Judaism, are contained in the books of the Old
Testament, and chiefly in the five books of Moses. See GOVERNMENT OF THE
HEBREWS.

The religion of the ancestors of the Jews, before the time of Moses,
consisted in the worship of the one living and true God, under whose
immediate direction they were; in the hope of a Redeemer; in a firm
reliance on his promises under all difficulties and dangers; and in a
thankful acknowledgment for all his blessings and deliverances. In that
early age, we read of altars, pillars, and monuments raised, and
sacrifices offered to God. They used circumcision as a seal of the
covenant which God had made with Abraham. As to the mode and
circumstances of divine worship, they were much at liberty till the time
of Moses; but that legislator, by the direction and appointment of God
himself, prescribed an instituted form of religion, and regulated
ceremonies, feasts, days, priests, and sacrifices, with the utmost
exactness. The rites and observances of their religion under the law
were numerous, and its sanctions severe. Notwithstanding God’s prophets,
and oracles, and ordinances, and the symbol of his presence, were among
them, the Jews were ever very prone to idolatry, till the Babylonish
furnace served to purify them from that corruption. After their seventy
years’ captivity, many among them gave too much place to the Greek
idolatries, but as a nation they were never again guilty of the crime.
Their religious worship and character in our Saviour’s time had become
formal and superstitious; and such it still continues to be, in a
greater or less degree, at the present day. Ancient Judaism, compared
with all religions except the Christian, was distinguished for its
superior purity and spirituality; and the whole Mosaic ritual was of a
typical nature. See JEWS.

JUDAIZING CHRISTIANS. Concerning the divine origin of the religion of
Moses, there was among the Jews no diversity of sentiment, and they not
unnaturally drew the conclusion, that, as it had proceeded from God, it
must be of perpetual obligation. They were indeed fully aware, that
another communication from heaven was to be made to mankind, and that
this was to be announced by a messenger more distinguished than even the
lawgiver whom they revered; but they had satisfied themselves, that the
great design of the Messiah’s mission would be to rescue them from the
oppression of a foreign yoke, and to lay in Jerusalem the foundation of
universal empire. For accomplishing these purposes, it was requisite
that their Messiah should be invested with temporal power; and in this
idea, which so many circumstances in their history tended to endear to
them, they were confirmed by those passages in the books of their
prophets which described him as destined to sit on the throne of David,
to sway a righteous sceptre, and to establish an everlasting kingdom.
When, accordingly, Christ appeared in the humblest condition of life,
and when, after the commencement of his ministry, he declared, that the
hopes of empire which his countrymen had long cherished were fallacious,
the predictions on which they had been rested suggesting, when combined
with other predictions, a very different view of the designs of the
Almighty, they were filled with indignation, and the greater part of
them, although they saw the miracles which Jesus wrought, and heard
those appeals to their own Scriptures which, however eager to do so,
they found themselves unable to confute, rejected his pretensions on
account of the meanness of his situation, and reprobated him as a
deceiver of the people.

There was, however, a considerable number who could not adopt this
conclusion, and who, satisfied that the mighty works which he performed
fully established the reality of the divine commission to which he laid
claim, relinquished their prejudices respecting a temporal sovereignty,
and embraced his doctrine as the revealed will of God. But,
notwithstanding this, they do not seem to have formed the most distant
conception that there was any thing in that doctrine to set aside the
system which had been transmitted to them by their fathers. They
regarded the two dispensations as forming one whole; and believed that
the rites which had distinguished from the rest of mankind those who
belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, would in the same manner mark
the disciples of the Messiah’s kingdom. Agreeably to this, as they
conceived, they saw that Jesus conformed to their ceremonial
institutions, he frequented the temple, he purified it from abuses by
which it had been profaned, and they interpreted, in the sense most in
harmony with their favourite notions, the declaration which he had
publicly made, that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it.
Even the apostles who had constantly attended him, who had listened not
merely to his public discourses, but to the interpretation of them,
which, in tender condescension to their weakness, he often in private
gave, were so thoroughly established in this opinion that it required a
peculiar revelation to be made to him before Peter would open the
kingdom of God to a Gentile. It cannot, therefore, be matter of surprise
that the sentiment prevailed among the whole of the Jews who had been
converted to Christianity; or that even after it was opposed by the
declaration of the Apostles as individuals, and by their solemn
determination, when assembled to decide with respect to it, that the law
was not binding upon Gentile converts, they should still have adhered to
it, when from not having a written record of faith they might have
imagined, either that the representation of the apostolic decision was
erroneous, or that the sanction which it gave to their own adherence to
their ceremonies virtually confirmed the doctrine which they felt such
aversion to relinquish. They accordingly displayed much zeal in support
of the Mosaical economy, represented the strict observance of what it
required as essential for justification, and looked with a kind of
abhorrence upon that large proportion of believers who paid to this no
respect, and who even did not hesitate to condemn it as subversive of
the fundamental principle of the Gospel dispensation. A great part of
the epistles of St. Paul is directed against the Judaizing teachers who
inculcated the original tenet of their brethren. The Apostle earnestly
presses upon the churches, that by the works of the law we cannot be
justified, that circumcision is of no avail, that by grace we are saved,
and that Christ hath redeemed us by his blood. He, indeed, uniformly
represents the idea which he opposed as inconsistent with Christianity,
as an idea which could not be held without detracting from what our
Saviour has done to accomplish our redemption. What effect his writings
produced upon the Jewish believers, cannot be accurately ascertained;
but it is quite certain that a very large proportion of them adhered to
their ritual observances either as national, or as instrumental in
obtaining the divine favour; and this survived the destruction of the
temple and of Jerusalem,--events which might have been expected to
convince every one of the temporary nature of the Mosaical economy.

But after Adrian, by again directing the Roman arms against the Jews,
blasted the hopes which had been fondly cherished, that their city would
be rebuilt, and their temple opened with greater splendour than before,
a vast number of them, either from being convinced by what they had
seen, or from their eagerness to gain admission into the city which the
emperor had erected, but from which he had ordered that all who
persisted in Judaism should be excluded, for the first time embraced the
religion of Christ; and many, who had previously done so, abandoning the
Jewish ritual, acquiesced fully in the representation of the faith given
by St. Paul, choosing as their bishop a Gentile convert. There were,
however, not a few who remained steadfast in their principles, who were
now consequently separated from the great body of their believing
countrymen, and who retained the appellation of Nazarenes, which had
probably been given to the whole of the Jewish Christians. This remnant
soon split into two parties. The one party, although they held that the
law of Moses was obligatory upon the descendants of the house of Israel,
did not extend it to those who had never been of the family of Abraham;
they revered Jesus as being more than man, and in fact approached so
near to the prevailing sentiments of the church, that, notwithstanding
their peculiar sentiments in relation to the Mosaical law, they were not
ranked by the earliest writers among heretics. The other party, who were
called Ebionites, either from Ebion, the name, it is alleged, of their
leader, from their poverty, or from the low notions which they
entertained of Christ, for all these reasons have been specified,
showing sufficiently that the matter is really uncertain,--maintained
the original tenet that their law was binding upon all men, and that
without observing what it required it was impossible to be justified. As
this was in direct opposition to the declarations of St. Paul, instead
of submitting to apostolic authority they set it at defiance, rejecting
his epistles, and branding him as an enemy to the truth. They
disregarded even the Gospels which were received by the generality of
Christians, and used a gospel of their own which they had so modelled as
to support the tenets to which they were attached. One of these tenets,
one which, indeed, naturally followed from their conceptions of the
Gospel dispensation, was, that its author was merely a man raised solely
by the commission with which he had been honoured above the rest of his
fellow creatures.

JUDAS ISCARIOT, or, as he is usually called, the traitor, and betrayer
of our Lord. “The _treachery_ of Judas Iscariot,” says Dr. Hales, “his
_remorse_, and _suicide_, are occurrences altogether so strange and
extraordinary, that the motives by which he was actuated require to be
developed, as far as may be done, where the evangelists are, in a great
measure, silent concerning them, from the circumstances of the history
itself, and from the feelings of human nature. Judas, the leading trait
in whose character was covetousness, was probably induced to follow
Jesus at first with a view to the riches, honours, and other temporal
advantages, which he, in common with the rest, expected the Messiah’s
friends would enjoy. The astonishing miracles he saw him perform left no
room to doubt of the reality of his Master’s pretensions, who had,
indeed, himself in private actually accepted the title from his
Apostles; and Judas must have been much disappointed when Jesus
repeatedly refused the proffered royalty from the people in Galilee,
after the miracle of feeding the five thousand, and again after his
public procession to Jerusalem. He might naturally have grown impatient
under the delay, and dissatisfied also with Jesus for openly
discouraging all ambitious views among his disciples; and, therefore, he
might have devised the scheme of delivering him up to the sanhedrim, or
great council of the nation, (composed of the chief priests, scribes,
and elders,) in order to compel him to avow himself openly as the
Messiah before them; and to work such miracles, or to give them the sign
which they so often required, as would convince and induce them to elect
him in due form, and by that means enable him to reward his followers.
Even the rebukes of Jesus for his covetousness, and the detection of his
treacherous scheme, although they unquestionably offended Judas, might
only serve to stimulate him to the speedier execution of his plot,
during the feast of the passover, while the great concourse of the Jews,
from all parts assembled, might powerfully support the sanhedrim and
their Messiah against the Romans. The success of this measure, though
against his Master’s will, would be likely to procure him pardon, and
even to recommend him to favour afterward. Such might have been the
plausible suggestions by which Satan tempted him to the commission of
this crime. But when Judas, who attended the whole trial, saw that it
turned out quite contrary to his expectations, that Jesus was capitally
convicted by the council, as a false Christ and false prophet,
notwithstanding he had openly avowed himself; and that he wrought no
miracle, either for their conviction or for his own deliverance, as
Judas well knew he could, even from the circumstance of healing Malchus,
after he was apprehended; when he farther reflected, like Peter, on his
Master’s merciful forewarnings of his treachery, and mild and gentle
rebuke at the commission of it; he was seized with remorse, and offered
to return the paltry bribe of thirty pieces of silver to the chief
priests and elders instantly on the spot, saying, ‘I sinned in
delivering up innocent blood;’ and expected that on this they would have
desisted from the prosecution. But they were obstinate, and not only
would not relent, but threw the whole load of guilt upon him, refusing
to take their own share; for they said, ‘What is that to us? see thou to
that;’ thus, according to the aphorism, loving the treason, but hating
the traitor, after he had served their wicked turn. Stung to the quick
at their refusal to take back the money, while they condemned himself,
he went to the temple, cast down the whole sum in the treasury, or place
for receiving the offerings of the people; and, after he had thus
returned the wages of iniquity, he retired to some lonely place, not
far, perhaps, from the scene of Peter’s repentance; and, in the frenzy
of despair, and at the instigation of the devil, hanged himself;
crowning with suicide the murder of his Master and his friend; rejecting
his compassionate Saviour, and plunging his own soul into perdition! In
another place it is said that, ‘falling headlong, he burst asunder, and
all his bowels gushed out,’ Acts i, 18. Both these accounts might be
true: he might first have hanged himself from some tree on the edge of a
precipice; and, the rope or branch breaking, he might be dashed to
pieces by the fall.”

The above view of the case of Judas endeavours ingeniously to account
for his conduct by supposing him influenced by the motive of compelling
our Lord to declare himself, and assume the Messiahship in its earthly
glory. It will, however, be recollected, that the only key which the
evangelic narrative affords, is, Judas’s covetousness; which passion
was, in him, a growing one. It was this which destroyed whatever of
honest intention he might at first have in following Jesus; and when
fully under its influence he would be blinded by it to all but the
glittering object of the reward of iniquity. In such a mind there could
be no true faith, and no love; what wonder, then, when avarice was in
him a ruling and unrestrained passion, that he should betray his Lord?
Still it may be admitted that the knowledge which Judas had of our
Lord’s miraculous power, might lead him the more readily to put him into
the hands of the chief priests. He might suppose that he would deliver
himself out of their hands; and thus Judas attempted to play a double
villany, against Christ and against his employers.

JUDE, EPISTLE OF, a canonical book of the New Testament, written against
the heretics, who, by their impious doctrines and disorderly lives,
corrupted the faith and good morals of Christians. The author of this
epistle, called Judas, and also Thaddeus and Lebbeus, was one of the
twelve Apostles; he was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the less,
and one of those who were called our Lord’s brethren. We are not
informed when, or how, he was called to be an Apostle; but it has been
conjectured, that, before his vocation to the Apostleship, he was a
husbandman, that he was married, and that he had children. The only
account we have of him in particular, is that which occurs in John xiv,
21–23. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, after having received, in
common with other Apostles, extraordinary gifts at the pentecost, he
preached the Gospel for some time in several parts of the land of
Israel, and wrought miracles in the name of Christ. And, as his life
seems to have been prolonged, it is probable that he afterward left
Judea, and went abroad preaching the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles in
other countries. Some have said that he preached in Arabia, Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Persia; and that he suffered martyrdom in the last
mentioned country. But we have no account of his travels upon which we
can rely; and it may be questioned whether he was a martyr.

In the early ages of Christianity, several rejected the Epistle of St.
Jude, because the apocryphal books of Enoch, and the ascension of Moses,
are quoted in it. Nevertheless, it is to be found in all the ancient
catalogues of the sacred writings; and Clement, of Alexandria,
Tertullian, and Origen quote it as written by Jude, and reckon it among
the books of sacred Scripture. In the time of Eusebius it was generally
received. As to the objections that have been urged against its
authority, Dr. Lardner suggests, that there is no necessity for
supposing that St. Jude quoted a book called Enoch, or Enoch’s
prophecies; and even allowing that he did quote it, he gives it no
authority; it was no canonical book of the Jews; and if such a book
existed among the Jews, it was apocryphal, and yet there might be in it
some right things. Instead of referring to a book called the “Assumption
or Ascension of Christ,” which probably was a forgery much later than
his time, it is much more credible that St. Jude refers to the vision in
Zech. iii, 1–3. It has been the opinion of several writers, and, among
others, of Hammond and Benson, that St. Jude addressed his epistle to
the Jewish Christians; but Dr. Lardner infers, from the words of the
inscription of the epistle, verses 1, 3, that it was designed for the
use of all in general who had embraced the Christian religion. The last
mentioned author supposes that this epistle was written A. D. 64, 65, or
66.

JUDEA, a district of Asia Minor, which is described both by ancient and
modern geographers under a great variety of names, and with great
diversity of extent. In the most extensive application of the name, it
comprehends the whole country possessed by the Jews, or people of
Israel; and included, therefore, very different portions of territory at
different periods of their history. Upon the conquest of the country by
Joshua, it was divided into twelve portions, according to the number of
the tribes of Israel; and a general view of their respective allotments
(though the intermediate boundaries cannot be very precisely
ascertained) may convey some idea of its extent at that period. The
portion of the tribe of Judah comprised all the country between Edom, or
Idumea, on the south, the Mediterranean on the west, the Salt Sea on the
east, and an imaginary line on the north, from the northern extremity of
the Salt Sea to the Mediterranean. The portion of Simeon was included
within that of Judah, and formed the south-west corner of the country;
comprehending the towns of Bersaba, Gerar, Rapha, Gaza, Ascalon, and
Azotus. The portion of Benjamin was situated to the north of Judah, near
the centre of the kingdom, bounded on the east by the river Jordan, and
containing part of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethel, Rama, &c. The portion of
Dan lay to the north-west of Judah, between that of Benjamin and the
Mediterranean, reaching as far north as the latter, and containing
Accaron and Jamnia. The portion of Ephraim stretched along the northern
limits of Dan and Benjamin, between the river Jordan on the east, and
the Mediterranean sea on the west; containing Sichem, Joppa, Lydda,
Gazara, &c. The portion of the half tribe of Manasseh was situated north
of Ephraim, between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean, reaching as
far north as Dora, at the foot of Mount Carmel. The portion of Issachar
stretched northward from Manasseh, and westward from Jordan, as far as
Mount Tabor. The portion of Asher comprehended the maritime tract
between Mount Carmel, as far as Sidon. The portion of Zebulon, bounded
by Asher on the west, and Mount Tabor on the south, joined on the east
the portion of Naphtali, which occupied the borders of the lake
Gennesareth, or sea of Tiberias. The portion of Reuben lay to the
eastward of the river Jordan, bounded on the south by the torrent of
Arnon, and on the north by the river Jabok. The portion of Gad, also on
the east of the Jordan, stretched from the Jabok toward the north, where
it was bounded by the other half tribe of Manasseh, which occupied the
country east of the lake Gennesareth, to the northern limits of the
country. The whole of this extent between Cœlo-Syria on the north,
and Arabia Petræa on the south, the Mediterranean on the west, and
Arabia Deserta on the east, may be considered as situated between 31°
10´ and 33° 15´ of north latitude, about a hundred and forty miles in
length, and nearly a hundred in breadth. Reckoning from Dan to
Beersheba, which are often mentioned in sacred Scripture as including
the more settled and permanent possessions of the Israelites, its length
would not exceed a hundred and twenty miles. But, if estimated from its
boundaries in the reigns of David and Solomon, and several succeeding
princes, its extent must be enlarged more than threefold; including both
the land of Palestine, or of the Philistines, on the south, and the
country of Phenice on the north, with part of Syria to the north-east.
All this extent was originally comprehended in the land of promise,
Genesis xv, 18; Deut. xi, 24; and was actually possessed by David and
Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 20; 2 Chron. viii, 7. It is described in numerous
passages of the sacred writings, as all comprised in the Holy Land, from
Hamath on the north, to the river of Egypt on the south; and from the
Great or Mediterranean Sea on the west, to the deserts of Arabia on the
east; a tract of country at least four hundred and sixty miles in
length, and more than a hundred in breadth, Joshua xv, 2, &c; xix, 24,
&c; 1 Chron. xiii, 5; 2 Chron. vii, 8; Ezekiel xlvii, 16, 20; Amos vi,
14.

After the death of Solomon, when the kingdom of the Hebrews had attained
its greatest extent, it was divided, in consequence of a revolt of ten
tribes, into two distinct sovereignties, named Israel and Judah; the
former of which had its seat of government in Samaria, and the latter in
Jerusalem. The territories of both were gradually curtailed and laid
waste by the revolt of tributary princes, and the incursions of powerful
neighbours; and both were at length completely overthrown; that of
Israel, by the king of Assyria, about B. C. 720; and that of Judah, by
Nebuchadnezzar, about a hundred and fourteen years later.

After a captivity of seventy years, the Jews, who had been the subjects
of Judah, having received permission from Cyrus to return to their
native country, not only occupied the former territories of that
kingdom, but extended themselves over great part of what had belonged to
the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel; and then, for the first time,
gave the name of Judea to the whole country over which they had again
established their dominion. The same name was given to that kingdom as
possessed by Herod the Great under the Romans; but, in the enumeration
of the provinces of the empire, it was recognised only by the name of
Palestine. All traces of its ancient division among the twelve tribes
were now abolished, and it was distributed into four provinces; namely,
Judea Proper in the south, Galilee in the north, Samaria in the centre,
and Peræa on the east of the river Jordan. Judea Proper, situated in 31°
40´ north latitude, was bounded on the north by Samaria, on the west by
the Mediterranean, on the east by the river Jordan, on the south by
Arabia Petræa; and comprised the ancient settlements of Judah, Benjamin,
Dan, and Simeon, with Philistia and Idumea. It is divided by Josephus
into eleven toparchies, and by Pliny into ten; but these subdivisions
are little noticed by ancient writers, and their boundaries are very
imperfectly ascertained. The principal places in the north-east quarter
of the province were Jerusalem, the capital, which was entirely
destroyed in the reign of Hadrian, and replaced by a new city named
Ælia, a little farther north, which is now the site of the modern
Jerusalem; Jericho, the city of palm trees, about nineteen miles
eastward of Jerusalem, and eight from the river Jordan; Phaselis, built
by Herod in memory of his brother, fifteen miles north-west of Jericho;
Archelais, built by Archelaus, ten miles north of Jericho; Gophna,
fifteen miles north of Jerusalem, in the road to Sichem; Bethel, twelve
miles north of Jerusalem, originally called Luz; Gilgal, about one mile
and a half from Jericho; Engeddi, a hundred furlongs south south-east of
Jericho, near the northern extremity of the Dead Sea; Masada, a strong
fortress built by Judas Maccabeus, the last refuge of the Jews after the
fall of Jerusalem; Ephraim, a small town westward of Jericho; Anathoth,
a Levitical town, nearly four miles north of Jerusalem. In the
south-east quarter of the province were situated Bethlehem, or Ephrath,
about six miles south from the capital; Bethzur, now St. Philip, a
strong place on the road to Hebron, ten miles south of Jerusalem; Ziph,
a small town between Hebron and the Dead Sea; Zoar, at the southern
extremity of the Dead Sea, near the situation of Sodom; Hebron, formerly
Kirjath-arba, a very ancient town in a hilly country, twenty-five miles
south of the capital; Arad, about twenty-four miles southward from
Hebron, and near the Ascensus Avrabim, or Scorpion Mountains, on the
border of Arabia Petræa; and Thamar, on the southern limit of the
province, near the south extremity of the Dead Sea. In the north-west
quarter were Bethshemesh, or Heliopolis, a Levitical city, about ten
miles west of the capital; Rama, six miles north from Jerusalem; Emmaus,
a village eight miles north north-west from Jerusalem, afterward called
Nicopolis, in consequence of a victory gained by Vespasian over the
revolted Jews; Bethoron, a populous Levitical city on the road to Lydda,
a few miles north-west of Emmaus; Kirjath-jearim, on the road to Joppa,
nine miles westward from the capital; Lydda, now Lod, and called by the
Greeks Diospolis, about twelve miles east of Joppa; Ramla, supposed to
be the same as Arimathea, about five miles south-west of Lydda; Joppa, a
maritime town, now Jaffa, about twelve leagues north-west of Jerusalem;
Jabne, a walled sea-port town between Joppa and Azotus; and Ekron, a
town on the north boundary of the Philistines. In the south-west quarter
of Judea were Gath, about twenty miles west from Jerusalem, near to
which were the city of Eleutheropolis, a flourishing place in the second
century; Makkedah, a strong place, eight miles north-east from
Eleutheropolis; Bersabe, or Beersheba, about twenty-six miles south from
Eleutheropolis; Gerar, between Beersheba and the sea coast; Azotus, or
Ashdod, to the west of Eleutheropolis, within a few miles of the sea,
and the seat of a bishop in the first ages of the Christian church;
Ascalon, a considerable maritime town, above forty-three miles
south-west of Jerusalem; Gaza, fifteen miles southward from Ascalon; and
Raphia, between Gaza and Rhinocurura, remarkable for a great battle in
its neighbourhood, in which Philopater, king of Egypt, defeated
Antiochus, king of Syria.

Samaria, lying between Judea and Galilee, in 32° 15´ north latitude,
extended along the sea coast from Joppa to Dora, and along the river
Jordan from the rivulet of Alexandrium to the southern extremity of the
sea of Tiberias; comprehending the territory of the tribe of Ephraim, of
the half tribe of Manasseh, and part of Issachar. Its principal cities
were Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel, north of Sichem, and
equally distant from Jordan and the sea coast, afterward named Sebaste
by Herod, in honour of Augustus; Jezrael, or Esdraelon, about four
leagues north from Samaria; Sichem, or Sychar, called by the Romans
Neapolis, eight miles south of Samaria, in a valley between the
mountains Gerizim and Ebal; Bethsan, called by the Greek writers
Scythopolis, about twenty miles north-east of Sichem; Cæsarea of
Palestine, anciently called Turris Stratonis, greatly enlarged by Herod,
and long the principal city of the province, about nineteen leagues
north north-west from Jerusalem; Dora, now Tartura, nine miles north
from Cæsarea, on the road to Tyre; Apollonia, now Arzuf, on the sea
coast, twenty-two miles south of Cæsarea; and Hadadrimmon, afterward
called Maximianopolis, about seventeen miles eastward of Cæsarea.

Galilæa, in 33° north latitude, bounded on the south by Samaria, on the
west by the Mediterranean, on the north by Syria, on the east by the
river Jordan and the lake Gennesareth, comprehended the possessions of
Asher, Naphtali, and Zabulon, with part of the allotment of Issachar.
The northern division of the province was thinly inhabited by Jews, and
was sometimes called Galilee of the Gentiles; but the southern portion
was very populous. Its principal towns were Capernaum, at the northern
extremity of the lake of Gennesareth; Bethsaida, a considerable village
a few leagues south of Capernaum; Cinnereth, south of Bethsaida, rebuilt
by Herod Antipas, and named Tiberias; Tarichæa, a considerable town at
the efflux of the river Jordan from the sea of Tiberias, thirty stadia
south from the town of Tiberias; Nazareth, two leagues north-west of
Mount Tabor, and equally distant from the lake of Gennesareth and the
sea coast; Arbela, six miles west of Nazareth; Sepphoris, or
Dio-Cæsarea, now Sefouri, a large and well fortified town, about five
leagues north north-west of Mount Tabor; Zabulon, a strong and populous
place, sixty stadia south-east of Ptolemais; Acre, or Accon, seven miles
north from the promontory of Carmel, afterward enlarged and called
Ptolemais by Ptolemy I., of Egypt, and in the time of the crusades
distinguished by the name of Acre, the last city possessed by the
Christians in Syria, and was taken and destroyed by the Sultan Serapha,
of Egypt, in 1291; Kedes, or Cydissus, a Levitical city at the foot of
Mount Panium, twenty miles south-east of Tyre; Dan, originally Laish, on
the north boundary of the Holy Land, about thirty miles south-east of
Sidon; Paneas, near to Dan, or, according to some, only a different name
for the same place, was repaired by Philip, son of Herod the Great, and
by him named Cæsarea, in honour of Augustus, with the addition of
Philippi, to distinguish it from the other town of the same name in
Samaria; Jotapata, the strongest town in Galilee, about four leagues
north north-east of Dio-Cæsarea; and Japha and Gischala, two other
fortified places in the same district.

Peræa, though the name would denote any extent of country beyond Jordan,
is more particularly applied to that district in 32° north latitude,
which formerly composed the territories of Sihon, the Amorite, and Og,
king of Bashan; extending from the river Arnon (which flows through an
extensive plain into the Dead Sea) to the mount of Gilead, where the
Jordan issues from the sea of Tiberias; and which fell to the lot of the
tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. This province
was about sixty miles from north to south, and forty from east to west.
The principal places were Penuel, on the left of the Jabbok, which forms
the northern border of the country; Succoth, on the banks of the Jordan,
a little farther south; Bethabara, a little below Succoth, where was a
place of passage over the river; Amathus, afterward named Assalt, a
strong town below the influx of the torrent Jazer; Livias, between Mount
Nebo and the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, a town which was so
named by Herod, in honour of Livia, the wife of Augustus; Machærus, a
citadel on a steep rock, south of Livias, near the upper end of the Dead
Sea; Lasa, or Calle-rhoe, celebrated for its hot springs, between
Machærus and the river Arnon; Herodium, a fort built by Herod a few
miles farther inland, as a protection against the Moabites; Aroer, a
town of Moab, seven leagues east of the Dead Sea; Castra Amonensia, a
Roman station, supposed to be the ancient Mephoath, seven leagues
north-east of Aroer; Hesbon, or Esbus, the capital of Sihon, anciently
famed for its fish pools, seven leagues east from the Jordan, three from
Mount Nebo, and nearly in the centre of the province; Madaba, now
El-Belkaa, three leagues south-east of Hesbon; Jazer, or Tira, a
Levitical city on a small lake, five leagues north-east of Hesbon. To
the south of Peræa lies a territory called Moabites, the capital of
which was Rabbath-Moab, afterward named Areopolis; and to the south-west
of which was Charac-Moab, or Karak, a fortress on the summit of a hill,
at the entrance of a deep valley.

To the north of Peræa were situated several districts, which, as forming
part of the kingdom of Judea under Herod the Great, require to be
briefly noticed in this account; and which do properly come under the
general name of Peræa, as being situated on the eastward of the river
Jordan. These were Galaadites, or Gileadites, in 32° 20´ north latitude,
now Zarca, east from Jordan, and north from the Jabbok; containing the
cities of Ramoth-Gilead, Mahanaim, Jabesh-Gilead, at the foot of Mount
Gilead. Batanæa, anciently Basan, now Bitinia, in 32° 25´ north
latitude, formerly celebrated for its oaks and pastures, was situated to
the north of Galaadites, and contained the cities of Adrea, or Edrei,
Astaroth, and Bathyra. Gaulonitis, a narrow strip of land between
Batanæa and the shore of the sea of Tiberias, stretching northward to
Mount Hermon, and containing Gamala, a strong town near the southern
extremity of the sea of Tiberias; Argob, between this sea and Mount
Hippos; Julias, supposed to be the same as Chorazin, and by others to be
Bethsaida; and Seleuca, a fortified place on the east border of Lacus
Samochonitis. Auranitis, or Ituræa, a mountainous and barren tract north
of Batanæa, and bounded on the west by a branch of Mount Hermon,
contained Bostra, or Bozra, about fifty miles east from the sea of
Tiberias, bordering on Arabia Petræa, afterward enlarged by Trajan, and
named Trajana Bostra; and Trachonitis, in 33° 15´ north latitude,
between Hermon and Antilibanus, eastward from the sources of Jordan, and
containing Baalgad, Mispah, Paneas, or Cæsarea Philippi, and Ænos,
nearly twenty-five miles east of Panæas, and as far south south-west of
Damascus. There remains to be noticed the Decapolis, or confederation of
ten cities in the last mentioned districts, which having been occupied
during the Babylonish captivity by Heathen inhabitants, refused to adopt
the Mosaic ritual after the restoration of the Jews, and found it
necessary to unite their strength against the enterprises of the
Asmonean princes. One of them, namely, Scythopolis, already described in
the account of Samaria, was situated to the west of Jordan; but the
other nine were all to the east of that river, namely, Gadara, or Kedar,
a strong place on a hill, the capital of Peræa in the time of Josephus,
about sixty stadia east from the sea of Tiberias, and much frequented
for its hot baths: Hippos, sometimes called Susitha, thirty stadia
north-west of Gadara; Dium, or Dion, of which the situation is unknown,
but conjectured by D’Anville to have been about seven leagues eastward
from Pella, a considerable town supplied with copious fountains, on the
river Jabbok, fourteen miles south-east of Gadara, and celebrated as the
place to which the Christians retired, by divine admonition, before the
destruction of Jerusalem; Canatha, south-east of Cæsarea, and between
the Jordan and Mount Hermon; Garasa, afterward Jaras, three leagues
north-east from the upper extremity of the sea of Tiberias, and much
noted during the crusades; Rabbath-Ammon, the capital of the Ammonites,
south-east of Ramoth, and near the source of the Jabbok, on the confines
of Arabia, afterward called Philadelphia by Ptolemy Philadelphus, from
whom it had received considerable improvements, of which the ruins are
still visible; Abila, four leagues east from Gadara, in a fertile tract
between the river Hieromax and Mount Gilead; and Capitolais, a town in
Batanæa, five or six leagues east north-east of Gadara.

JUDEA, WILDERNESS OF, a wild and desert country along the southern
course of the river Jordan, east of Jerusalem; that which by St. Matthew
is called the wilderness of Judea, being described by St. Luke as “all
the country about Jordan;” from whence this wilderness extended
southward along the western side of the Dead Sea. This is a stony and
desolate region, of hopeless sterility, and most savage aspect;
consisting almost entirely of disordered piles of rocks, and rocky
mountains. This was the wilderness in which John first preached and
baptized, and into which our Lord, after his own baptism, was led by the
Spirit to be tempted, Matthew iv; Luke iv. Here, also, the mountain was
situated which formed the scene of one of the most striking parts of
this temptation. Maundrell describes this region as a most miserable,
dry, and barren place; consisting of high rocky mountains, so torn and
disordered, as if the earth had here suffered some great convulsion. Mr.
Buckingham, who visited the same part in 1816, says, “As we proceeded to
the northward, we had on our left a lofty peak of the range of hills
which border the plain of the Jordan on the west, and ended in this
direction the mountains of Judea. This peak is considered to be that to
which Jesus was transported by the devil during his fast of forty days
in the wilderness; ‘after which he was an hungered.’ Nothing can be more
forbidding than the aspect of these hills; not a blade of verdure is to
be seen over all their surface, and not the sound of any living being is
to be heard throughout all their extent. They form, indeed, a most
appropriate scene for that wilderness in which the Son of God is said to
have dwelt with the wild beasts, ‘while the angels ministered unto
him.’”

JUDGES is applied to certain eminent persons chosen by God himself to
govern the Jews from the time of Joshua till the establishment of the
kings. For the nature and duration of their office, and the powers with
which they were invested, see JEWS. The judges were not ordinary
magistrates, but were appointed by God on extraordinary occasions; as to
head the armies, to deliver the people from their enemies, &c. Salian
has observed, that they not only presided in courts of justice, but were
also at the head of the councils, the armies, and of every thing that
concerned the government of the state; though they never assumed the
title either of princes, governors, or the like.

Salian remarks seven points wherein they differed from kings: 1. They
were not hereditary. 2. They had no absolute power of life and death,
but only according to the laws, and dependently upon them. 3. They never
undertook war at their own pleasure, but only when they were commanded
by God, or called to it by the people. 4. They exacted no tribute. 5.
They did not succeed each other immediately, but after the death of one
there was frequently an interval of several years before a successor was
appointed. 6. They did not use the ensigns of sovereignty, the sceptre
or diadem. 7. They had no authority to make any laws, but were only to
take care of the observance of those of Moses. Godwin, in his “Moses and
Aaron,” compares them to the Roman dictators, who were appointed only on
extraordinary emergencies, as in case of war abroad, or conspiracies at
home, and whose power, while they continued in office, was great, and
even absolute. Thus the Hebrew judges seem to have been appointed only
in cases of national trouble and danger. This was the case particularly
with respect to Othniel, Ehud, and Gideon. The power of the judges,
while in office, was very great; nor does it seem to have been limited
to a certain time, like that of the Roman dictators, which continued for
half a year; nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose, that, when they
had performed the business for which they were appointed, they retired
to a private life. This Godwin infers from Gideon’s refusing to take
upon him the perpetual government of Israel, as being inconsistent with
the theocracy.

Beside these superior judges, every city in the commonwealth had its
elders, who formed a court of judicature, with a power of determining
lesser matters in their respective districts. The rabbies say, there
were three such elders or judges in each lesser city, and twenty-three
in the greater. But Josephus, whose authority has greater weight, speaks
of seven judges in each, without any such distinction of greater and
less. Sigonius supposes that these elders and judges of cities were the
original constitution settled in the wilderness by Moses, upon the
advice given him by Jethro, Exod. xviii, 21, 22, and continued by divine
appointment after the settlement in the land of Canaan; whereas others
imagine that the Jethronian prefectures were a peculiar constitution,
suited to their condition while encamped in the wilderness, but laid
aside after they came into Canaan. It is certain, however, that there
was a court of judges and officers, appointed in every city, by the law
of Moses, Deut. xvi, 18. How far, and in what respects, these judges
differed from the elders of the city, it is not easy to ascertain; and
whether they were the same or different persons. Perhaps the title
elders may denote their seniority and dignity; and that of judges, the
office they sustained. The lower courts of justice, in their several
cities, were held in their gates, Deut. xvi, 15. Each tribe had its
respective prince, whose office related chiefly, if not altogether, to
military affairs. We read also of the princes of the congregation, who
presided in judiciary matters. These are called elders, and were seventy
in number, Num. xi, 16, 17, 24, 25. But it does not appear whether or
not this consistory of seventy elders was a perpetual, or only a
temporary, institution. Some have supposed that it was the same that
afterward became famous under the appellation of sanhedrim; but others
conceive the institution of the seventy elders to have been only
temporary, for the assistance of Moses in the government, before the
settlement in the land of Canaan; and that the sanhedrim was first set
up in the time of the Maccabees. See SANHEDRIM.

JUDGES, BOOK OF, a canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the
history of the Israelitish judges, of whom we have been speaking in the
preceding article. The author is not known. It is probable the work did
not come from any single hand, being rather a collection of several
little histories, which at first were separate, but were afterward
collected by Ezra or Samuel into a single volume; and, in all
likelihood, were taken from the ancient journals, annals, or memoirs,
composed by the several judges. The antiquity of this book is
unquestionable, as it must have been written before the time of David,
since the description, Judges i, 21, was no longer true of Jerusalem
after he had taken possession of it, and had introduced a third class of
inhabitants of the tribe of Judah. Eichorn acknowledges that it does not
bear the marks of subsequent interpolation. Dr. Patrick is of opinion
that the five last chapters are a distinct history, in which the author
gives an account of several memorable transactions, which occurred in or
about the time of the judges; whose history he would not interrupt by
intermixing these matters with it, and therefore reserved them to be
related by themselves in the second part, or appendix.

JUDGMENT, DAY OF, is that important period which shall terminate the
present dispensation of grace toward the fallen race of Adam, put an end
to time, and introduce the eternal destinies of men and angels, Acts
xvi, 31; 1 Cor. xv, 24–26; 1 Thess. iv, 14–17; Matt. xxv, 31–46. It is
in reference to this solemn period that the Apostle Peter says, “The
heavens and the earth which now exist are by the word of God reserved in
store unto fire, against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly
men,” 2 Peter iii, 7. Several eminent commentators understand this
prophecy as a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. In support of
their interpretation, they appeal to the ancient Jewish prophecies,
where, as they contend, the revolutions in the political state of
empires and nations are foretold in the same forms of expression with
those introduced in Peter’s prediction. The following are the prophecies
to which they appeal:--Isaiah xxxiv, 4, where the destruction of Idumea
is foretold under the figures of dissolving the host of heaven, and of
rolling the heaven together as a scroll, and of the falling down of all
their host as the leaf falleth off from the vine. Ezekiel xxxii, 7,
where the destruction of Egypt is described by the figures of covering
the heaven, and making the stars thereof dark; and of covering the sun
with a cloud, and of hindering the moon from giving her light. In Joel
ii, 10, the invasion of Judea by foreign armies is thus foretold: “The
earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble; the sun and
the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.” And
in verses 30, 31, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is thus
predicted: “I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood,
and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord
come.” God, threatening the Jews, is introduced saying, “In that day I
will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in
the clear day,” Amos viii, 9. The overthrow of Judaism and Heathenism is
thus foretold: “Yet once and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and
the sea and the dry land,” Haggai ii, 6. Lastly: our Lord, in his
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, has the following expressions:
“After the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and
the powers of heaven shall be shaken,” Matt. xxiv, 29.

Now it is remarkable that, in these prophecies, none of the prophets
have spoken, as Peter has done, of the entire destruction of this
mundane system, nor of the destruction of any part thereof. They mention
only the rolling of the heavens together as a scroll, the obscuring of
the light of the sun and of the moon, the shaking of the heavens and the
earth, and the falling down of the stars: whereas Peter speaks of the
utter destruction of all the parts of this mundane system by fire. This
difference affords room for believing that the events foretold by the
prophets are different in their nature from those foretold by the
Apostle; and that they are to be figuratively understood, while those
predicted by the Apostle are to be understood literally. To this
conclusion, likewise, the phraseology of the prophets, compared with
that of the Apostle, evidently leads: for the prophetic phraseology,
literally interpreted, exhibits impossibilities; such as the rolling of
the heavens together as a scroll; the turning of the moon into blood,
and the falling down of the stars from heaven as the leaf of a tree. Not
so the apostolic phraseology: for the burning of the heavens, or
atmosphere, and its passing away with a great noise; and the burning of
the earth and the works thereon, together with the burning and melting
of the elements, that is, the constituent parts of which this
terraqueous globe is composed; are all things possible, and therefore
may be literally understood; while the things mentioned by the prophets
can only be taken figuratively. This, however, is not all. There are
things in the Apostle’s prophecy which show that he intended it to be
taken literally. As, 1. He begins with an account of the perishing of
the old world, to demonstrate against the scoffers the possibility of
the perishing of the present heavens and earth. But that example would
not have suited his purpose; unless, by the burning of the present
heavens and earth, he had meant the destruction of the material fabric.
Wherefore, the opposition stated in this prophecy between the perishing
of the old world by water, and the perishing of the present world by
fire, shows that the latter is to be as real a destruction of the
material fabric as the former was. 2. The circumstance of the present
heavens and earth being treasured up and kept, ever since the first
deluge, from all after deluges, in order to their being destroyed by
fire at the day of judgment, shows, we think, that the Apostle is
speaking of a real, and not of a metaphorical, destruction of the
heavens and earth. 3. This appears, likewise, from the Apostle’s
foretelling that, after the present heavens and earth are burned, new
heavens and a new earth are to appear, in which the righteous are for
ever to dwell. 4. The time fixed by the Apostle for the burning of the
heavens and the earth, namely, the day of judgment and punishment of
ungodly men, shows that the Apostle is speaking, not of the destruction
of a single city or nation during the subsistence of the world, but of
the earth itself, with all the wicked who have dwelt thereon. These
circumstances persuade us that this prophecy, as well as the one
recorded, 2 Thess. i, 9, is not to be interpreted metaphorically of the
destruction of Jerusalem; but should be understood literally of the
general judgment, and of the destruction of our mundane system.

But “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the
judgment.” These two events are inseparably linked together in the
divine decree, and they reciprocally reflect importance on each other.
Death is, indeed, the terror of our nature. Men may contrive to keep it
from their thoughts, but they cannot think of it without fearful
apprehensions of its consequences. It was justly to be dreaded by man in
his state of innocence; and to the unrenewed man it ever was, and ever
will be, a just object of abhorrence. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which
has brought life and immortality to light, is the only sovereign
antidote against this universal evil. To the believer in Christ, its
rough aspect is smoothed, and its terrors cease to be alarming. To him
it is the messenger of peace; its sting is plucked out; its dark valley
is the road to perfect bliss and life immortal. To him, “to live is
Christ, and to die is gain,” Phil. i, 21. To die! speaking properly, he
cannot die. He has already died in Christ, and with him: his “life is
hid with Christ in God,” Romans vi, 8; Col. iii, 3.

With this conquest of the fear of death is nearly allied another
glorious privilege resulting from union with the Redeemer; that, when he
shall appear, we may have confidence, and “not be ashamed before him at
his coming,” 1 John ii, 28. Were death all that we have to dread, death
might be braved. But after death there is a judgment; a judgment
attended with circumstances so tremendous as to shake the hearts of the
boldest of the sons of nature. Then “men shall seek death, and shall not
find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them,” Rev.
ix, 6. Then shall come indeed an awful day; a day to which all that have
preceded it are intended to be subservient; when the Lord shall appear
in the united splendour of creating, of governing, and of judicial
majesty, to finish his purposes respecting man and earth, and to
pronounce the final, irreversible sentence, “It is done!” Rev. xxi, 6.
Nothing of terror or magnificence hitherto beheld,--no glory of the
rising sun after a night of darkness and of storm,--no convulsions of
the earth,--no wide irruption of waters,--no flaming comet dragging its
burning train over half the heaven, can convey to us an adequate
conception of that day of terrible brightness and irresistible
devastation. Creation then shall be uncreated. “The heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat;
the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up,” 2
Peter iii, 10. The Lord shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 2
Thess. i, 7, 8, arrayed in all the glory of his Godhead, and attended by
his mighty angels, Matt. xvi, 27; xxv, 31. All that are in the grave
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, John v, 28, 29. Earth and
sea shall give up the dead which are in them. All that ever lived shall
appear before him, Rev. xx, 12, 13. The judgment shall sit; and the
books shall be opened, Dan. vii, 10. The eye of Omniscience detects
every concealment by which they would screen from observation
themselves, or their iniquity. The last reluctant sinner is finally
separated from the congregation of the righteous, Psalm i, 5; and
inflexible justice, so often disregarded, derided, and defied, gives
forth their eternal doom! But to the saints this shall be a day of glory
and honour. They shall be publicly acknowledged by God as his people;
publicly justified from the slanders of the world; invested with
immortal bodies; presented by Christ to the Father; and admitted into
the highest felicity in the immediate presence of God for ever. These
are the elevating, the transporting views, which made the Apostle Paul
speak with so much desire and earnest expectation of the “day of
Christ.”

JUSTICE is in Scripture taken for that essential perfection in God,
whereby he is infinitely righteous and just, both in himself and in all
his proceedings with his creatures, Psalm lxxxix, 14. 2. That political
virtue which renders to every man his due; and is first, distributive,
which concerns princes, magistrates, &c, Job xxix, 14; secondly,
communicative, which concerns all persons in their dealings one with
another, Gen. xviii, 19.

JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION OF. According to the Mosaic law, there were to
be judges in all the cities, whose duty it was likewise to exercise
judicial authority in the neighbouring villages; but weighty causes and
appeals went up to the supreme judge or ruler of the commonwealth, and,
in case of a failure here, to the high priest, Deut. xvii, 8, 9. In the
time of the monarchy, weighty causes and appeals went up, of course, to
the king, who, in very difficult cases, seems to have consulted the high
priest, as is customary at the present day among the Persians and
Ottomans. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the
captivity, and two classes of judges, the inferior and superior, were
appointed, Ezra vii, 25. The more difficult cases, nevertheless, and
appeals, were either brought before the ruler of the state, called פחה,
or before the high priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a
supreme, judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned
under Hyrcanus II. This tribunal is not to be confounded with the
seventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil
administration of the government, but who never filled the office of
judges. See SANHEDRIM.

Josephus states, that in every city there was a tribunal of seven
judges, with two Levites as apparitors, and that it was a Mosaic
institution. That there existed such an institution in his time, there
is no reason to doubt, but he probably erred in referring its origin to
so early a period as the days of Moses. (See _Judges_.) This tribunal,
which decided causes of less moment, is denominated in the New Testament
κρίσις, or _the judgment_, Matt. v, 22. The Talmudists mention a
tribunal of twenty-three judges, and another of three judges; but
Josephus is silent in respect to them. The courts of twenty-three judges
were the same with the synagogue tribunals, mentioned in John xvi, 2;
which merely tried questions of a religious nature, and sentenced to no
other punishment than “forty stripes save one,” 2 Cor. xi, 24. The court
of three judges was merely a session of referees, which was allowed to
the Jews by the Roman laws; for the Talmudists themselves, in describing
this court, go on to observe, that one judge was chosen by the accuser,
another by the accused, and a third by the two parties conjunctly; which
shows at once the nature of the tribunal.

The time at which courts were held, and causes were brought before them
for trial, was in the morning, Jer. xxi, 12; Psalm ci, 8. According to
the Talmudists, it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in
the night; and it was equally unlawful to examine a cause, pass
sentence, and put it in execution on the same day. The last particular
was very strenuously insisted on. It is worthy of remark, that all of
these practices, which were observed in other trials, were neglected in
the tumultuous trial of Jesus, Matt. xxvi, 57; John xviii, 13–18. The
places for judicial trials were in very ancient times the gates of
cities, which were well adapted to this purpose. (See _Gates_.)
Originally, trials were every where very summary, excepting in Egypt;
where the accuser committed the charge to writing, the accused replied
in writing, the accuser repeated the charge, and the accused answered
again, &c, Job xiv, 17. It was customary in Egypt for the judge to have
the code of laws placed before him, a practice which still prevails in
the east. Moses interdicted, in the most express and decided manner,
gifts or bribes, which were intended to corrupt the judges, Exod. xxii,
20, 21; xxiii, 1–9; Lev. xix, 15; Deut. xxiv, 14, 15. Moses also, by
legal precautions, prevented capital punishments, and corporal
punishments which were not capital, from being extended, as was done in
other nations, both to parents and their children, and thus involving
the innocent and the guilty in that misery which was justly due only to
the latter, Exod. xxiii, 7; Deut. xxiv, 16; Dan. vi, 24.

The ceremonies which were observed in conducting a judicial trial, were
as follows: 1. The accuser and the accused both made their appearance
before the judge or judges, Deut. xxv, 1, who sat with legs crossed upon
the floor, which was furnished for their accommodation with carpet and
cushions. A secretary was present, at least in more modern times, who
wrote down the sentence, and, indeed, every thing in relation to the
trial; for instance, the articles of agreement that might be entered
into previous to the commencement of the judicial proceedings, Isaiah x,
1, 2; Jer. xxxii, 1–14. The Jews assert that there were two secretaries,
the one being seated to the right of the judge, who wrote the sentence
of not guilty, the other to the left, who wrote the sentence of
condemnation, Matt. xxv, 33–46. That an apparitor or beadle was present,
is apparent from other sources. 2. The accuser was denominated in Hebrew
שטן, or _the adversary_, Zech. iii, 1–3; Psalm cix, 6. The judge or
judges were seated, but both of the parties implicated stood up, the
accuser standing to the right hand of the accused: the latter, at least
after the captivity, when the cause was one of great consequence,
appeared with hair dishevelled, and in a garment of mourning. 3. The
witnesses were sworn, and, in capital cases, the parties concerned, 1
Sam. xiv, 37–40; Matt. xxvi, 63. In order to establish the charges
alleged, two witnesses were necessary, and, including the accuser,
three. The witnesses were examined separately, but the person accused
had the liberty to be present when their testimony was given in, Num.
xxxv, 30; Deut. xvii, 1–15; Matt. xxvi, 59. Proofs might be brought from
other sources; for instance, from written contracts, or from papers in
evidence of any thing purchased or sold, of which there were commonly
taken two copies, the one to be sealed, the other to be left open, as
was customary in the time of Jerom, Jer. xxxii, 10–13. 4. The parties
sometimes, as may be inferred from Prov. xviii, 18, made use of the lot
in determining the points of difficulty between them, but not without a
mutual agreement. The sacred lot of Urim and Thummim was anciently
resorted to, in order to detect the guilty, Joshua vii, 14–24; 1 Sam.
xiv; but the determination of a case of right or wrong in this way was
not commanded by Moses. 5. The sentence, very soon after the completion
of the examination, was pronounced; and the criminal, without any delay,
even if the offence were a capital one, was hastened away to the place
of punishment, Joshua vii, 22, &c; 1 Sam. xxii, 18; 1 Kings ii, 23.

A few additional remarks will cast some light upon some passages of
Scripture: the station of the accused was in an eminent place in the
court, that the people might see them, and hear what was alleged against
them, and the proofs of it, together with the defence made by the
criminals. This explains the reason of the remark by the Evangelist
Matthew, concerning the posture of our Lord at his trial: “Jesus stood
before the governor;” and that, in a mock trial, many ages before the
birth of Christ, in which some attention was also paid to public forms,
Naboth was set on high among the people, 1 Kings xxi, 9. The accusers
and the witnesses also stood, unless they were allowed to sit by the
indulgence of the judges, when they stated the accusation, or gave their
testimony. To this custom of the accusers rising from their seats, when
called by the court to read the indictment, our Lord alludes in his
answer to the scribes and Pharisees, who expressed a wish to see him
perform some miracle: “The queen of the south shall rise up in the
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it,” Matt. xii, 42.
According to this rule, which seems to have been invariably observed,
the Jews who accused the Apostle Paul at the bar of Festus the Roman
governor, “stood round about,” while they stated the crimes which they
had to lay to his charge, Acts xxv, 7. They were compelled to stand as
well as the prisoner, by the established usage of the courts of justice
in the east. The Romans often put criminals to the question, or
endeavoured to extort a confession from them by torture. Agreeably to
this cruel and unjust custom, “the chief captain commanded Paul to be
brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by
scourging,” Acts xxii, 24. It was usual, especially among the Romans,
when a man was charged with a capital crime, and during his arraignment,
to let down his hair, suffer his beard to grow long, to wear filthy,
ragged garments, and appear in a very dirty and sordid habit; on account
of which they were called _sordidati_. When the person accused was
brought into court to be tried, even his near relations, friends, and
acquaintances, before the court voted, appeared with dishevelled hair,
and clothed with garments foul and out of fashion, weeping, crying, and
deprecating punishment. The accused sometimes appeared before the judges
clothed in black, and his head covered with dust. In allusion to this
ancient custom, the Prophet Zechariah represents Joshua, the high
priest, when he appeared before the Lord, and Satan stood at his right
hand to accuse him, as clothed with filthy garments, Zech. iii, 3. After
the cause was carefully examined, and all parties impartially heard, the
public crier, by command of the presiding magistrate, ordered the judges
to bring in their verdict. The most ancient way of giving sentence, was
by white and black sea shells, or pebbles. This custom has been
mentioned by Ovid in these lines:--

             _Mos erat antiquis, niveis atrisque lapillis,
             His damnare reos, illis absolvere culpa._

“It was a custom among the ancients, to give their votes by white or
black stones; with these they condemned the guilty, with those acquitted
the innocent.” In allusion to this ancient custom, our Lord promises to
give the spiritual conqueror “a white stone,” Rev. ii, 17; the white
stone of absolution or approbation. When sentence of condemnation was
pronounced, if the case was capital, the witnesses put their hands on
the head of the criminal, and said, “Thy blood be upon thine own head.”
To this custom the Jews alluded, when they cried out at the trial of
Christ, “His blood be on us and on our children.” Then was the
malefactor led to execution, and none were allowed openly to lament his
misfortune. His hands were secured with cords, and his feet with
fetters; a custom which furnished David with an affecting allusion, in
his lamentation over the dust of Abner: “Thy hands were not bound, nor
thy feet put in fetters,” 2 Sam. iii, 34; that is, he was put
treacherously to death, without form of justice.

2. Executions in the east are often very prompt and arbitrary, when
resulting from royal authority. In many cases the suspicion is no sooner
entertained, or the cause of offence given, than the fatal order is
issued; the messenger of death hurries to the unsuspecting victim, shows
his warrant, and executes his orders that instant in silence and
solitude. Instances of this kind are continually occurring in the
Turkish and Persian histories. When the enemies of a great man among the
Turks have gained influence enough over the prince to procure a warrant
for his death, a _capidgi_, the name of the officer who executes these
orders, is sent to him, who shows him the order he has received to carry
back his head; the other takes the warrant of the grand signior, kisses
it, puts it on his head in token of respect, and then, having performed
his ablutions and said his prayers, freely resigns his life. The
_capidgi_, having strangled him, cuts off his head, and brings it to
Constantinople. The grand signior’s order is implicitly obeyed; the
servants of the victim never attempt to hinder the executioner, although
these _capidgis_ come very often with few or no attendants. It appears
from the writings of Chardin, that the nobility and grandees of Persia
are put to death in a manner equally silent, hasty, and unobstructed.
Such executions were not uncommon among the Jews under the government of
their kings. Solomon sent Benaiah as his _capidgi_, or executioner, to
put Adonijah, a prince of his own family, to death; and Joab, the
commander-in-chief of the forces in the reign of his father. A _capidgi_
likewise beheaded John the Baptist in prison, and carried his head to
the court of Herod. To such silent and hasty executioners the royal
preacher seems to refer in that proverb, “The wrath of a king is as
messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it,” Prov. xvi, 14: his
displeasure exposes the unhappy offender to immediate death, and may
fill the unsuspecting bosom with terror and dismay, like the appearance
of a _capidgi_; but by wise and prudent conduct a man may sometimes
escape the danger. From the dreadful promptitude with which Benaiah
executed the commands of Solomon on Adonijah and Joab, it may be
concluded that the executioner of the court was as little ceremonious,
and the ancient Jews, under their kings, nearly as passive, as the Turks
or Persians. The Prophet Elisha is the only person on the inspired
record who ventured to resist the bloody mandate of the sovereign; the
incident is recorded in these terms: “But Elisha sat in his house, and
the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him; but
ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See how this son
of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? Look ye, when the
messenger cometh, shut the door and hold him fast at the door; is not
the sound of his master’s feet behind him?” 2 Kings vi, 32. But if such
mandates had not been too common among the Jews, and in general
submitted to without resistance, Jehoram had scarcely ventured to
despatch a single messenger to take away the life of so eminent a person
as Elisha.

Criminals were at other times executed in public; and then commonly
without the city. To such executions without the gate, the Psalmist
undoubtedly refers in this complaint: “The dead bodies of thy saints
have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven; the flesh of
thy saints unto the beasts of the earth; their blood have they shed like
water round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them,” Psalm
lxxix, 2, 3. The last clause admits of two senses: 1. There was no
friend or relation left to bury them. 2. None were allowed to perform
this last office. The despotism of eastern princes often proceeds to a
degree of extravagance which is apt to fill the mind with astonishment
and horror. It has been thought, from time immemorial, highly criminal
to bury those who had lost their lives by the hand of an executioner,
without permission. In Morocco, no person dares to bury the body of a
malefactor without an order from the emperor; and Windus, who visited
that country, speaking of a man who was sawn in two, informs us, that
his body must have remained to be eaten by the dogs if the emperor had
not pardoned him; an extravagant custom to pardon a man after he is
dead; but unless he does so, no person dares bury the body. To such a
degree of savage barbarity it is probable the enemies of God’s people
carried their opposition, that no person dared to bury the dead bodies
of their innocent victims.

In ancient times, persons of the highest rank and station were employed
to execute the sentence of the law. They had not then, as we have at
present, public executioners; but the prince laid his commands on any of
his courtiers whom he chose, and probably selected the person for whom
he had the greatest favour. Gideon commanded Jether, his eldest son, to
execute his sentence on the kings of Midian; the king of Israel ordered
the footmen who stood around him, and who were probably a chosen body of
soldiers for the defence of his person, to put to death the priests of
the Lord; and when they refused, Doeg, an Edomite, one of his principal
officers. Long after the days of Saul, the reigning monarch commanded
Benaiah, the chief captain of his armies, to perform that duty.
Sometimes the chief magistrate executed the sentence of the law with his
own hands; for when Jether shrunk from the duty which his father
required, Gideon, at that time the supreme magistrate in Israel, did not
hesitate to do it himself. In these times such a command would be
reckoned equally barbarous and unbecoming; but the ideas which were
entertained in those primitive ages of honour and propriety, were in
many respects extremely different from ours. In Homer, the exasperated
Ulysses commanded his son Telemachus to put to death the suitors of
Penelope, which was immediately done. The custom of employing persons of
high rank to execute the sentence of the law, is still retained in the
principality of Senaar, where the public executioner is one of the
principal nobility; and, by virtue of his office, resides in the royal
palace.

JUSTIFICATION, in common language, signifies a vindication from any
charge which affects the moral character; but in theology it is used for
the acceptance of one, by God, who is, and confesses himself to be,
guilty. To justify a sinner, says Mr. Bunting, in an able sermon on this
important subject, is to account and consider him relatively righteous;
and to deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past actual
unrighteousness, by clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him
from various penal evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the
liability to eternal death, which, by that past unrighteousness, he had
deserved; and by accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the
state, the privileges, and the rewards of righteousness. Hence it
appears that justification, and the remission or forgiveness of sin, are
substantially the same thing. These expressions relate to one and the
same act of God, to one and the same privilege of his believing people.
Accordingly, St. Paul clearly uses justification and forgiveness as
synonymous terms, when he says, “Be it known unto you, therefore, men
and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness
of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts xiii, 38, 39.
Also in the following passage: “To him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed
is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin,” Rom. iv, 5–8. Here,
the justification of the ungodly, the counting or imputation of
righteousness, the forgiveness of iniquity, and the covering and
non-imputation of sin, are phrases which have all, perhaps, their
various shades of meaning, but which express the very same blessing
under different views. But (1.) the justification of a sinner does not
in the least degree alter or diminish the evil nature and desert of sin.
For we know “it is God,” the holy God, “that justifieth.” And he can
never regard sin, on any consideration, or under any circumstances, with
less than perfect and infinite hatred. Sin, therefore, is not changed in
its nature, so as to be made less “exceedingly sinful,” or less worthy
of wrath, by the pardon of the sinner. The penalty is remitted, and the
obligation to suffer that penalty is dissolved; but it is still
naturally due, though graciously remitted. Hence appear the propriety
and duty of continuing to confess and lament even pardoned sin with a
lowly and contrite heart. Though released from its penal consequences by
an act of divine clemency, we should still remember that the dust of
self-abasement is our proper place before God, and should temper our
exultation in his mercy by an humbling recollection of our natural
liability to his wrath. “I will establish my covenant with thee, and
thou shalt know that I am the Lord: that thou mayest remember, and be
confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when
I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord
God,” Ezek. xvi, 62, 63. (2.) The account which has been given of
justification, if correct, sufficiently points out the error of many of
the Roman Catholic divines, and of some mystic theologians, who seem to
suppose that to be justified is to be, not reckoned righteous, but
actually made righteous, by the infusion of a sanctifying influence,
producing a positive and inherent conformity to the moral image of God.
This notion confounds the two distinct though kindred blessings of
justification and regeneration. The former, in its Scriptural sense, is
an act of God, not in or upon man, but for him, and in his favour; an
act which, abstractedly considered, to use the words of Dr. Barrow,
“respects man only as its object, and translates him into another
relative state. The inherent principle of righteousness is a consequent
of this act of God; connected with it, but not formally of it.” (3.) The
justification extends to all past sins; that is, to all guilt contracted
previously to that time at which the act of justification takes place.
In respect of this, it is, while it remains in force, a most full,
perfect, and entire absolution from wrath. “All manner of sin” is then
forgiven. The pardon which is granted is a “justification,” not merely
from some things, from many things, from most things, but “from all
things,” Acts xiii, 39. God does not justify us, or pardon our
innumerable offences, by degrees, but at once. As by the law of works he
is cursed, who “continueth not in all things” which that law enjoined,
so he who is truly absolved by the Gospel is cleared from all and every
thing which before stood against him; and “there is no condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus.” Well may that Gospel which reveals and
offers such a benefit be termed a “great salvation!” (4.) Another
remark, which it may not be unnecessary to make, is, that justification,
however effectual to our release from past guilt, does not terminate our
state of probation. It is not irreversible, any more than eternal. As he
who is now justified was once condemned, so he may in future come again
into condemnation, by relapsing into sin and unbelief, although at
present “accepted in the Beloved.” Thus Adam, before transgression, was
in a state of favour; but as he had not then fulfilled, to the end of
his probation, the righteousness of that law under which he was placed,
his ultimate and final acceptance was not absolutely certain. His
privilege, as one accepted of God, might be forfeited, and was actually
forfeited, by his subsequent sin. Now our own justification or pardon
only places us, as to this point, in similar circumstances. Though ever
so clearly and fully forgiven, we are yet on our trial for eternity, and
should “look to ourselves, that we lose not the things which we have
gained.” That justification may for our sin be reversed, appears from
our Lord’s parable of the two debtors, in which one who had obtained the
blessing of forgiveness is represented as incurring the forfeiture of it
by the indulgence of an unforgiving spirit toward his fellow servant,
Matt. xviii, 23–35. Let us therefore “watch and pray, that we enter not
into temptation.”

2. The immediate results of justification are (1.) The restoration of
amity and intercourse between the pardoned sinner and the pardoning God.
For, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” and,
consequently, unforbidden access to him. The matter and ground of God’s
controversy with us being then removed by his act of gracious
absolution, we become the objects of his friendship. “Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and he was”
immediately “called the friend of God,” Jas. ii, 23; and so are all
those who are similarly justified. This reconciliation, however, does
not extend to their instant and absolute deliverance from all those
evils which transgression has entailed on man. They are still liable,
for a season, to affliction and pain, to temporal suffering and
mortality. These are portions of the original curse from which their
justification does not as yet release them. But it entitles them to such
supports under all remaining trouble, and to such promises of a
sanctifying influence with it, as will, if embraced, “turn the curse
into a blessing.” Whom the Lord loveth, he may still chasten, and in
very faithfulness afflict them. But these are acts of salutary
discipline, rather than of vindictive displeasure. His friendship, not
his righteous hostility, is the principle from which they all proceed;
and the salvation, not the destruction, of the sufferer is the end to
which they are all directed. (2.) Another immediate result of
justification is the adoption of the persons justified into the family
of God, and their consequent right to eternal life of body and soul. God
condescends to become not only their Friend, but their Father; they are
the objects not merely of his amicable regard, but of his paternal
tenderness. And, admitted to the relation of children, they become
entitled to the children’s inheritance; for, “if children, then heirs;
heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with
him, that we may be also glorified together,” Rom. viii, 17. (3.) With
these results of justification is inseparably connected another, of the
utmost value and importance; namely, _the habitual indwelling of the
Holy Spirit_. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the
Spirit through faith,” Gal. iii, 13, 14. “Because ye are sons, God hath
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,” Gal. iv, 6. With the
remission of sins, St. Peter also connects, as an immediate result, as a
distinct but yet a simultaneous blessing, “the gift of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts ii, 38. And in the fifth verse of this chapter, the Holy Ghost is
said to be given to those who are justified by faith. Of this indwelling
the immediate effects are, (i.) _Tranquillity of conscience_. For he
testifies and manifests to those in whom he dwells their free
justification and gracious adoption. The spirit which such persons have
received is “not the spirit of bondage to fear, but the Spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth
witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,” Rom. viii, 15,
16. (ii.) _Power over sin_; a prevailing desire and ability to walk
before God in holy obedience. No sooner is the Holy Spirit enthroned in
the heart, than he begins to make all things new. In his genuine work,
purity is always connected with consolation. Those to whom he witnesses
their freedom from condemnation he also enables to “walk, not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit,” Rom. viii, 1. (iii.) _A joyous hope of
heaven._ Their title results from the fact of their adoption; their
power to rejoice in hope, from the Spirit’s testimony of that fact. “We,
through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith,” and
“abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost,” Gal. v, 5; Rom.
xv, 13.

3. To have a complete view of the method by which justification and all
its consequent blessings are attained, we must consider the originating,
the meritorious, and the instrumental cause of justification. (1.) The
originating cause is the grace, the free, undeserved, and spontaneous
love of God toward fallen man. He remembered and pitied us in our low
estate; for his mercy endureth for ever. “After that the kindness and
love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us. The grace of God bringeth salvation,” Titus ii, 11; iii, 4, 5. We
are “justified freely by his grace,” Rom. iii, 24. But God is wise, and
holy, and just, as well as merciful and gracious. And his wisdom
determined, that, in order to reconcile the designs of his mercy toward
sinners with the claims of his purity and justice, those designs should
be accomplished only through the intervention of a divine Redeemer. We
are justified “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom. i, 5. (2.) Our Lord
Jesus Christ is the sole meritorious cause of our justification. All he
did and all he suffered in his mediatorial character may be said to have
contributed to this great purpose. For what he did, in obedience to the
precepts of the law, and what he suffered, in satisfaction of its
penalty, taken together, constitute that mediatorial righteousness, for
the sake of which the Father is ever well pleased in him. Now, in this
mediatorial righteousness all who are justified have a saving interest.
It is not meant that it is personally imputed to them in its formal
nature or distinct acts; for against any such imputation there lie
insuperable objections both from reason and from Scripture. But the
collective merit and moral effects of all which the Mediator did and
suffered are so reckoned to our account when we are justified, that, for
the sake of Christ and in consideration of his obedience unto death, we
are released from guilt, and accepted of God. From this statement of the
meritorious cause of justification, it appears that while our pardon is,
in its origin, an act of the highest grace, it is also, in its mode, an
act most perfectly consistent with God’s essential righteousness, and
demonstrative of his inviolable justice. It proceeds not on the
principle of abolishing the law or its penalty; for that would have
implied that the law was unduly rigorous, either in its precepts or in
its sanctions. But it rests on the ground that the law has been
magnified and vindicated, and that its penalty, or sufferings, which
were fully equivalent to that penalty in a moral view, when the dignity
of the sufferer is considered, have been sustained by our voluntary
Substitute. Thus “grace reigns through righteousness,” not at the
expense of righteousness. “Now, the righteousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon
all them that believe: being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” Romans iii,
21–26. (3.) As to the instrumental cause of justification, the merit of
the blood of Jesus does not operate necessarily so as to produce our
pardon as an immediate and unavoidable effect, but through the
instrumentality of faith. The faith by which we are justified is present
faith, faith actually existing and exercised. We are not justified by
to-morrow’s faith foreseen; for that would lead to the Antinomian notion
of justification from eternity, a notion which to mention is to confute.
We are not justified by yesterday’s faith recorded or remembered; for
that would imply the opinion that justification is irreversible. The
justification offered in the Scriptures is a justification upon
believing, in which we are never savingly interested until we believe,
and which continues in force only so long as we continue to believe. On
all unbelievers the wrath of God abides. The atonement of Jesus was
indeed accepted, as from him, at the time when it was offered; but it is
not accepted, as for us, to our individual justification, until we
individually believe, nor after we cease to believe. The OBJECT of
justifying faith may be inferred from what has been before said, as to
the originating and meritorious causes of justification. It has respect,
in general, to all that Christ is set forth in the Gospel as doing or
suffering, by the gracious appointment of the Father, in order to our
redemption and pardon. But it has respect, in particular, to the atoning
sacrifice of Christ, as exhibited by divine authority in the Scriptures,
and as attested to be acceptable and sufficient by his resurrection from
the dead, and by his mediatorial exaltation at the right hand of God.
The acts or exercises of this faith seem to be three; or rather, that
faith which is required in order to our justification is a complex act
of the mind, which includes three distinct but concurrent exertions of
its powers. It includes, (1.) The assent of the understanding to the
truth of the testimony of God in the Gospel; and especially to that part
of it which concerns the design and efficacy of the death of Jesus as a
sacrifice for sin. (2.) The consent of the will and affections to this
plan of salvation; such an approbation and choice of it as imply a
renunciation of every other refuge, and a steady and decided preference
of this. Unbelief is called a disallowing of the foundation laid in
Zion; whereas faith includes a hearty allowance of it, and a thankful
acquiescence in God’s revealed method of forgiveness. (3.) From this
assent of the enlightened understanding, and consent of the rectified
will, to the evangelical testimony concerning Christ crucified, results
the third thing, which is supposed to be implied in justifying faith;
namely, actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of his
merits. When, under the promised leading and influence of the Holy
Ghost, the penitent, sinner thus confidently relies and individually
lays hold on Christ, then the work of justifying faith is complete;
then, and not till then, he is immediately justified. On the whole, it
may be said that the faith to which the privilege of justification is
annexed, is such a belief of the Gospel, by the power of the Spirit of
God, as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in
Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble
confidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.

The grand doctrine of the Reformation was that of justification by
faith, and was therefore held by all the Lutheran and Reformed churches.
The Papists assert that man’s inherent righteousness is the meritorious
cause of his justification; many Protestant divines have endeavoured to
unite the two, and have held that men are justified by faith and good
works; and others have equally departed from the opinions of the
earliest reformers on the subject of justification, in representing it
as resulting from the imputation of Christ’s active and passive
righteousness to those that believe, instead of confining the imputation
to the moral consequence and effect of both. In other words, that which
is reckoned to us in our justification for righteousness is our faith in
Christ’s merits, and that not because of any intrinsic value in faith;
but only for the sake of those merits. In a mere moral sense man’s sin
or righteousness is imputed to him, when he is considered as actually
the doer of sinful or of righteous acts. A man’s sin or righteousness is
imputed to him in its _legal consequence_, under a government of rewards
and punishments; and then to impute sin or righteousness signifies, in a
legal sense, to reckon and to account it, to acquit or condemn, and
forthwith to punish, or to exempt from punishment. Thus Shimei entreats
David, that he would “not impute folly to him,” that is, that he would
not punish his folly. In this sense, too, David speaks of the
blessedness of the man whose “transgression is forgiven,” and to whom
the Lord “imputeth not sin,” that is, whom he forgives, so that the
legal consequence of his sin shall not fall upon him. This
non-imputation of sin, to a sinner, is expressly called the “imputation
of righteousness, without works;” the imputation of righteousness is,
then, the non-punishment, or the pardon of sin; and if this passage be
read in its connection, it will also be seen, that by “imputing” faith
for righteousness, the Apostle means precisely the same thing: “But to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness; even as David also describeth
the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying,
Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin.” This
quotation from David would have been nothing to the Apostle’s purpose,
unless he had understood the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of
righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same thing
as “counting faith for righteousness,” with only this difference, that
the introduction of the term “faith” marks the _manner_ in which the
forgiveness of sin is obtained. To have faith imputed for righteousness,
is nothing more than to be justified by faith, which is also called by
St. Paul, “being made righteous,” that is, being placed by an act of
free forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the condition of righteous
men, in this respect, that the penalty of the law does not lie against
them, and that they are the acknowledged objects of the divine favour.
See FAITH.


KADESH-BARNEA, a station of the Israelites, to which they returned again
after thirty-eight years, is said to be in the wilderness of Zin, Num.
xiii, 21; xx, 1; Deut. xxxii, 51; but in the wilderness of Paran, Num.
xii, 16. In the Itinerary it is simply called Rithmah, “the wilderness.”
Dr. Hales observes, that Wells, Shaw, the authors of the “Universal
History,” &c, have greatly perplexed and obscured the geography of this
Itinerary, by supposing that there were two places of this name distinct
from each other. They consider the latter of them as situated on the
western side of Mount Hor, toward the land of Canaan, and thus confound
it with that Kadesh in the land of the Philistines, where Abraham
sojourned, Gen. xvi, 13; xx, 1. But that it lay on the east side of
Mount Hor, is evident; for why should Moses send messengers from Kadesh
to the king of Edom, requesting permission to pass through his
territories in the way to Canaan, if they were already at the verge of
Palestine, Num. xx, 14? This application, however, was necessary if his
territories were situated between Canaan and the Israelites. The true
situation of Kadesh is ascertained beyond a doubt, from its lying
between Mount Hor and Ezion-Geber, on the Elanitic Gulf, Num. xxxiii,
35–37.

KADMONITES, ancient inhabitants of the land of Canaan, whose habitation
was beyond Jordan, to the east of Phenicia, Gen. xv, 19. The Kadmonites
were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham. It has been conjectured that
the celebrated Cadmus, the founder of Thebes in Bœotia, was
originally a Kadmonite; and that his wife, Hermione, was so named from
Mount Hermon.

KEDAR. This name signifies _black_ in the original; and hence Bochart
concludes that it refers to a people or tribe of Arabs who were more
than others burned by the sun; but none of the Arabs are black. The name
is also supposed to refer to the black tents made of felt, which are
still in use; and Cant. i, 5, is quoted in support of this usage of the
word: “I am black, but comely as the tents of Kedar.” But the Arabic
root is by some said to signify power and dignity. Kedar was the second
son of Ishmael, whose family probably became more numerous, or more
warlike, than those of his brethren, and so took precedence of name.
This latter supposition appears probable from the manner in which they
are mentioned by Isaiah, xxi, 16, 17, who speaks of “the glory of
Kedar,” and “the archers and mighty men of Kedar.” Their flocks are also
spoken of by the same Prophet, Isaiah lx, 7, together with those of
Nebaioth, whose tribe or family both shared and outlived the glory of
Kedar.

KEDRON, a small brook which, rising near Jerusalem, runs through the
valley on the east of the city, between it and the Mount of Olives.
Descending into the valley from St. Stephen’s gate, the traveller comes
to the bed of the brook Kedron, which is but a few paces over. This
brook is stated by Pococke to have its rise a little way farther to the
north, but its source does not appear to have been ascertained. Like the
Ilissus, it is dry at least nine months in the year; its bed is narrow
and deep, which indicates that it must formerly have been the channel
for waters that have found some other and probably subterranean course.
There is now no water in it, except after heavy rains. A bridge is
thrown over it a little below the gate of St. Stephen; and they say,
that when there is water, unless the torrent swells much, which very
rarely occurs, it all runs under ground to the north of this bridge. The
course of the brook is along the valley of Jehoshaphat, to the
south-west corner of the city, and then turning to the south, it runs to
the Dead Sea.

KENITES, people who dwelt westward of the Dead Sea, and extended
themselves pretty far into Arabia Petræa; for Jethro, the priest of
Midian, and father-in-law to Moses, was a Kenite, Judges i, 16; 1 Chron.
ii, 55; 1 Sam. xv, 6. When Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites, the
Kenites, who had joined them, perhaps by compulsion, were ordered to
depart from them, that they might not share in their fate; and the
reason assigned was, that they “showed kindness to the children of
Israel when they came up out of Egypt,” 1 Sam. xv, 6. Which, according
to the margin of our Bible, is to be understood of the father-in-law of
Moses and his family. From the story of Jethro, who is expressly said to
be a Midianite, they appear to have retained the worship of the true God
among them; for which, and their kindness to the Israelites when passing
their country, they were spared in the general destruction of the
nations bordering on Canaan. Of these Kenites were the Rechabites, the
Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Suchathites, mentioned in 1 Chron.
ii, 55, whose chief office was that of scribes. (See _Rechabites_.)
Balaam, when invited by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel, stood upon
a mountain, whence he addressed the Kenites, and said, “Strong is thy
dwelling place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock; nevertheless, the
Kenite shall be wasted until Ashur shall carry thee away captive,” Num.
xxiv, 21, 22. The Kenites dwelt in mountains and rocks almost
inaccessible. They were conquered and carried into captivity by
Nebuchadnezzar. After Saul the Kenites are not mentioned; but they
subsisted, being mingled among the Edomites and other nations of Arabia
Petræa.

KENIZZITES, an ancient people of Canaan, whose land God promised to the
descendants of Abraham, Gen. xv, 19. It is thought that this people
dwelt in the mountains south of Judea.

KETURAH, the name of Abraham’s second wife. Abraham married Keturah,
when he was one hundred and forty years of age, and by her he had six
sons, Zimram, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Some
chronologers, as Bishop Clayton, Hallet, &c, thinking it improbable that
Abraham should marry again at such an advanced age, have dislocated the
chronology of this period, by supposing that Abraham took Keturah as a
concubine, in consequence of his wife Sarah’s barrenness, even before he
left Charran; and that Keturah’s children were among the souls born to
him and Lot during their residence in that country. But it seems evident
from the whole tenor of the history, that Abraham was childless until
the birth of Ishmael, Gen. xv, 2, 3; that he had no other son than
Ishmael when he received the promise of Isaac, Gen. xvii, 18; and that
Isaac and Ishmael jointly, as his eldest sons, celebrated his funeral,
Gen. xxv, 9. His second marriage, at the age of one hundred and forty
years, shows his faith in the divine promise, that he should be “a
father of many nations;” for which purpose his constitution might be
miraculously renewed, as Sarah’s was. Beside, Abraham himself was born
when his father Terah was one hundred and thirty years of age. Abraham
settled the sons of Keturah in the east country of Arabia, near the
residence of Ishmael.

KEY is frequently mentioned in Scripture, as well in a natural as in a
figurative sense. The keys of the ancients were very different from
ours; because their doors and trunks were closed generally with bands,
and the key served only to loosen or fasten these bands in a certain
manner. In a moral sense key has many significations: “And the key of
the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open, and
none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open,” Isaiah xxii,
22,--he shall be grand master and principal officer of his prince’s
house. Christ promises to St. Peter, that he should first open the gate
of his kingdom, both to Jew and Gentile, in making the first converts
among them, Matt. xvi, 19. It is observable that no supremacy is here
given to St. Peter; as the power of binding and loosing belonged equally
to all the Apostles, Matt. xviii, 18. The term binding and loosing was
customarily applied by the Jews to a decision respecting doctrines or
rites, establishing which were lawful and which unlawful. (See _Bind_.)
And it may also denote, to bind with sickness, and to loose by restoring
to health. Jesus Christ says that he has the key of death and hell, Rev.
i, 18; that is, it is in his power to bring to the grave, or to deliver
from it; to appoint to life or to death.

KIBROTH HATAAVAH, one of the encampments of the Israelites in the
wilderness, Numbers xi, 34, 35.

KID, גדי, the young of the goat. Among the Hebrews the kid was reckoned
a great delicacy; and appears to have been served for food in preference
to the lamb. (See _Goat_.) It continues to be a choice dish in the
neighbouring countries. “After drinking,” says Salt, “_café à la
Sultane_, as it is termed by French writers, hookahs were offered to us;
and soon afterward, to my great surprise, dinner was announced. We
accordingly retired with the dola of Aden to another apartment, where a
kid, broiled and cut into small pieces, with a quantity of pillaued
rice, was served up to us, agreeably to the fashion of the country. No
people in the world is more straitened than the Abyssinians with respect
to the necessaries of life: a little juwarry bread, a small quantity of
fish, an adequate supply of goat’s and camel’s milk, and a kid on very
particular occasions, constitute the whole of their subsistence. As soon
as we arrived at the village of Howakil, a very neat hut was prepared
for me; and as the evening was far advanced, I consented to stay for the
night. Nothing could exceed the kindness of these good people; a kid was
killed, and a quantity of fresh milk was brought and presented in straw
baskets made of the leaves of the doom tree, seared over with wax, a
manufacture in which the natives of these islands particularly excel.”
The village of Engedi, situate in the neighbourhood of Jericho, derives
its name from the Hebrew word עין, _a fountain_, and גדי, _a kid_. It is
suggested by the situation among lofty rocks, which, overhanging the
valleys, are very precipitous. A fountain of pure water rises near the
summit, which the inhabitants called Engedi, “the fountain of the goat,”
because it is hardly accessible to any other creature.

KINGDOM, in Scripture, is a term of frequent occurrence, and variously
applied. Thus we read of the kingdom of God, Psalm ciii, 19; Dan. iv, 3;
or his universal empire and dominion over all creatures; in reference to
which it is said, “Jehovah is a great God, and a great King above all
gods,” Psalm xcv, 3. “His throne is established in the heavens, and his
kingdom ruleth over all.” Again: we frequently read in the evangelists
of the kingdom of heaven; a phrase, says Dr. Campbell, in which there is
a manifest allusion to the predictions in which the dispensation of the
Messiah was revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly
by Daniel, who mentions it as “a kingdom which the God of heaven would
set up, and which should never be destroyed,” Dan. ii, 44. The same
prophet also speaks of it as a kingdom to be given, with glory and
dominion over all people, nations, and languages, to one like unto the
Son of man, Dan. vii, 13, 14. And the Prophet Micah, speaking of the
same era, represents it as a time when Jehovah, having removed all the
afflictions of his people, would reign over them in Mount Zion
thenceforth even for ever, Micah iv, 6, 7. According to the prophecy of
Daniel, this kingdom was to take place during the existence of the Roman
empire, the last of the four great monarchies that had succeeded each
other, Dan. ii, 44. And as it was set up by the God of heaven, it is, in
the New Testament, termed “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of
heaven.” It was typified by the Jewish theocracy, and declared to be at
hand by John the Baptist, and by Christ and his Apostles also in the
days of his flesh; but it did not come with power till Jesus rose from
the dead and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Acts ii,
32–37. Then was he most solemnly inaugurated, and proclaimed King of the
New Testament church, amidst adoring myriads of attendant angels, and
“the spirits of just men made perfect.” Then were fulfilled the words of
Jehovah by the Psalmist David, “I have set my King upon my holy hill of
Zion,” Psalm ii, 6. This is that spiritual empire to which he himself
referred when interrogated before Pontius Pilate, and in reference to
which he said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” John xviii, 36, 37.
His empire, indeed, extends to every creature; for all authority is
committed into his hands, both in heaven and on earth,” and he is head
over all things to the church;” but his kingdom primarily imports the
Gospel church, which is the subject of his laws, the seat of his
government, and the object of his care; and, being surrounded with
powerful opposers, he is represented as ruling in the midst of his
enemies. This kingdom is not of a worldly origin, or nature, nor has it
this world for its end or object. It can neither be promoted nor
defended by worldly power, influence, or carnal weapons, but by bearing
witness unto the truth, or by the preaching of the Gospel with the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven. Its real subjects are only those who are of
the truth, and hear Christ’s voice; for none can enter it but such as
are born from above, John iii, 3–5; nor can any be visible subjects of
it, but such as appear to be regenerated, by a credible profession of
faith and obedience. Its privileges and immunities are not of this
world, but such as are spiritual and heavenly; they are all spiritual
blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus, Ephesians i, 3.

KINGS. This word does not always imply the same degree of power, nor the
same degree of importance; nor does it imply the magnitude of the
dominion or territory of these officers. In Scripture many persons are
called kings, whom we should rather denominate chiefs or leaders; and
many single towns, or, at most, together with their adjacent villages,
are said to have had kings. Not aware of this lower sense of the word
king, or unwilling to adopt it, many persons have been embarrassed by
the following passage: Moses commanded us a law,--he was king in
Jeshurun,” Deut. xxxiii, 4, 5, or king among the Israelites; that is, he
was the principal among the assembly of the superiors of the Israelites.
Some refer this to Jehovah. Moses was the chief, the leader, the guide
of his people, fulfilling the duties of a king; but he was not king in
the same sense as David or Solomon was afterward. This remark reconciles
the following observation: These kings reigned in Edom, before there
reigned any king over the children of Israel,” Gen. xxxvi, 31; for
Moses, though he was king in an inferior sense, did not reign, in the
stronger sense, over the children of Israel, their constitution not
being monarchical under him. Beside, we find in Joshua, that almost
every town in Canaan had its king; and we know that the territories of
these towns must have been very inconsiderable, Joshua xii, 9–24.
Adonizedek, himself no very powerful king, mentions seventy kings whom
he had subdued and mutilated.

[Illustration:

  MAP OF
  JUDAH AND ISRAEL.
  Illustrating the
  BOOKS OF KINGS.
]

KINGS, BOOKS OF. The first book of Kings commences with an account of
the death of David, and contains a period of a hundred and twenty-six
years, to the death of Jehoshaphat; and the second book of Kings
continues the history of the kings of Israel and Judah through a period
of three hundred years, to the destruction of the city and temple of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. These two books formed only one in the
Hebrew canon, and they were probably compiled by Ezra from the records
which were regularly kept, both in Jerusalem and Samaria, of all public
transactions. These records appear to have been made by the contemporary
prophets, and frequently derived their names from the kings whose
history they contained. They are mentioned in many parts of Scripture;
thus 1 Kings xi, 41, we read of the book of the Acts of Solomon, which
is supposed to have been written by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, 2 Chron.
ix, 29. We elsewhere read that Shemaiah the prophet, and Iddo the seer,
wrote the Acts of Rehoboam, 2 Chron. xii, 15; that Jehu wrote the Acts
of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xx, 34; and Isaiah those of Uzziah and
Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxvi, 22; xxxii, 32. We may therefore conclude, that
from these public records, and other authentic documents, were composed
the two books of Kings; and the uniformity of their style favours the
opinion of their being put into their present shape by the same person.

KISHON. That ancient river, the river Kishon,” falls into the bay of
Acre, and has its source in the hills to the east of the plain of
Esdraelon, which it intersects. Being enlarged by several small streams,
it passes between Mount Carmel and the hills to the north, and then
falls into the sea at this point. In the condition we saw it, says
Maundrell, its waters were low and inconsiderable; but in passing along
the side of the plain, we discerned the tracts of many lesser torrents,
falling down into it from the mountains, which must needs make it swell
exceedingly upon sudden rains, as doubtless it actually did at the
destruction of Sisera’s host.

KISS, a mode of salutation, and token of respect, which has been
practised in all nations. It was also in ordinary use among the Jews;
hence Judas in this way saluted his Master. But there was also the kiss
of homage, as one of the ceremonies performed at the inauguration of the
kings of Israel. The Jews called it the kiss of majesty. Psalm ii, 12,
seems to be an allusion to this. St. Paul speaks frequently of the kiss
of peace, which was in use among believers, and was given by them to one
another as a token of charity and union, publicly in their religious
assemblies, Heb. xiii, 24. Kissing the feet is in eastern countries
expressive of exuberant gratitude or reverence.

KITE, איה, Lev. xi, 14; Deut. xiv, 13; Job xxviii, 7. Bochart supposes
this to be the bird which the Arabians call the _ja-jao_, from its note;
and which the ancients named _æsalon_, the merlin,” a bird celebrated
for its sharp-sightedness. This faculty is referred to in Job xxviii, 7,
where the word is rendered vulture.” As a noun masculine plural, איים,
in Isaiah xiii, 22; xxxiv, 14; and Jer. 1, 39, Bochart says that jackals
are intended; but, by the several contexts, particularly the last, it
may well mean a kind of unclean bird, and so be the same with that
mentioned above.

KOHATH, the second son of Levi, and father of Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and
Uzziel, Gen. xlvi, 11; Exod. vi, 18. Kohath’s family was appointed to
carry the ark and sacred vessels of the tabernacle, while the Israelites
marched through the wilderness, Num. iv, &c.

KORAH was the son of Izhar, of the race of Levi, and father of Asher,
Elkanah, and Aliasaph, and head of the Korites, a celebrated family
among the Levites. Korah, being dissatisfied with the rank he held among
the sons of Levi, and envying the authority of Moses and Aaron, formed a
party against them, in which he engaged Dathan, Abiram, and On, with two
hundred and fifty of the principal Levites, Num. xvi, 1–3, &c. Korah, at
the head of the rebels, went to Moses and Aaron, and complained that
they alone arrogated to themselves all the authority over the people of
the Lord. Moses falling with his face on the earth, answered them as
follows: Tomorrow, in the morning, the Lord will discover who are his.
Let every one of you take, therefore, his censer, and to-morrow he shall
put incense into it, and offer it before the Lord; and he shall be
acknowledged priest whom the Lord shall choose and approve.” The next
day, Korah, with two hundred and fifty of his faction, presenting
themselves with their censers before the Lord, the glory of the Lord
appeared visibly over the tabernacle, and a voice was heard to say,
Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume
them in a moment.” Upon this, Moses and Aaron, falling with their faces
to the ground, said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall
one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?” And the
Lord said unto Moses, Command all the people to depart from about the
tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.” When, therefore, the people were
retired, Moses said, If these men die the common death of all men, then
the Lord hath not sent me; but if the earth open and swallow them up
quick, ye shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.” As soon as he
had spoken, the earth opened from under their feet, and swallowed them
up with what belonged to them. There was one thing which added to this
surprising wonder, and which was, that when Korah was thus swallowed up
in the earth, his sons were preserved from his misfortunes. We know not
the exact year in which the death of Korah and his companions happened.
The sons of Korah continued as before to serve in the tabernacle of the
Lord. David appointed them their office in the temple, to guard the
doors, and sing the praises of God. To them are ascribed several psalms,
which are designated by the name of Korah; as the forty-second,
forty-fourth to the forty-ninth, eighty-fourth to the eighty-seventh; in
all, eleven psalms.


LABAN, the son of Bethuel, grandson of Nahor, brother to Rebekah, and
father of Rachel and Leah, Gen. xxviii, 2, &c. Of this man, the first
thing we hear is his entertainment of Abraham’s servant when he came on
his errand to Rebekah. Hospitality was the virtue of his age and
country. In his case, however, it seems to have been no little
stimulated by the sight of “the ear ring and the bracelets on his
sister’s hands,” which the servant had already given her, Gen. xxiv, 30;
so he speedily made room for the camels. He next is presented to us as
beguiling that sister’s son, who had sought a shelter in his house, and
whose circumstances placed him at his mercy, of fourteen years’ service,
when he had covenanted with him for seven only; endeavouring to retain
his labour when he would not pay him his labour’s worth, himself
devouring the portion which he should have given to his daughters,
counting them but as strangers, Gen. xxxi, 15. Compelled, at length, to
pay Jacob wages, he changes them ten times, and, in the spirit of a
crafty, griping worldling, makes him account for whatever of the flock
was torn of beasts or stolen, whether by day or night. When Jacob flies
from this iniquitous service with his family and cattle, Laban still
pursues and persecutes him, intending, if his intentions had not been
overruled by a mightier hand, to send him away empty, even after he had
been making, for so long a period, so usurious a profit of him.

LACHISH, a city of Palestine, Joshua x, 23; xv, 39. Sennacherib besieged
Lachish, but did not make himself master of it. From thence it was that
he sent Rabshakeh against Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17; xix, 8; 2 Chron.
xxxii, 9.

LAMAISM, the religion of the people of Thibet. The _Delai Lama_, Grand
Lama,” is at once the high priest, and the visible object of adoration,
to this nation, to the hordes of wandering Tartars, and to the
prodigious population of China. He resides at Patoli, a vast palace on a
mountain near the banks of the Burampooter, about seven miles from
Lahasse. The foot of the mountain is surrounded by twenty thousand
lamas, or priests, in attendance on their sovereign pontiff, who is
considered as the viceregent of the Deity on earth; and the remote
Tartars are said to regard him absolutely as the Deity himself, and call
him God, the everlasting Father of heaven. They believe him to be
immortal, and endowed with all knowledge and virtue. Every year they
come up from different parts to worship, and make rich offerings at his
shrine. Even the emperor of China, who is a Mantchou Tartar, does not
fail in acknowledgments to him in his religious capacity; and entertains
in the palace of Pekin an inferior lama, deputed as his nuncio from
Thibet. The grand lama is only to be seen in a secret place of his
palace, amidst a great number of lamps, sitting cross-legged on a
cushion, and decked all over with gold and precious stones; while, at a
distance, the people prostrate themselves before him, it being not
lawful for any so much as to kiss his feet. He returns not the least
sign of respect, nor ever speaks, even to the greatest princes; but only
lays his hand upon their heads, and they are fully persuaded that they
thereby receive a full forgiveness of their sins. The _Sunniasses_, or
Indian pilgrims, often visit Thibet as a holy place; and the lama
entertains a body of two or three hundred in his pay. Beside his
religious influence and authority, he is possessed of unlimited power
throughout his dominions, which are very extensive. The inferior lamas,
who form the most numerous as well as the most powerful body in the
state, have the priesthood entirely in their hands, and, beside, fill up
many monastic orders, which are held in great veneration among them. The
whole country, like Italy, abounds with priests; and they entirely
subsist on the rich presents sent them from the utmost extent of
Tartary, from the empire of the great mogul, and from almost all parts
of the Indies. The opinion of the orthodox among the Thibetians is, that
when the grand lama seems to die, either of old age or infirmities, his
soul, in fact, only quits a crazy habitation to enter another, younger
and better; and is discovered again in the body of some child, by
certain tokens, known only to the lamas, or priests, in which order he
always appears. Almost all the nations of the east, except the
Mohammedans, believe the _metempsychosis_, or transmigration of the
soul, as the most important article of their faith; especially the
inhabitants of Thibet and Ava, the Peguans, the Siamese, the greater
part of the Chinese and Japanese, and the Monguls and Kalmucks.
According to their doctrine, the soul no sooner leaves her old
habitation than she enters a new one. The _delai lama_, therefore, or
rather the god Foe or Fuh, residing in the _delai lama_, passes to his
successor; and he being a god, to whom all things are known, the grand
lama is therefore acquainted with every thing which happened during his
residence in his former bodies. This religion, which was early adopted
in a large part of the globe, is said to have been of three thousand
years’ standing; and neither time, nor the influence of men, has had the
power of shaking the authority of the grand lama. This theocracy, which
extends as fully to temporal as to spiritual concerns, is professed all
over Thibet and Mongalia; is almost universal in Greater and Less
Bucharia, and several provinces of Tartary; has some followers in the
kingdom of Cashmere, in India; and is the predominant religion of China.

It has been observed that the religion of Thibet is the counterpart of
the Roman Catholic, since the inhabitants of that country use holy
water, and a singing service. They also offer alms, prayers, and
sacrifices for the dead. They have a vast number of convents filled with
monks and friars, amounting to thirty thousand, and confessors chosen by
their superiors. They use beads, wear the mitre, like the bishops; and
their _delai lama_ is nearly the same among them as the sovereign
pontiff was formerly, in the zenith of his power, among the Roman
Catholics. So complete is the resemblance, that, when one of the first
Romish missionaries penetrated Thibet, he came to the conclusion that
the devil had set up there an imitation of the rites of the Catholic
church, in order the more effectually to destroy the souls of men.
Captain Turner, speaking of the religion of Thibet, says, It seems to be
the schismatical offspring of the religion of the Hindoos, deriving its
origin from one of the followers of that faith, a disciple of Bouddhu,
who first broached the doctrine which now prevails over the wide extent
of Tartary. It is reported to have received its earliest admission in
that part of Tibet, or Thibet, bordering upon India, which from hence
became the seat of the sovereign lamas, to have traversed over
Mantchieux Tartary, and to have been ultimately disseminated over China
and Japan. Though it differs from the Hindoo in many of its outward
forms, yet it still bears a very close affinity with the religion of
Brumha in many important particulars. The principal idol in the temples
of Tibet, or Thibet, is Muha-Moonee, the Booddhu of Bengal, who is
worshipped under these and various other epithets, throughout the great
extent of Tartary, and among all nations to the eastward of the
Brumhapootru. In the wide-extended space over which this faith prevails,
the same object of veneration is acknowledged under numerous titles:
among others, he is styled Godumu, or Gotumu, in Assam and Ava, Shumunu
in Siam, Amida Buth in Japan, Fohi in China,” &c.

LAMBETH ARTICLES. See PREDESTINATION.

LAMECH, a descendant of Cain, the son of Mathusael, and father of Jabal,
Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Naamah, Gen. iv, 18–20, &c. He stands branded as
the father of polygamy, the first who dared to violate the sacred
command, Gen. ii, 24; giving way to his unbridled passion, and thus
overleaping the divine mound raised by the wisdom of our great Creator;
which restraint is enforced by the laws of nature herself, who peoples
the earth with an equal number of males and females, and thereby teaches
foolish man that polygamy is incompatible with her wise regulations. He
married Adah and Zillah: the former was the mother of Jabal and Jubal,
and the latter of Tubal-Cain and Naamah, his sister.

2. LAMECH, the son of Methuselah, and father of Noah. He lived a hundred
fourscore and two years before the birth of Noah, Gen. v, 25, 31; after
which he lived five hundred and ninety-five years longer: thus the whole
term of his life was seven hundred and seventy-seven years.

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. This book was formerly annexed to his
prophecies, though it now forms a separate book. Josephus, and several
other learned men, have referred them to the death of Josiah; but the
more common opinion is, that they were applicable only to some period
subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But though
it be allowed that the Lamentations were primarily intended as a
pathetic description of present calamities, yet while Jeremiah mourns
the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity,
he may be considered as prophetically painting the still greater
miseries they were to suffer at some future time: this seems plainly
indicated by his referring to the time when the punishment of their
iniquity shall be accomplished, and they shall no more be carried into
captivity, Lam. iv, 22. The Lamentations are written in metre, and
consist of a number of plaintive effusions, composed after the manner of
funeral dirges. They seem to have been originally written by their
author as they arose in his mind, and to have been afterward joined
together as one poem. There is no regular arrangement of the subject, or
disposition of the parts: the same thought is frequently repeated with
different imagery, or expressed in different words. There is, however,
no wild incoherency, or abrupt transition; the whole appears to have
been dictated by the feelings of real grief. Tenderness and sorrow form
the general character of these elegies; and an attentive reader will
find great beauty in many of the images, and great energy in some of the
expressions. This book of Lamentations is divided into five chapters; in
the first, second, and fourth, the prophet speaks in his own person, or
by an elegant and interesting personification introduces the city of
Jerusalem as lamenting her calamities, and confessing her sins; in the
third chapter a single Jew, speaking in the name of a chorus of his
countrymen, like the Coryphæus of the Greeks, describes the punishment
inflicted upon him by God, but still acknowledges his mercy, and
expresses some hope of deliverance; and in the fifth chapter, the whole
nation of the Jews pour forth their united complaints and supplications
to almighty God.

Every chapter, with the exception of the third, contains twenty-two
verses, corresponding in number with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet;
and each verse commences with a different letter, the first with aleph,
the second with beth, the third with gimel, &c. The third chapter,
consisting of sixty-six verses, has three verses together beginning with
the same letter, the following three with the next letter, &c. This
peculiarity may be seen in Psalm cxix; the first eight verses in which
commence with aleph, the next eight with beth, &c, till the whole
alphabet has been consecutively taken. This mode of versification, which
has some distant resemblance to the modern acrostic style, seems to have
been employed by the Hebrews in some of their elegiac poetry, perhaps to
assist the memory.

LAMP, λαμπας. There is frequent mention of lamps in Scripture, and the
word is often used figuratively. The houses in the east were, from the
remotest antiquity, lighted with lamps; and hence it is so common in
Scripture to call every thing which enlightens the body or mind, which
guides or refreshes, by the name of a lamp. These lamps were sustained
by a large candlestick set upon the ground. The houses of Egypt, in
modern times, are never without lights: they burn lamps all the night
long, and in every occupied apartment. So requisite to the comfort of a
family is this custom reckoned, or so imperious is the power which it
exercises, that the poorest people would rather retrench part of their
food than neglect it. As this custom no doubt prevailed in Egypt and the
adjacent regions of Arabia and Palestine in former times, it imparts a
beauty and force to some passages of Scripture which have been little
observed. Thus, in the language of Jeremiah, to extinguish the light in
an apartment is a convertible phrase for total destruction; and nothing
can more properly and emphatically represent the total destruction of a
city than the extinction of the lights: I will take from them the light
of a candle, and this whole land shall be a desolation and an
astonishment.” Job describes the destruction of a family among the
Arabs, and the desolation of their dwellings, in the very language of
the prophet: How oft is the candle of the wicked put out, and how oft
cometh their destruction upon them!” Job xxi, 17. Bildad expresses the
same idea in the following beautiful passage: Yea, the light of the
wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. The
light shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle shall be put out
with him,” Job xviii, 5, 6. A burning lamp is, on the other hand, the
chosen symbol of prosperity, a beautiful instance of which occurs in the
complaint of Job: O that I were as in months past, as in the days when
God preserved me; when his candle shined upon my head, and when by his
light I walked through darkness,” Job xxix, 2, 3. When the ten tribes
were taken from Rehoboam, and given to his rival, Jehovah promised to
reserve one tribe, and assigns this reason: That David my servant may
have a light always before me in Jerusalem,” 1 Kings xi, 36. In many
parts of the east, and in particular in the Indies, instead of torches
and flambeaux, they carry a pot of oil in one hand, and a lamp full of
oily rags in the other.

LANGUAGE, the faculty of human speech, concerning the origin of which
there have been entertained different opinions among philosophers and
learned men. The Mosaic history, which gives us an account of the
formation and first occupations of man, represents him as being
immediately capable of conversing with his Maker; of giving names to the
various tribes and classes of animals; and of reasoning consecutively,
and in perfectly appropriate terms, concerning his own situation, and
the relation he stood in to the other creatures. As in man’s first
attempt at speech, according to this account, there appear no crudeness
of conception, no barrenness of ideas, and no inexpressive or
unappropriate terms, we must certainly infer, that God who made and
endued him with corporeal and mental powers perfectly suited to his
state and condition in life, endued him, also, not only with the faculty
of speech, but with speech or language itself; which latter was as
necessary to his comfort, and to the perfection and end of his being, as
any other power or faculty which his Creator thought proper to bestow
upon him.

Among the antediluvians there was but one language; and even now the
indications that the various languages of the earth have had one common
source are very convincing. Whether this primitive language was the same
with any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a
subject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least
till the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel,
there seems little reason to doubt. When, by an immediate interposition
of divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed
to what extent this confusion of tongues prevailed. Under the article
_Confusion of Tongues_ some reasons are given to show that the primitive
language was not lost at that event, but continued in the form of the
Hebrew.

There are, however, other opinions on the oft disputed subject as to the
primitive language. The Armenians allege, that as the ark rested in
their country, Noah and his children must have remained there a
considerable time, before the lower and marshy country of Chaldea could
be fit to receive them; and it is therefore reasonable to suppose they
left their language there, which was probably the very same that Adam
spoke. Some have fancied the Greek the most ancient tongue, because of
its extent and copiousness. The Teutonic, or that dialect of it which is
spoken in the Lower Germany and Brabant, has found a strenuous patron in
Geropius Becanus, who endeavours to derive even the Hebrew itself from
that tongue. The pretensions of the Chinese to this honour have been
allowed by several Europeans. The patrons of this opinion endeavour to
support it, partly, by the great antiquity of the Chinese, and their
having preserved themselves so many ages from any considerable mixture
or intercourse with other nations. It is a notion advanced by Dr. Allix,
and maintained by Mr. Whiston, with his usual tenacity and fervour, that
the Chinese are the posterity of Noah, by his children born after the
flood; and that Fohi, the first king of China, was Noah. As for those
which are called the oriental languages, they have each their partisans.
The generality of eastern writers allow the preference to the Syriac,
except the Jews, who assert the antiquity of the Hebrew with the
greatest warmth; and with them several Christian writers agree,
particularly Chrysostom, Austin, Origen, and Jerome, among the ancients;
and among the moderns, Bochart, Heidegger, Selden, and Buxtorf. The
Sanscrit has also put in its claims; and some have thought that the Pali
bears the character of the highest antiquity. All these are however
useless speculations. The only point worth contending for is, that
language was conveyed at once to the first pair in sufficient degree for
intellectual intercourse with each other, and devotional intercourse
with God; and that man was not left, as infidel writers have been
pleased to say, to form it for himself out of rude and instinctive
sounds. On this subject the remarks of Delaney are conclusive: “That God
made man a sociable creature, does not need to be proved; and that when
he made him such, he withheld nothing from him that was in any wise
necessary for his well being in society, is a clear consequence from the
wisdom and goodness of God; and if he withheld nothing any way necessary
to his well being, much less would he withhold from him that which is
the instrument of the greatest happiness a reasonable creature is
capable of in this world. If the Lord God made ‘Adam a help meet for
him,’ because ‘it was not good for man to be alone,’ can we imagine he
would leave him unfurnished with the means to make that help useful and
delightful to him? If it was not good for him to be alone, certainly
neither was it good for him to have a companion to whom he could not
readily communicate his thoughts, with whom he could neither ease his
anxieties, nor divide or double his joys, by a kind, a friendly, a
reasonable, a religious conversation; and how he could do this in any
degree of perfection, or to any height of rational happiness, is utterly
inconceivable without the use of speech.

“If it be said, that the human organs being admirably fitted for the
formation of articulate sounds, these, with the help of reason, might in
time lead men to the use of language. I own it imaginable that they
might: but still, till that end were attained in perfection, which
possibly might not be in a series of many generations, it must be owned
that brutes were better dealt by, and could better attain all the ends
of their creation. And if that be absurd to be supposed, certainly the
other is not less absurd to be believed. Nay, I think it justly
doubtful, whether, without inspiration from God in this point, man could
ever attain the true ends of his being; at least, if we may judge in
this case, by the example of those nations who, being destitute of the
advantages of a perfect language, are, in all probability, from the
misfortune of that sole defect, sunk into the lowest condition of
barbarism and brutality. And as to the perfection in which the human
organs are framed and fitted for the formation of articulate sounds,
this is clearly an argument for believing that God immediately blessed
man with the use of speech, and gave him wherewithal to exert those
organs to their proper ends; for this is surely as credible, as that
when he gave him an appetite for food, and proper organs to eat and to
digest it, he did not leave him to seek painfully for a necessary
supply, (till his offence had made such a search his curse and
punishment,) but placed him at once in the midst of abundant plenty. The
consequence from all which is, that the perfection and felicity of man,
and the wisdom and goodness of God, necessarily required that Adam
should be supernaturally endowed with the knowledge and use of language.
And therefore, as certain as it can be, that man was made perfect and
happy, and that God is wise and good; so certain is it, that, when Adam
and Eve were formed, they were immediately enabled by God to converse
and communicate their thoughts, in all the perfection of language
necessary to all the ends of their creation. And as this was the conduct
most becoming the goodness of God, so we are assured from Moses, that it
was that to which his infinite wisdom determined him; for we find that
Adam gave names to all the creatures before Eve was formed; and,
consequently, before necessity taught him the use of speech.”

It is true that many languages bear marks of being raised to their
improved state from rude and imperfect elements, and that all are
capable of being enriched and rendered more exact; and it is this which
has given some colour to those theories which trace all language itself
up from elemental sounds, as the necessities of men, their increasing
knowledge, and their imagination led to the invention of new words and
combinations. All this is, however, consistent with the Scripture fact,
that language was taught at first by God to our first parents. The
dispersion of mankind carried many tribes to great distances, and wars
still farther scattered them, and often into wide regions where they
were farther dispersed to live chiefly by the chase, by fishing, or at
best but an imperfect agriculture. In various degrees we know they lost
useful arts; and for the same reasons they would lose much of their
original language; those terms being chiefly retained which their
immediate necessities, and the common affairs of a gross life, kept in
use. But when civilization again overtook these portions of mankind, and
kingdoms and empires were founded among them, or they became integral
parts of the old empires, then their intercourse with each other
becoming more rapid, and artificial, and intellectual, their language
was put into a new process of improvement, and to the eye of the critic
would exhibit the various stages of advancement; and in many it would be
pushed beyond that perfection which it had when it first began to
deteriorate. See LETTERS.

LANTERN. The word occurs, John xviii, 3: μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων: with
torches and lanterns:” but both terms appear to signify _torches_; the
former of a ruder kind than the latter, being formed of split laths
bound into bundles, throwing around a strong glare of light. They came
thus furnished to apprehend our Lord, lest he should escape through the
darkness of the night.

LAODICEA. There were several cities of this name, but the Scripture
speaks only of that in Phrygia, upon the river Lycus, near Colosse. Its
ancient name was Diospolis: it was afterward called Rhoas. Lastly,
Antiochus, the son of Stratonice, rebuilt it, and called it Laodicea,
from the name of his wife Laodice. It became the mother church of
sixteen bishoprics. Its three theatres, and the immense circus, which
was capable of containing upward of thirty thousand spectators, the
spacious remains of which (with other ruins buried under ruins) are yet
to be seen, give proof of the greatness of its ancient wealth and
population; and indicate too strongly that in that city where Christians
were rebuked, without exception, for their lukewarmness, there were
multitudes who were lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. The
amphitheatre was built after the Apocalypse was written, and the warning
of the Spirit had been given to the church of the Laodiceans to be
zealous and repent. There are no sights of grandeur, nor scenes of
temptation around it now. Its own tragedy may be briefly told. It was
lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot; and therefore it was loathsome in
the sight of God. And it has been blotted from the world. It is now as
desolate as its inhabitants were destitute of the fear and love of God.
It is, as described in his Travels by Dr. Smith, utterly desolated, and
without any inhabitant except wolves, and jackals, and foxes.” It can
boast of no human inhabitants, except occasionally when wandering
Turcomans pitch their tents in its spacious amphitheatre. The finest
sculptured fragments are to be seen at a considerable depth, in
excavations which have been made among the ruins. And Colonel Lake
observes, There are few ancient cities more likely than Laodicea to
preserve many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the
soil. Its opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject, render
it probable that valuable works of art were often there buried beneath
the ruins of the public and private edifices.”

LAPWING, דוכיפת, Levit. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. The bird intended by the
Hebrew name in these places is undoubtedly the _hoopoe_; a very
beautiful, but most unclean and filthy, species of birds. The Septuagint
renders it ἔποπα; and the Vulgate, _upupa_; which is the same with the
Arabian interpreters. The Egyptian name of the bird is _kukuphah_; and
the Syrian, _kikuphah_; which approach the Hebrew _dukiphath_. It may
have its name from the noise or cry it makes, which is very remarkable,
and may be heard a great way.

LATITUDINARIANS, a term applied to those divines who, in the seventeenth
century, attempted to bring Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and
Independents, into one communion, by compromising the differences
between them. The chief leaders of this party were the great
Chillingworth and John Hales; to whom may be added More, Cudworth, Gale,
Tillotson, and Whitchcot. They were zealously attached to the church of
England, but did not look upon episcopacy as indispensable to the
constitution of the Christian church. Hence they maintained that those
who adopted other forms of government and worship, were not on that
account to be excluded from the communion, or to forfeit the title of
brethren. They reduced the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to a
few points. By this way of proceeding, they endeavoured to show that
neither the Episcopalians, who, generally speaking, were then Arminians,
nor the Presbyterians and Independents, who as generally adopted the
doctrines of Calvin, had any reason to oppose each other with such
animosity and bitterness; since the subjects of their debates were
matters non-essential to salvation, and might be variously explained and
understood without prejudice to their eternal interests. This plan
failing, through the violence of the bishops on one hand, (though
sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor Clarendon,) and by the jealousy of the
more rigid on the other, the name Latitudinarian became a term of
reproach, as implying an indifferency to all religions, and has been
generally so used ever since.

LAVER. Between the altar and the tabernacle, a little to the south,
stood a circular laver, which, together with its base, was made of the
brazen ornaments which the women had presented for the use of the
tabernacle, and was thence called כור נחשת, Exodus xxx, 18; xl, 7. The
priests, when about to perform their duties, washed their hands in this
laver.

LAW, a rule of action; a precept or command, coming from a superior
authority, which an inferior is bound to obey. The manner in which God
governs rational creatures is by a law, as the rule of their obedience
to him, and this is what we call God’s moral government of the world.
The term, however, is used in Scripture with considerable latitude of
meaning; and to ascertain its precise import in any particular place, it
is necessary to regard the scope and connection of the passage in which
it occurs. Thus, for instance, sometimes it denotes the whole revealed
will of God as communicated to us in his word. In this sense it is
generally used in the book of Psalms, i, 2; xix, 7; cxix; Isaiah viii,
20; xlii, 21. Sometimes it is taken for the Mosaical institution
distinguished from the Gospel, John i, 17; Matt. xi, 13; xii, 5; Acts
xxv, 8. Hence we frequently read of the law of Moses as expressive of
the whole religion of the Jews, Heb. ix, 19; x, 28. Sometimes, in a more
restricted sense, for the ritual or ceremonial observances of the Jewish
religion. In this sense the Apostle speaks of the law of commandments
contained in ordinances,” Eph. ii, 15; Heb. x, 1; and which, being only
a shadow of good things to come,” Christ Jesus abolished by his death,
and so in effect destroyed the ancient distinction between Jew and
Gentile, Gal. iii, 17. Very frequently it is used to signify the
decalogue, or ten precepts which were delivered to the Israelites from
Mount Sinai. It is in this acceptation of the term that the Lord Jesus
declares he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” Matt. v, 17;
and he explains its import as requiring perfect love to God and man,
Luke x, 27. It is in reference to this view that St. Paul affirms, By
the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified; for by the law
is the knowledge of sin,” Rom. iii, 20. The language of this law is, The
soul that sinneth it shall die,” and Cursed is every one that continueth
not in all things that are written,” or required, in the book of the
law, to do them,” Gal. iii, 10. To deliver man from this penalty, Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being himself made a curse
for us,” Gal. iii, 13. The law, in this sense, was not given that men
should obtain righteousness or justification by it, but to convince them
of sin, to show them their need of a Saviour, to shut them up, as it
were, from all hopes of salvation from that source, and to recommend the
Gospel of divine grace to their acceptance, Gal. iii, 19–25. Again, the
law often denotes the rule of good and evil, or of right and wrong,
revealed by the Creator and inscribed on man’s conscience, even at his
creation, and consequently binding upon him by divine authority; and in
this respect it is in substance the same with the decalogue. That such a
law was connate with, and, as it were, implanted in, man, appears from
its traces, which, like the ruins of some noble building, are still
extant in every man. It is from those common notions, handed down by
tradition, though often imperfect and perverted, that the Heathens
themselves distinguished right from wrong, by which they were a law unto
themselves, showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience bearing witness,” Rom. ii, 12–15, although they had no
express revelation.

The term law, is, however, eminently given to the Mosaic law; on the
principles and spirit of which, a few general remarks may be offered.
The right consideration of this divine institute, says Dr. Graves, will
surround it with a glory of truth and holiness, not only worthy of its
claims, but which has continued to be the light of the world on
theological and moral subjects, and often on great political principles,
to this day. If we examine the Jewish law, to discover the principle on
which the whole system depends, the primary truth, to inculcate and
illustrate which is its leading object, we find it to be that great
basis of all religion, both natural and revealed, the self-existence,
essential unity, perfections, and providence of the supreme Jehovah, the
Creator of heaven and earth. The first line of the Mosaic writings
inculcates this great truth: In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.” When the lawgiver begins to recapitulate the statutes and
judgments he had enjoined to his nation, it is with this declaration:
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,” Deut. vi, 4; or, as it
might be more closely expressed, Jehovah our Elohim, or God, is one
Jehovah. And at the commencement of that sublime hymn, delivered by
Moses immediately before his death, in which this illustrious prophet
sums up the doctrines he had taught, the wonders by which they had been
confirmed, and the denunciations by which they were enforced, he
declares this great tenet with the sublimity of eastern poetry, but at
the same time with the precision of philosophic truth: Give ear,” says
he, O ye heavens, and I will speak: and hear, O earth, the words of my
mouth. My doctrine shall drop rain: my speech shall distil as the dew,
as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the
grass,” Deut. xxxii, 1, &c. What, is that doctrine so awful, that the
whole universe is thus invoked to attend to it? so salutary as to be
compared with the principle whose operation diffuses beauty and
fertility over the vegetable world? Hear the answer: Because I will
publish the name of Jehovah; ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is
the rock, his work is perfect: a God of truth, and without iniquity,
just and right is he.”

This, then, is one great leading doctrine of the Jewish code. But the
manner in which this doctrine is taught displays such wise accommodation
to the capacity and character of the nation to whom it is addressed, as
deserves to be carefully remarked. That character by which the supreme
Being is most clearly distinguished from every other, however exalted;
that character from which the acutest reasoners have endeavoured
demonstratively to deduce, as from their source, all the divine
attributes, is self-existence. Is it not then highly remarkable, that it
is under this character the Divinity is described on his first
manifestation to the Jewish lawgiver? The Deity at first reveals himself
unto him as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and therefore
the peculiar national and guardian God of the Jewish race. Moses,
conscious of the degeneracy of the Israelites, their ignorance of, or
their inattention to, the true God, and the difficulty and danger of any
attempt to recall them to his exclusive worship, and to withdraw them
from Egypt, seems to decline the task; but when absolutely commanded to
undertake it, he said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of
Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me
unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say
unto them? And God said unto Moses, _I am that I am_: and he said, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, _I Am_ hath sent me unto
you,” Exod. iii, 13, 14. Here we observe, according to the constant
method of the divine wisdom, when it condescends to the prejudices of
men, how in the very instance of indulgence it corrects their
superstition. The religion of names arose from an idolatrous polytheism;
and the name given here directly opposes this error, and in the
ignorance of that dark and corrupted period establishes that great
truth, to which the most enlightened philosophy can add no new lustre,
and on which all the most refined speculations on the divine nature
ultimately rest, the self-existence, and, by consequence, the eternity
and immutability, of the one great Jehovah.

But though the self-existence of the Deity was a fact too abstract to
require its being frequently inculcated, his essential unity was a
practical principle, the sure foundation on which to erect the structure
of true religion, and form a barrier against the encroachments of
idolatry: for this commenced not so frequently in denying the existence,
or even the supremacy, of the one true God, as in associating with him
for objects of adoration inferior intermediate beings, who were supposed
to be more directly employed in the administration of human affairs. To
confute and resist this false principle was, therefore, one great object
of the Jewish scheme. Hence the unity of God is inculcated with
perpetual solicitude; it stands at the head of the system of moral law
promulgated to the Jews from Sinai by the divine voice, heard by the
assembled nation, and issuing from the divine glory, with every
circumstance which could impress the deepest awe upon even the dullest
minds: I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods beside
me,” Exod. xx, 2, 3. And in the recapitulation of the divine laws in
Deuteronomy, it is repeatedly enforced with the most solemn earnestness:
Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord,” Deut. vi, 4. And again:
Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is
God; there is none else beside him. Know, therefore, this day, and
consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and
in the earth beneath: there is none else,” Deut. iv, 35, 39.

This self-existent, supreme and only God is moreover described as
possessed of every perfection which can be ascribed to the Divinity: Ye
shall be holy,” says the Lord to the people of the Jews; for I the Lord
your God am holy,” Lev. xix, 2. Ascribe ye,” says the legislator,
greatness unto our God; he is the rock; his work is perfect; a God of
truth, and without iniquity, just and right is he,” Deut. xxxii, 4. And
in the hymn of thanksgiving on the miraculous escape of the Israelites
at the Red Sea, this is its burden: Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among
the gods? who is like unto thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in
praises, doing wonders?” Exod. xv, 11. And when the Lord delivered to
Moses the two tables of the moral law, he is described as descending in
the cloud, and proclaiming the name of the Lord: And the Lord passed by
before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness, keeping mercy for
thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by
no means clear the guilty,” Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7.

But to teach the self-existence, the unity, the wisdom, and the power of
the Deity, nay, even his moral perfections of mercy, justice, and truth,
would have been insufficient to arrest the attention, and command the
obedience of a nation, the majority of which looked no farther than mere
present objects, and at that early period cherished scarcely any hopes
higher than those of a temporal kind,--if, in addition to all this, care
had not been taken to represent the providence of God as not only
directing the government of the universe by general laws, but also
perpetually superintending the conduct and determining the fortune of
every nation, of every family, nay, of every individual. It was the
disbelief or the neglect of this great truth which gave spirit and
energy, plausibility and attraction, to the whole system of idolatry.
While men believed that the supreme God and Lord of all was too exalted
in his dignity, too remote from this sublunary scene, to regard its
vicissitudes with an attentive eye, and too constantly engaged in the
contemplation of his own perfections, and the enjoyment of his own
independent and all-perfect happiness, to interfere in the regulation of
human affairs, they regarded with indifference that supreme Divinity who
seemed to take no concern in their conduct, and not to interfere as to
their happiness. However exalted and perfect such a Being might appear
to abstract speculation, he was to the generality of mankind as if he
did not exist; as their happiness or misery were not supposed to be
influenced by his power, they referred not their conduct to his
direction. If he delegated to inferior beings the regulation of this
inferior world; if all its concerns were conducted by their immediate
agency, and all its blessings or calamities distributed by their
immediate determination; it seemed rational, and even necessary, to
supplicate their favour and submit to their authority; and neither
unwise nor unsafe to neglect that Being, who, though all-perfect and
supreme, would, on this supposition appear, with respect to mankind,
altogether inoperative. In truth, this fact of the perpetual providence
of God extending even to the minutest events, is inseparably connected
with every motive which is offered to sway the conduct of the Jews, and
forcibly inculcated by every event of their history. This had been
manifested in the appointment of the land of Canaan for the future
settlement of the chosen people on the first covenant which God entered
into with the Patriarch Abraham; in the prophecy, that for four hundred
years they should be afflicted in Egypt, and afterward be thence
delivered; in the increase of their nation, under circumstances of
extreme oppression, and their supernatural deliverance from that
oppression. The same providence was displayed in the destruction of the
Egyptians in the Red Sea; the travels of the thousands of Israel through
the wilderness, sustained by food from heaven; and in their subsequent
settlement in the promised land by means entirely distinct from their
own strength. Reliance on the same providence was the foundation of
their civil government, the spirit and the principle of their
constitution. On this only could they be commanded to keep the sabbatic
year without tilling their land, or even gathering its spontaneous
produce; confiding in the promise, that God would send his blessing on
the sixth year, so that it should bring forth fruit for three years,
Lev. xxv, 21. The same faith in Divine Providence alone could prevail on
them to leave their properties and families exposed to the attack of
their surrounding enemies; while all the males of the nation assembled
at Jerusalem to celebrate the three great festivals, enjoined by divine
command, with the assurance that no man should desire their land when
they went up to appear before the Lord their God thrice in the year,
Exodus xxxiv, 24. And, finally, it is most evident, that, contrary to
all other lawgivers, the Jewish legislator renders his civil
institutions entirely subordinate to his religious; and announces to his
nation that their temporal adversity or prosperity would entirely
depend, not on their observance of their political regulations; not on
their preserving a military spirit, or acquiring commercial wealth, or
strengthening themselves by powerful alliances; but on their continuing
to worship the one true God according to the religious rites and
ceremonies by him prescribed, and preserving their piety and morals
untainted by the corruptions and vices which idolatry tended to
introduce.

Such was the theology of the Jewish religion, at a period when the whole
world was deeply infected with idolatry; when all knowledge of the one
true God, all reverence for his sacred name, all reliance on his
providence, all obedience to his laws, were nearly banished from the
earth; when the severest chastisements had been tried in vain; when no
hope of reformation appeared from the refinements of civilization or the
researches of philosophy; for the most civilized and enlightened nations
adopted with the greatest eagerness, and disseminated with the greatest
activity, the absurdities, impieties, and pollutions of idolatry. Then
was the Jewish law promulgated to a nation, who, to mere human judgment,
might have appeared incapable of inventing or receiving such a high
degree of intellectual and moral improvement; for they had been long
enslaved to the Egyptians, the authors and supporters of the grossest
idolatry; they had been weighed down by the severest bondage,
perpetually harassed by the most incessant manual labours; for the
Egyptians made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in
brick, and in all manner of service in the field,” Exod. i, 14. At this
time, and in this nation, was the Mosaic law promulgated, teaching the
great principles of true religion, the self-existence, the unity, the
perfections, and the providence of the one great Jehovah; reprobating
all false gods, all image worship, all the absurdities and profanations
of idolatry. At this time, and in this nation, was a system of
government framed, which had for its basis the reception of, and steady
adherence to, this system of true religion; and establishing many
regulations, which would be in the highest degree irrational, and could
never hope to be received, except from a general and thorough reliance
on the superintendence of Divine Providence, controlling the course of
nature, and directing every event, so as to proportion the prosperity of
the Hebrew people, according to their obedience to that law which they
had received as divine.

It is an obvious, but it is not therefore a less important remark, that
to the Jewish religion we owe that admirable summary of moral duty,
contained in the ten commandments. All fair reasoners will admit that
each of these must be understood to condemn, not merely the extreme
crime which it expressly prohibits, but every inferior offence of the
same kind, and every mode of conduct leading to such transgression; and,
on the contrary, to enjoin opposite conduct, and the cultivation of
opposite dispositions. Thus, the command, Thou shalt not kill,” condemns
not merely the single crime of deliberate murder, but every kind of
violence, and every indulgence of passion and resentment, which tends
either to excite such violence, or to produce that malignant disposition
of mind, in which the guilt of murder principally consists: and
similarly of the rest. In this extensive interpretation of the
commandments, we are warranted, not merely by the deductions of reason,
but by the letter of the law itself. For the addition of the last, Thou
shalt not covet,” proves clearly that in all, the dispositions of the
heart, as much as the immediate outward act, is the object of the divine
Legislator; and thus it forms a comment on the meaning, as well as a
guard for the observance, of all the preceding commands. Interpreted in
this natural and rational latitude, how comprehensive and important is
this summary of moral duty! It inculcates the adoration of the one true
God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is;” who
must, therefore, be infinite in power, and wisdom, and goodness; the
object of exclusive adoration; of gratitude for every blessing we enjoy;
of fear, for he is a jealous God; of hope, for he is merciful. It
prohibits every species of idolatry; whether by associating false gods
with the true, or worshipping the true by symbols and images. Commanding
not to take the name of God in vain, it enjoins the observance of all
outward respect for the divine authority, as well as the cultivation of
inward sentiments and feelings suited to this outward reverence; and it
establishes the obligation of oaths, and, by consequence, of all
compacts and deliberate promises; a principle, without which the
administration of laws would be impracticable, and the bonds of society
must be dissolved. By commanding to keep holy the Sabbath, as the
memorial of the creation, it establishes the necessity of public
worship, and of a stated and outward profession of the truths of
religion, as well as of the cultivation of suitable feelings; and it
enforces this by a motive which is equally applicable to all mankind,
and which should have taught the Jew that he ought to consider all
nations as equally creatures of that Jehovah whom he himself adored;
equally subject to his government, and, if sincerely obedient, entitled
to all the privileges his favour could bestow. It is also remarkable,
that this commandment, requiring that the rest of the Sabbath should
include the man-servant, and the maid-servant, and the stranger that was
within their gates, nay, even their cattle, proved that the Creator of
the universe extended his attention to all his creatures; that the
humblest of mankind were the objects of his paternal love; that no
accidental differences, which so often create alienation among different
nations, would alienate any from the divine regard; and that even the
brute creation shared the benevolence of their Creator, and ought to be
treated by men with gentleness and humanity.

When we proceed to the second table, comprehending more expressly our
social duties, we find all the most important principles on which they
depend clearly enforced. The commandment which enjoins, Honour thy
father and mother,” sanctions the principles, not merely of filial
obedience, but of all those duties which arise from our domestic
relations; and, while it requires not so much any one specific act, as
the general disposition which should regulate our whole course of
conduct in this instance, it impresses the important conviction, that
the entire law proceeds from a Legislator able to search and judge the
heart of man. The subsequent commands coincide with the clear dictates
of reason, and prohibit crimes which human laws in general have
prohibited as plainly destructive of social happiness. But it was of
infinite importance to rest the prohibitions, Thou shalt not kill,” Thou
shalt not commit adultery,” Thou shalt not steal,” Thou shalt not bear
false witness,” not merely on the deductions of reason, but also on the
weight of a divine authority. How often have false ideas of public good
in some places, depraved passions in others, and the delusions of
idolatry in still more, established a law of reputation contrary to the
dictates of reason, and the real interests of society. In one country we
see theft allowed, if perpetrated with address; in others, piracy and
rapine honoured, if conducted with intrepidity. Sometimes we perceive
adultery permitted, the most unnatural crimes committed without remorse
or shame; nay, every species of impurity enjoined and consecrated as a
part of divine worship. In others, we find revenge honoured as spirit,
and death inflicted at its impulse with ferocious triumph. Again, we see
every feeling of nature outraged, and parents exposing their helpless
children to perish for deformity of body or weakness of mind; or, what
is still more dreadful, from mercenary or political views; and this
inhuman practice familiarized by custom, and authorized by law. And, to
close the horrid catalogue, we see false religions leading their deluded
votaries to heap the altars of their idols with human victims; the
master butchers his slave, the conqueror his captive; nay, dreadful to
relate, the parent sacrifices his children, and, while they shriek
amidst the tortures of the flames, or in the agonies of death, he drowns
their cries by the clangour of cymbals and the yells of fanaticism. Yet
these abominations, separate or combined, have disgraced ages and
nations which we are accustomed to admire and celebrate as civilized and
enlightened,--Babylon and Egypt, Phenicia and Carthage, Greece and Rome.
Many of these crimes legislators have enjoined, or philosophers
defended. What, indeed, could be hoped from legislators and
philosophers, when we recollect the institutions of Lycurgus, especially
as to purity of manners, and the regulations of Plato on the same
subject, in his model of a perfect republic; when we consider the
sensuality of the Epicureans, and immodesty of the Cynics; when we find
suicide applauded by the Stoics, and the murderous combats of gladiators
defended by Cicero, and exhibited by Trajan? Such variation and
inconstancy in the rule and practice of moral duty, as established by
the feeble or fluctuating authority of human opinion, demonstrates the
utility of a clear divine interposition, to impress these important
prohibitions; and it is difficult for any sagacity to calculate how far
such an interposition was necessary, and what effect it may have
produced by influencing human opinions and regulating human conduct,
when we recollect that the Mosaic code was probably the first written
law ever delivered to any nation; and that it must have been generally
known in those eastern countries, from which the most ancient and
celebrated legislators and sages derived the models of their laws and
the principles of their philosophy.

But the Jewish religion promoted the interests of moral virtue, not
merely by the positive injunctions of the decalogue; it also inculcated
clearly and authoritatively the two great principles on which all piety
and virtue depend, and which our blessed Lord recognised as the
commandments on which hang the law and the prophets,--the principles of
love to God and love to our neighbour. The love of God is every where
enjoined in the Mosaic law, as the ruling disposition of the heart, from
which all obedience should spring, and in which it ought to terminate.
With what solemnity does the Jewish lawgiver impress it at the
commencement of his recapitulation of the divine law: Hear, O Israel:
the Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” Deut.
vi, 4, 5. And again: And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require
of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to
love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all
thy soul?” Deut. x, 12. Nor is the love of our neighbour less explicitly
enforced: Thou shalt not,” says the law, avenge, nor bear any grudge
against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself: I am the Lord,” Lev. xix, 18. The operation of this
benevolence, thus solemnly required, was not to be confined to their own
countrymen; it was to extend to the stranger, who, having renounced
idolatry, was permitted to live among them, worshipping the true God,
though without submitting to circumcision or the other ceremonial parts
of the Mosaic law: If a stranger,” says the law, sojourn with thee in
your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as
thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord thy
God,” Lev. xix, 33, 34.

Thus, on a review of the topics we have discussed, it appears that the
Jewish law promulgated the great principles of moral duty in the
decalogue, with a solemnity suited to their high preëminence; that it
enjoined love to God with the most unceasing solicitude, and love to our
neighbour, as extensively and forcibly, as the peculiar design of the
Jewish economy, and the peculiar character of the Jewish people, would
permit; that it impressed the deepest conviction of God’s requiring, not
mere external observances, but heart-felt piety, well regulated desires,
and active benevolence; that it taught sacrifice could not obtain pardon
without repentance, or repentance without reformation and restitution;
that it described circumcision itself, and, by consequence, every other
legal rite, as designed to typify and inculcate internal holiness, which
alone could render men acceptable to God; that it represented the love
of God as designed to act as a practical principle, stimulating to the
constant and sincere cultivation of purity, mercy, and truth; and that
it enforced all these principles and precepts by sanctions the most
likely to operate powerfully on minds unaccustomed to abstract
speculations and remote views, even by temporal rewards and punishments;
the assurance of which was confirmed from the immediate experience of
similar rewards and punishments, dispensed to their enemies and to
themselves by that supernatural Power which had delivered the Hebrew
nation out of Egypt, conducted them through the wilderness, planted them
in the land of Canaan, regulated their government, distributed their
possessions, and to which alone they could look to obtain new blessings,
or secure those already enjoyed. From all this we derive another
presumptive argument for the divine authority of the Mosaic code; and it
may be contended, that a moral system thus perfect, promulgated at so
early a period, to such a people, and enforced by such sanctions as no
human power could undertake to execute, strongly bespeaks a divine
original.

2. The moral law is sometimes called the Mosaic law, because it was one
great branch of those injunctions which, under divine authority, Moses
enjoined upon the Israelites when they were gathered into a political
community under the theocracy. But it existed previously as the law of
all mankind; and it has been taken up into the Christian system, and
there more fully illustrated. As the obligation of the moral law upon
Christians has, however, been disputed by some perverters of the
Christian faith, or held by others on loose and fallacious grounds, this
subject ought to be clearly understood. It is, nevertheless, to be
noticed, that the morals of the New Testament are not proposed to us in
the form of a regular code. Even in the books of Moses, which have the
legislative form to a great extent, not all the principles and duties
which constituted the full character of godliness,” under that
dispensation, are made the subjects of formal injunction by particular
precepts. They are partly infolded in general principles, or often take
the form of injunction in an apparently incidental manner, or are
matters of obvious inference. A preceding code of traditionary moral law
is all along supposed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, as well
as a consuetudinary ritual and a doctrinal theology, both transmitted
from the patriarchs. This, too, is eminently the case with Christianity.
It supposes that all who believed in Christ admitted the divine
authority of the Old Testament; and it assumes the perpetual authority
of its morals, as well as the truth of its fundamental theology. The
constant allusions in the New Testament to the moral rules of the Jews
and patriarchs, either expressly as precepts, or as the data of
argument, sufficiently guard us against the notion, that what has not in
so many words been re-enacted] by Christ and his Apostles is of no
authority among Christians. In a great number of instances, however, the
form of injunction is directly preceptive, so as to have all the
explicitness and force of a regular code of law, and is, as much as a
regular code could be, a declaration of the sovereign will of Christ,
enforced by the sanctions of eternal life and death. This, however, is a
point on which a few confirmatory observations may be usefully adduced.
No part of the preceding dispensation, designated generally by the
appellation of the law,” is repealed in the New Testament, but what is
obviously ceremonial, typical, and incapable of coëxisting with
Christianity. Our Lord, in his discourse with the Samaritan woman,
declares, that the hour of the abolition of the temple worship was come;
the Apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, teaches us that the
Levitical services were but shadows, the substance and end of which is
Christ; and the ancient visible church, as constituted upon the ground
of natural descent from Abraham, was abolished by the establishment of a
spiritual body of believers to take its place. No precepts of a purely
political nature, that is, which respect the civil subjection of the
Jews to their theocracy, are, therefore, of any force to us as laws,
although they may have, in many cases, the greatest authority as
principles. No ceremonial precepts can be binding, since they were
restrained to a period terminating with the death and resurrection of
Christ; nor are even the patriarchal rites of circumcision and the
passover obligatory upon Christians, since we have sufficient evidence
that they were of an adumbrative character, and were laid aside by the
first inspired teachers of Christianity.

With the moral precepts which abound in the Old Testament the case is
very different, as sufficiently appears from the different, and even
contrary, manner in which they are always spoken of by Christ and his
Apostles. When our Lord, in his sermon on the mount, says, Think not
that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to
destroy the law, but to fulfil;” that is, to confirm or establish it;
the entire scope of his discourse shows that he is speaking exclusively
of the moral precepts of the law,” eminently so called, and of the moral
injunctions of the prophets founded upon them, and to which he thus
gives an equal authority. And in so solemn a manner does he enforce
this, that he adds, doubtless as foreseeing that attempts would be made
by deceiving or deceived men professing his religion, to lessen the
authority of the moral law, Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven;” that is, as St. Chrysostom interprets,
He shall be the farthest from attaining heaven and happiness, which
imports that he shall not attain it at all.” In like manner St. Paul,
after having strenuously maintained the doctrine of justification by
faith alone, anticipates an objection by asking, Do we then make void
the law through faith?” and subjoins, God forbid: yea, we establish the
law;” meaning by the law,” as the context and his argument clearly show,
the moral and not the ceremonial law.

After such declarations, it is worse than trifling for any to contend
that, in order to establish the authority of the moral law of the Jews
over Christians, it ought to have been formally reënacted. To this we
may, however, farther reply, not only that many important moral
principles and rules found in the Old Testament were never formally
enacted among the Jews; were traditional from an earlier age; and
received at different times the more indirect authority of inspired
recognition; but, to put the matter in a stronger light, that all the
leading moral precepts of the Jewish Scriptures are, in point of fact,
proposed in the New Testament in a manner which has the full force of
formal reënactment, as the laws of the Christian church. This argument,
from the want of formal reënactment, will therefore have no weight. The
summary of the law and the prophets, which is to love God with all our
heart, and to serve him with all our strength, and to love our neighbour
as ourselves, is unquestionably enjoined, and even reënacted by the
Christian lawgiver. When our Lord is explicitly asked by one who came
unto him and said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life?” the answer given shows that the moral law contained
in the decalogue is so in force under the Christian dispensation, that
obedience to it is necessary to final salvation:--“If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments.” And that nothing ceremonial is
intended by this term, is manifest from what follows: He saith unto him,
Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not commit
adultery. Thou shalt not steal,” &c. Matt. xix, 17–19. Here, also, we
have all the force of a formal reënactment of the decalogue, a part of
it being evidently put for the whole. Nor were it difficult to produce
passages from the discourses of Christ and the writings of the Apostles,
which enjoin all the precepts of this law taken separately, by their
authority, as indispensable parts of Christian duty, and that, too,
under their original sanctions of life and death; so that the two
circumstances which form the true character of a law in its highest
sense, divine authority and penal sanctions, are found as truly in the
New Testament as in the Old. It will not, for instance, be contended,
that the New Testament does not enjoin the acknowledgment and worship of
one God alone; nor that it does not prohibit idolatry; nor that it does
not level its maledictions against false and profane swearing; nor that
the Apostle Paul does not use the very words of the fifth commandment
preceptively, when he says, Honour thy father and mother, which is the
first commandment with promise,” Eph. vi, 2; nor that murder, adultery,
theft, false witness, and covetousness are not all prohibited under pain
of exclusion from the kingdom of God. Thus, then, we have the whole
decalogue brought into the Christian code of morals, by a distinct
injunction of its separate precepts, and by their recognition as of
permanent and unchangeable obligation; the fourth commandment,
respecting the Sabbath only, being so far excepted, that its injunction
is not so expressly marked. This, however, is no exception in fact; for
beside that its original place in the two tables sufficiently
distinguishes it from all positive, ceremonial, and typical precepts,
and gives it a moral character, in respect to its ends, which are,
first, mercy to servants and cattle, and, second, the worship of
almighty God, undisturbed by worldly interruptions and cares, it is
necessarily included in that law” which our Lord declares he came not to
destroy, or abrogate; in that law” which St. Paul declares to be
established by faith,” and among those commandments” which our Lord
declares must be kept,” if any one would enter into life.” To this,
also, the practice of the Apostles is to be added, who did not cease
themselves from keeping one day in seven holy, nor teach others so to
do; but gave to “the Lord’s day” that eminence and sanctity in the
Christian church which the seventh day had in the Jewish, by
consecrating it to holy uses; an alteration not affecting the precept at
all, except in an unessential circumstance, (if indeed in that,) and in
which we may suppose them to have acted under divine suggestion.

Thus, then, we have the obligation of the whole decalogue as fully
established in the New Testament as in the Old, as if it had been
formally reënacted; and that no formal reënactment of it took place, is
itself a presumptive proof that it was never regarded by the lawgiver as
temporary, which the formality of republication might have supposed. It
is important to remark, however, that, although the moral laws of the
Mosaic dispensation pass into the Christian code, they stand there in
other and higher circumstances; so that the New Testament is a more
perfect dispensation of the knowledge of the moral will of God than the
Old. In particular, (1.) They are more expressly extended to the heart,
as by our Lord, in his sermon on the mount; who teaches us that the
thought and inward purpose of any offence is a violation of the law
prohibiting its external and visible commission. (2.) The principles on
which they are founded are carried out in the New Testament into a
greater variety of duties, which, by embracing more perfectly the social
and civil relations of life, are of a more universal character. (3.)
There is a much more enlarged injunction of positive and particular
virtues, especially those which constitute the Christian temper. (4.) By
all overt acts being inseparably connected with corresponding principles
in the heart, in order to constitute acceptable obedience, which
principles suppose the regeneration of the soul by the Holy Ghost. This
moral renovation is, therefore, held out as necessary to our salvation,
and promised as a part of the grace of our redemption by Christ. (5.) By
being connected with promises of divine assistance, which is peculiar to
a law connected with evangelical provisions. (6.) By their having a
living illustration in the perfect and practical example of Christ. (7.)
By the higher sanctions derived from the clearer revelation of a future
state, and the more explicit promises of eternal life, and threatenings
of eternal punishment. It follows from this, that we have in the Gospel
the most complete and perfect revelation of moral law ever given to men;
and a more exact manifestation of the brightness, perfection, and glory
of that law, under which angels and our progenitors in paradise were
placed, and which it is at once the delight and the interest of the most
perfect and happy beings to obey.

LAZARUS, brother to Martha and Mary. He dwelt at Bethany with his
sisters, near Jerusalem; and the Lord Jesus did him the honour sometimes
of lodging at his house when he visited the city. See the account of his
resurrection related at large in John xi, 5, &c.

LEAD, עפרת, Exod. xv, 10; Num. xxxi, 22; Job xix, 24; Jer. vi, 29; Ezek.
xxii, 18; xxvii, 12; Zech. v, 7, 8; a mineral of a bluish white colour.
It is the softest next to gold, but has no great tenacity, and is not in
the least sonorous. It is mentioned with five other species of metal,
Num. xxxi, 22; and there is no doubt but that this is the meaning of the
word; so the Septuagint render it throughout, μόλιϐδος or μόλιϐος.

LEAVEN. The Hebrews were forbidden by the law to eat leavened bread, or
a food with leaven in it, during the seven days of the passover, Exod.
xii, 15–19; Lev. ii, 11. They were very careful in purifying their
houses from all leaven before this feast began. God forbad either leaven
or honey to be offered to him in his temple; that is, in cakes or in any
baked meats. But on other occasions they might offer leavened bread or
honey. St. Paul, 1 Cor. v, 7, 8, expresses his desire that the faithful
should celebrate the Christian passover with unleavened bread; which,
figuratively, signifies sincerity and truth. In this he teaches us two
things; first, that the law which obliged the Jews to a literal
observance of the passover is no longer in force; and, secondly, that by
unleavened bread, truth and purity of heart were denoted. The same
Apostle alludes to the ceremony used at the passover, when he says, A
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump;” that is, a small portion of
leaven, in a quantity of bread or paste, corrupts the whole, and renders
it unclean. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, Matthew xvi, 11, warns his
Apostles to beware of the leaven of the Herodians and Pharisees; meaning
their doctrines.

LEBANON, or LIBANUS, signifying _white_, from its snows,--the most
elevated mountain or mountain chain in Syria, celebrated in all ages for
its cedars; which, as is well known, furnished the wood for Solomon’s
temple. This mountain is the centre, or nucleus, of all the mountain
ridges which, from the north, the south, and the east, converge toward
this point; but it overtops them all. This configuration of the
mountains, and the superiority of Lebanon, are particularly striking to
the traveller approaching both from the Mediterranean on the west, and
the desert on the east. On either side, he first discovers, at a great
distance, a clouded ridge, stretching from north to south, as far as the
eye can see; the central summits of which are capped with clouds, or
tipped with snow. This is Lebanon, which is often referred to in Holy
Writ for its streams, its timber, and its wines; and at the present day
the seat of the only portion of freedom of which Syria can boast.

The altitude of Lebanon is so considerable, that it appears from the
reports of travellers to have snow on its highest eminences all the year
round. Volney says, that it thus remains toward the north-east, where it
is sheltered from the sea winds and the rays of the sun. Maundrell found
that part of the mountain which he crossed, and which in all probability
was by no means the highest, covered with deep snow in the month of May.
Dr. E. D. Clarke, in the month of July, saw some of the eastern summits
of Lebanon, or Anti-Libanus, near Damascus, covered with snow, not lying
in patches, as is common in the summer season with mountains which
border on the line of perpetual congelation, but do not quite reach it,
but with that perfect white, smooth, and velvetlike appearance, which
snow only exhibits when it is very deep,--a striking spectacle in such a
climate, where the beholder, seeking protection from a burning sun,
almost considers the firmament to be on fire. At the time this
observation was made, the thermometer, in an elevated situation near the
sea of Tiberias, stood at 102½° in the shade. Sir Frederic Henniker
passed over snow in July; and Ali Bey describes the same eastern ridge
as covered with snow in September. Of the noble cedars which once
adorned the upper parts of this mountain but few now remain, and those
much decayed. Burckhardt, who crossed Mount Libanus in 1810, counted
about thirty-six large ones, fifty of middle size, and about three
hundred smaller and young ones: but more might exist in other parts of
the mountain. The wine, especially that made about the convent of
Canobin, still preserves its ancient celebrity; and is reported by
travellers, more particularly by Rauwolff, Le Bruyn, and De la Roque, to
be of the most exquisite kind for flavour and fragrance. The rains which
fall in the lower regions of Lebanon, and the melting of the snow in the
upper ones, furnish an abundance of perennial streams, which are alluded
to by Solomon, Cant. iv, 15. On the declivities of the mountain grew the
vines which furnished the rich and fragrant wine which Hosea celebrated,
xiv, 7, and which may still be obtained by proper culture.

The cedar of Lebanon has, in all ages, been reckoned as an object of
unrivalled grandeur and beauty in the vegetable kingdom. It is,
accordingly, one of the natural images which frequently occur in the
poetical style of the Hebrew prophets; and is appropriated to denote
kings, princes, and potentates of the highest rank. Thus, the Prophet
Isaiah, whose writings abound with metaphors and allegories of this
kind, in denouncing the judgments of God upon the proud and arrogant,
declares that the day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon all the cedars
of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of
Bashan,” Isaiah ii, 13. The king of Israel used the same figure in his
reply to the challenge of the king of Judah: The thistle that was in
Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter
to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon,
and trod down the thistle,” 2 Kings xiv, 9. The spiritual prosperity of
the righteous man is compared by the Psalmist to the same noble plant:
The righteous shall flourish as the palm tree; he shall grow as the
cedar in Lebanon.” To break the cedars, and shake the enormous mass on
which they grow, are the figures that David selects to express the awful
majesty and power of Jehovah: The voice of the Lord is powerful; the
voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the
cedars: yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon. He maketh them
also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn,”
Psalm xxix, 4–6. This description of the divine majesty and power
possesses a character of awful sublimity.

The stupendous size, the extensive range, and great elevation of
Libanus; its towering summits capped with perpetual snow, or crowned
with fragrant cedars; its olive plantations; its vineyards, producing
the most delicious wines; its clear fountains, and cold-flowing brooks;
its fertile vales, and odoriferous shrubberies,--combine to form in
Scripture language, the glory of Lebanon.” But that glory, liable to
change, has, by the unanimous consent of modern travellers, suffered a
sensible decline. The extensive forests of cedar, which adorned and
perfumed the summits and declivities of those mountains, have almost
disappeared. Only a small number of these trees of God, planted by his
almighty hand,” which, according to the usual import of the phrase,
signally displayed the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, now remain.
Their countless number in the days of Solomon, and their prodigious
bulk, must be recollected, in order to feel the force of that sublime
declaration of the prophet: Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the
beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering,” Isaiah xl, 16. Though
the trembling sinner were to make choice of Lebanon for the altar; were
to cut down all its forests to form the pile; though the fragrance of
this fuel, with all its odoriferous gums, were the incense; the wine of
Lebanon pressed from all its vineyards, the libation; and all its
beasts, the propitiatory sacrifice; all would prove insufficient to make
atonement for the sins of men; would be regarded as nothing in the eyes
of the supreme Judge for the expiation of even one transgression. The
just and holy law of God requires a nobler altar, a costlier sacrifice,
and a sweeter perfume,--the obedience and death of a divine Person to
atone for our sins, and the incense of his continual intercession to
secure our acceptance with the Father of mercies, and admission into the
mansions of eternal rest. The conversion of the Gentile nations from the
worship of idols and the bondage of corruption, to the service and
enjoyment of the true God, is foretold in these beautiful and striking
terms: The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them: and
the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom
abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon
shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon: they shall
see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God,” Isaiah xxxv,
4.

LEEK, חציר, in Numbers xi, 5, translated leek;” in 1 Kings xviii, 5; 2
Kings xix, 26; Job xl, 15; Psalm xxxvii, 2; xc, 5; ciii, 15; civ, 14;
cxxix, 6; cxlvii, 8; Isaiah xxxv, 7; xxxvii, 27; xl, 6, it is rendered
grass;” in Job viii, 12, herb;” in Prov. xxvii, 25; Isaiah xv, 6, hay;”
and in Isaiah xxxiv, 13, a court.” It is much of the same nature with
the onion. The kind called _karrat_ by the Arabians, the _allium porrum_
of Linnæus, Hasselquist says, must certainly have been one of those
desired by the children of Israel, as it has been cultivated and
esteemed from the earliest times to the present in Egypt. The
inhabitants are very fond of eating it raw, as sauce for their roasted
meat; and the poor people eat it raw with their bread, especially for
breakfast. There is reason, however, to doubt whether this plant is
intended in Num. xi, 5, and so differently rendered every where else: it
should rather intend such vegetables as grow promiscuously with grass.
Ludolphus supposes that it may mean lettuce and sallads in general; and
Maillet observes, that the succory and endive are eaten with great
relish by the people in Egypt: some or all of these may be meant.

LEGION. The Roman legions were composed each of ten cohorts; a cohort,
of fifty maniples; a maniple, of fifteen men; consequently, a full
legion contained six thousand soldiers. Jesus cured one who called
himself legion,” as if possessed by a legion of devils, Mark v, 9. He
also said to Peter, who drew his sword to defend him in the olive
garden: Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, who shall
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” Matt. xxvi, 53.

LEMUEL. See AGUR.

LENTIL, עדשים, Gen. xxv, 34; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; xxiii, 11; Ezek. iv, 9, a
sort of pulse; in the Septuagint φακὸς, and Vulgate _lens_. The lentils
of Egypt were very much esteemed among the ancients. St. Austin says,
they grow abundantly in Egypt, are much used as a food there, and those
of Alexandria are considered particularly valuable. Dr. Shaw says,
beans, lentils, kidney beans, and garvancos are the chief of their pulse
kind. Beans, when boiled and stewed with oil and garlic, are the
principal food of persons of all distinctions. Lentils are dressed in
the same manner as beans, dissolving easily into a mass, and making a
pottage of a chocolate colour. This, we find, was the red pottage” which
Esau, from thence called Edom, exchanged for his birthright.

LEOPARD, נמר, Cant. iv, 8; Isaiah xi, 6; Jer. v, 6; xiii, 23; Hosea
xiii, 7; Hab. i, 8; Dan. vii, 6; ϖάρδαλις, Rev. xiii, 2; Ecclus. xxviii,
23. There can be no doubt that the pard or leopard is the animal
mentioned. Bochart shows that the name is similar in the Chaldee,
Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. The LXX uniformly render it by ϖάρδαλις;
and Jerom, _pardus_. Probably, these animals were numerous in Palestine;
as we find places with a name intimating their having been the haunts of
leopards: _Nimrah_, Num. xxxii, 3; _Beth-Nimrah_, Num. xxxii, 36; Joshua
xiii, 27; and waters of _Nimrim_,” Isa. xv, 6; Jer. xlviii, 34; and
mountains of leopards,” Cant. iv, 8. Nimrod might have his name from
this animal: He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is
said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord,” Gen. x, 9. It
is supposed, however, that his predations were not confined to the brute
creation. Dr. Geddes remarks, that the word hunter” expresses too
little. He was a freebooter, in the worst sense of the word; a lawless
despot:

               Proud Nimrod first the bloody chase began,
               A mighty hunter, and his prey was man.

Isaiah, describing the happy state of the reign of Messiah, says, The
leopard shall lie down with the kid,” Isaiah xi, 6. Even animals shall
lose their fierceness and cruelty, and become gentle and tame. Jeremiah,
v, 6, mentions the artful ambuscades of this animal; and in xiii, 23,
alludes to his spots: Can a Cushite change his skin; or a leopard his
spots? Then may ye prevail with them to do good who are habituated to do
evil;” and Habakkuk, i, 8, refers to its alertness.

LEPROSY. See DISEASES.

LETTERS, marks for the purpose of expressing sounds, used in writing.
Few subjects have given rise to more discussion than the origin of
alphabetic characters. If they are of human invention, they must be
considered as one of the most admirable efforts of the ingenuity of man.
So wonderful is the facility which they afford for recording human
thought; so ingenious, and at the same time so simple, is the analysis
which they furnish for the sounds of articulate speech, and for all the
possible variety of words; that we might expect the author of this happy
invention to have been immortalized by the grateful homage of succeeding
ages, and his name delivered down to posterity with the ample honours it
so justly merited. But the author and the era of this discovery, if such
it be, are both lost in the darkness of remote antiquity. Even the
nation to which the invention is due cannot now be ascertained. The
Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Phenicians, the Persians, the Indians,
have all laid claim to the honour of it; and each has named its inventor
among the remote, and probably fabulous, personages that figure in the
earlier ages of their history. In consequence of this uncertainty
respecting the author of alphabetic writing, and the high value and
extreme difficulty of the invention itself, many have been inclined to
attribute this art to an immediate revelation from the Deity; contending
that it was communicated with other invaluable gifts from above, in
remote ages, to the descendants of Abraham, and probably to the
Patriarch Moses, who was the author of the most ancient compositions in
alphabetical writing that we at present possess. The arguments which are
brought in support of the divine revelation of the alphabet, are chiefly
these: 1. The high antiquity of the use of letters; the Hebrew
characters having existed in a perfect state when Moses composed the
Pentateuch, the most ancient writing now known to be extant. 2. The
similarity between the various alphabets of different nations, which,
for the most part, are the same, in the order, power, and even form, of
their letters with the Hebrew. 3. The complete want of alphabetic
characters among those nations, which have been cut off from all
communication with the ancient civilized world, as the aboriginal
Americans; or that part of the human race which had no opportunity of
borrowing the system of written characters revealed to the Hebrews, as
China.

Had man been left to himself, the first and most natural way of making
his thoughts visible to the eye would be by pictorial representations.
The second step would, for convenience’ sake, be to invent an
abbreviated form of these pictures, sufficiently legible to call to mind
the original picture in full, and yet so reduced and intermixed with a
few easily remembered arbitrary characters, or symbols, as to be more
extensively useful. The next and most difficult step would be the
alphabet so formed as to express all the sounds of the language, by
convenient combination. The Egyptian monuments show specimens of each;
the hieroglyph, the mixed and abbreviated, and the alphabetical. The
magnificent ruins of Persepolis, the capital of ancient Persia, exhibit
also the pure pictorial style, and tablets of abbreviated emblems. The
characters on the bricks dug up from the ruins of ancient Babylon have
characters, which are supposed to be, not alphabetic, but abbreviated
symbols, and therefore suppose the existence of the larger picture
writing, whether the people possessed a proper alphabet or not. All the
savage tribes of America had their picture writings, and this style was
carried to great perfection by the Mexicans. The latter had, likewise,
abbreviated marks, which were used as symbols; and thus made an approach
to letters, although they never reached this discovery. It is a curious
fact, that in our day a Cherokee chief has actually invented an
alphabet, and that in the process he commenced with a pictorial
representation of animals which uttered sounds somewhat like those of
his own tongue; which thought seems not to have entered into the picture
writing of the ancients, whose delineations spoke wholly to the eye, and
not at all to the ear. Finding this method imperfect and cumbersome, he
at last hit upon the expedient of arbitrary characters, which he
gradually reduced in number, and so perfected, that, with a few European
improvements, books are now printed in them for the use of his nation.
In China the language is a complete system of abbreviated pictures,
emblems, or symbols; and there is no proper alphabet to this day.

These facts are urged as direct proofs or strong presumptions that all
alphabetical characters have been preceded by picture or imitative
characters; and that as the whole is within the compass of human
ingenuity, the notion of a divine suggestion of letters, or of the
important art of alphabetical writing, is bringing in the divine agency
without necessity. But the assumption that alphabets have in all cases
been formed through this process, is wholly hypothetic. Certain it is
that we can prove from the Scriptures that _literal_ writing was in use
at an earlier period than can be assigned to any picture writing
whatever. Writing and reading were familiar to Moses and the Israelites
when the law was given, and must have long previously existed among
them, and, probably, among the Egyptians of the same age too; which is
much earlier than any of those monuments bearing hieroglyphical
characters reach. We have given sufficient reason to conclude that Job
lived at an earlier period still, and as he expresses a wish that his
words should be written in a book, and engraven on the rock, the
knowledge of reading as well as writing must have been pretty general in
his country, or the book and the inscription could not have been a
testimony of his faith and hope to his countrymen, as he passionately
desired it to be. Here, too, it is to be observed, that in the early
Mosaic history we have not the least intimation of writing by pictures
or symbols, nor any that the art of writing had been revealed from
heaven in the days of Moses, preparatory to the giving of a written law
and the introduction of inspired books for the religious instruction of
the people. We must trace it up higher; though whether of divine
revelation, or human invention, cannot certainly be determined. Its
importance was assuredly worthy of the former; and if this was not done
by particular revelation, doubtless we may reasonably and piously
ascribe it to a divine suggestion.

It may, indeed, be asked, How then is it that in other nations we can so
accurately trace the progress from the picture to the symbol, and thence
on to the alphabet; as for instance in Egypt? We answer, that if this
were allowed, still it might be, and probably was, a part of the divine
procedure with reference to the preservation of the true religion, that
the knowledge of letters should be early given to the Abrahamic family,
or, at least, preserved among them, while many others of the more
dispersed branches of the human race becoming barbarous, as stated under
the article _Language_, might lose it; because picture writing was
easily convertible to idolatrous purposes, and in reality was greatly
encouraged from that source. The same care would be exerted to prevent
pictorial representations of spiritual beings and things as the forming
of images; and the race of true worshippers of God was never therefore
placed under the necessity of thus expressing their thoughts by such
delineations. But it is, in fact, far from being proved, that the
hieroglyph, or picture writing, of Egypt for example, was more ancient
among that people than alphabetic writing. One of the most recent
writers on this side is the Marquis Spineto, in his Lectures on Egyptian
Hieroglyphics.” His theory is, in fact, that of Warburton; and he thinks
that the recent discoveries as to the hieroglyphics of Egypt fully
establish it. The opinion of this learned prelate was, that the
primitive mode of writing among the Egyptians was by figurative
delineations or hieroglyphics; that this becoming too tedious and
voluminous, by degrees they perfected another character, which he calls
the running-hand of hieroglyphics, resembling the Chinese characters;
which being at first formed only by the outlines of figures, became at
length a kind of marks; and at last led to the compendious use of
letters by an alphabet. His argument against the knowledge of letters by
the immediate descendants of Noah is as follows: For, if the invention
of the alphabet had preceded the dispersion, we should have found the
use of it generally established among mankind, and hieroglyphics and
picture writing entirely lain aside. But this is not the case. The
Mexicans and the Peruvians, up to the fifteenth century, and, to this
day, the Chinese, have no knowledge of the alphabet. They all, like the
Egyptians, made use of hieroglyphics, more or less abridged, more or
less symbolical, or, if you please, more or less arbitrary; but they had
no knowledge of the alphabet. The invention of letters, therefore, must
have happened after the dispersion, at a time when picture or
hieroglyphical writing was generally used; it was thus imported into the
respective countries, by the primitive inhabitants, as they separated
themselves from the common society, carrying in their migrations those
partly true and partly false notions of the Deity, and of the great
event which had submerged the world; notions which, in fact, are to be
found in the theology and ritual of all the nations in the universe,
although more or less disfigured and altered.”

But as the running-hand hieroglyphics, spoken of by Warburton, were no
more alphabetical than the hieroglyphics themselves, still we are left
to make the inquiry, Who was the inventor of the Egyptian alphabet? This
is supposed by the Marquis on the authority of a passage in Plato, to be
a secretary of one of the kings of Egypt. This king is called Thamus;
who forbade his ingenius secretary, Thouth, or Theuth, to make the
invention public; lest the people should no longer pay attention to the
hieroglyphics, which would then be soon forgotten. The secret, however,
soon escaped; and as it diminished to a prodigious degree the difficulty
of writing, it was generally adopted by the Egyptians, and from them
passed into other nations. The first,” says the Marquis, who seem to
have got a knowledge of this system, were the Phenicians; they imparted
it to the Arabians, to the Jews, and carried it over to Greece. From
that country it was exported to the several islands, carried to the
continent, and reached the northern nations. The Chinese alone refused
to adopt the valuable discovery; proud of the antiquity of their social
establishment, believing themselves superior to the rest of mankind,
they still adhered to their ancient mode of writing. This, as I have
already observed, though originally the same with that used by the
Egyptians, became, in process of time, materially different, being made
up of arbitrary marks, which are for the most part ideographical. With
the discovery of the alphabet, however, a very material change took
place in regard to hieroglyphics. Originally, as we have seen, they had
been the common, nay, the sole mode of writing, employed by the nation
at large, in all the transactions of life, and through the policy of
King Thamus, the alphabetical letters were kept secret: but, as soon as
this discovery became known, the contrary happened; alphabetical writing
became common, and hieroglyphics mysterious, not because they were
purposely hidden in mystery, but simply because they required greater
application and greater trouble. They indeed still continued to be used
in matters of religion, funerals, public monuments, and the like; but in
all business, and common transactions, the alphabetical writing was
employed. This was a necessary consequence of the general use of
hieroglyphics in their primitive state; for although the Egyptians
might, and, in fact, did, give the preference to the alphabet, yet they
did not think it necessary to erase the old hieroglyphical characters
from their temples, from their obelisks, from their tombs, and religious
vases. The priests, therefore, still continued to study and preserve the
knowledge of hieroglyphics; and these, partly by their showy nature,
partly by the continuation of the old custom, continued still to be used
in public monuments of a votive and funeral nature. To distinguish them,
therefore, from the alphabetical letters newly invented, they obtained
the name of sacred, on the score of their being employed only in matters
of religion. The priests, however, who had already invented a new set of
arbitrary marks, as a shorter way of hieroglyphical writing, which they
employed exclusively in transactions which concerned their body and
their pursuits, after the invention of the alphabet turned these marks
into letters, and thus they formed another set of characters, or mode of
writing, to which they gave the appellation of hieratic, as belonging
exclusively to their order. In these characters they wrote all
historical, political, and religious transactions. And as the common, or
demotic letters were employed in all the common business of life, and
hieroglyphics confined to public monuments, and funereal and votive
ceremonies, the Egyptians became possessed of at least three different
modes of writing, or sets of characters, which were hieroglyphic,
demotic, and hieratic. Whether the priests had invented another set of
characters, unknown to the people, and in which they concealed their
doctrine and their knowledge, is a question which cannot be solved at
present. The want of monuments disables us from saying any thing of a
decisive nature on this subject. One thing alone we can suppose with
certainty, that if such a mode of writing did ever exist, and for the
purpose for which it is supposed to have existed, the knowledge of it
must have been confined to the priests only, and the records so written
concealed with the greatest care from the eye of the nation. If,
therefore, such records exist, they must be sought for in the dwelling
of the hierophant, in the most recondite places of the temples; perhaps
in those subterraneous passages which now lie hidden under mountains of
sand, and in which no one but the priests were ever permitted to enter.”

The whole of this account, we may however observe, is far from being
satisfactory. Whether the early Egyptians wrote hieroglyphics at all, no
monuments yet discovered are so ancient as to prove; since all such
characters now known must have been written subsequently to the
advancement of the kingdom into great power, and after considerable
progress had been made in architecture and other arts. The passage, too,
in Plato, on which the argument is made to depend, may just as well
refer to the running-hand or abridged hieroglyphical signs, as to
alphabetical writing; and the supposition, that the priests gave an
alphabetical character to this kind of abridged pictorial writing
_after_ the discovery of the real alphabet, (and alphabetical Ackerblad
and Dr. Young have proved it to be,) is quite hypothetic. We think it
more probable that alphabetical writing is much older than the
hieroglyphics; that the phonetic hieroglyphics were fanciful
representations of the alphabetic characters, intermingled with those
symbols which idolatry and the natural peculiarities of Egypt would
suggest; that the whole was originally easy to be deciphered by those
who knew letters at all; and that the leading motive of fixing them on
public monuments in preference to literal inscriptions, was the taste of
the day, which custom, and antiquity, and superstition at length
consecrated. We have thus an easy way of accounting for the
alphabetical, though obscure, character of the hieroglyphic
running-hand, or hieratic writing, so much used in manuscripts. As an
abridged form of the hieroglyphical outline, it would at least be
phonetic wherever the hieroglyphic was so; and where that was
symbolical, it would naturally present greater difficulty in
deciphering, which, in fact, has been proved to be the case, by modern
students in the art. It is, indeed, acknowledged by those who advocate
the priority of the hieroglyphic to the alphabetic signs, that the
number of ideas which could thus be expressed is few; and this the
Marquis Spineto considers as a presumptive proof of his theory. In these
early ages, the position of mankind after the flood,” he observes, was
such as to preclude the possibility of supposing that they had many
ideas and many wants; therefore we may reasonably conclude, that their
language consisted of words only which were intended to express the
things most necessary to life, and consequently contained a small number
of words.” We know, indeed, that it is the notion of many infidel
writers, that the original race or races of mankind were a sort of
savages; and that a state of society gradually increased the ideas, and
enriched the language of those who at first were capable of uttering but
a few simple articulate sounds; but that any person should talk in a
similar strain, who professes to receive the Mosaic history, is absurd.
The antediluvians had surely much knowledge. Many arts were invented
before the flood; and the ark itself is a vast monument of mechanical
skill. Arts, science, morals, legislation, theology, were all known
before the flood; and were all transmitted from the old world to the
new, by Noah and his sons. These were not men of few ideas,” nor was the
pastoral mode of life incompatible with great moral knowledge,
eloquence, and the highest and richest poetry, as we see in the book of
Job. Men were not then, as many moderns have supposed, a race of babies,
able only to ask for what they needed to eat and drink, or childishly to
play with; and we may therefore rest assured that they had a language so
copious, and enunciations of ideas so various in their respective
tongues, that picture writing neither was nor could be adequate to their
full expression. The true origin of hieroglyphic writing is still
unexplained; and will, after all, probably, remain inexplicable: but it
has little claim to be considered as the first mode of expressing the
sounds of language. As for the Chinese language, it is evident that it
cannot be urged in proof of alphabetical writing having in all cases
passed through the process above mentioned; for to this day the Chinese
have no alphabet. As a language it is indeed peculiar, as being wholly
monosyllabic; and we must be better acquainted with the early
circumstances of that people before we can account for either. See
WRITING.

LEVIATHAN, לויתן, Job iii, 8; xli, 1; Psalm lxxiv, 14; civ, 26; Isa.
xxvii, 1. The old commentators concurred in regarding the whale as the
animal here intended. Beza and Diodati were among the first to interpret
it the crocodile: and Bochart has since supported this last rendering
with a train of argument which has nearly overwhelmed all opposition,
and brought almost every commentator over to his opinion. It is very
certain that it could not be the whale, which does not inhabit the
Mediterranean, much less the rivers that empty themselves into it; nor
will the characteristics at all apply to the whale. The crocodile, on
the contrary, is a natural inhabitant of the Nile, and other Asiatic and
African rivers; of enormous voracity and strength, as well as fleetness
in swimming; attacks mankind and the largest animals with most daring
impetuosity; when taken by means of a powerful net, will often overturn
the boats that surround it; has, proportionally, the largest mouth of
all monsters whatever; moves both its jaws equally, the upper of which
has not less than forty, and the lower than thirty-eight sharp, but
strong and massy, teeth; and is furnished with a coat of mail, so scaly
and callous as to resist the force of a musket ball in every part,
except under the belly. Indeed, to this animal the general character of
the leviathan seems so well to apply, that it is unnecessary to seek
farther.

LEVITES. Under this name may be comprised all the descendants of Levi;
but it principally denotes those who were employed in the lowest
ministries of the temple, by which they were distinguished from the
priests, who, being descended from Aaron, were likewise of the race of
Levi by Kohath, but were employed in higher offices. The Levites were
descendants of Levi, by Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, excepting the
family of Aaron; for the children of Moses had no part in the
priesthood, and were only common Levites. God chose the Levites instead
of the first-born of all Israel, for the service of his tabernacle and
temple, Num. iii, 6, &c. They obeyed the priests in the ministrations of
the temple, and brought to them wood, water, and other things necessary
for the sacrifices. They sung and played on instruments, in the temple,
&c; they studied the law, and were the ordinary judges of the country,
but subordinate to the priests. God provided for the subsistence of the
Levites, by giving them the tithe of corn, fruit, and cattle; but they
paid to the priests the tenth of their tithes; and as the Levites
possessed no estates in the land, the tithes which the priests received
from them were looked on as the first-fruits which they were to offer to
the Lord, Num. xviii, 21–24. God assigned them for their habitations
forty-eight cities, with fields, pastures, and gardens, Num. xxxv. Of
these thirteen were given to the priests, six of which were cities of
refuge, Joshua xx, 7; xxi, 19, 20, &c. While the Levites were actually
employed in the temple, they were subsisted out of the provisions in
store there, and out of the daily offerings there made; and if any
Levite quitted the place of his abode, to serve the temple, even out of
the time of his half-yearly or weekly waiting, he was received there,
kept and provided for, in like manner as his other brethren, who were
regularly in waiting, Deut. xviii, 6–8. The consecration of Levites was
without much ceremony. They wore no particular habit to distinguish them
from the other Israelites, and God ordained nothing particularly for
their mourning, 2 Chron. xxix, 34. The manner of their consecration may
be seen in Num. viii, 5–7, &c.

Josephus says, that in the reign of Agrippa, king of the Jews, about A.
D. 62, six years before the destruction of the temple by the Romans, the
Levites desired permission from that prince to wear the linen tunic like
the priests; and this was granted. This innovation was displeasing to
the priests; and the Jewish historian remarks, that the ancient customs
of the country were never forsaken with impunity. He adds, that Agrippa
permitted likewise the families of the Levites, whose duty it was to
guard the doors, and perform other troublesome offices, to learn to sing
and play on instruments, that they might be qualified for the temple
service as musicians. The Levites were divided into different classes:
Gershonites, Kohathites, Merarites, and Aaronites or priests, Num. iii,
&c. The Gershonites, whose number was seven thousand five hundred, were
employed in the marches through the wilderness in carrying the veils and
curtains of the tabernacle; the Kohathites, whose number was eight
thousand six hundred, in carrying the ark and sacred vessels of the
tabernacle; the Merarites, whose number was six thousand two hundred, in
carrying the several pieces of the tabernacle which could not be placed
upon the chariots; and the Aaronites were the priests who served the
sanctuary. When the Hebrews encamped in the wilderness, the Levites were
placed around the tabernacle; Moses and Aaron at the east, Gershon at
the west, Kohath at the south, and Merari at the north. Moses ordained
that the Levites should not begin in the service of the tabernacle till
they were five-and-twenty years of age, Num. viii, 24–26; or, as he says
elsewhere, from thirty to fifty years old, Num. iv, 3. But David,
finding that they were no longer employed in these grosser offices of
transporting the vessels of the tabernacle, appointed them to enter on
service at the temple at twenty years of age. The priests and Levites
waited by turns, weekly, in the temple. They began their weeks on one
Sabbath day, and on the Sabbath day in the following week went out of
waiting, 1 Chronicles xxiii, 24; 2 Chron. xxi, 17; Ezra iii, 8. When an
Israelite made a religious entertainment in the temple, God required
that the Levites should be invited to it, Deut. xii, 18, 19.

LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the
Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the
laws and regulations relating to the Levites, priests, and sacrifices;
for which reason the Hebrews call it the law of the priests, because it
includes many ordinances concerning their services. See PENTATEUCH.

LIBATION. This word is used in sacrificial language, to express an
affusion of liquors, poured upon victims to be sacrificed to the Lord.
The quantity of wine for a libation was the fourth part of a hin, rather
more than two pints. Libations among the Hebrews were poured on the
victim after it was killed, and the several pieces of it were laid on
the altar, ready to be consumed by the flames, Lev. vi, 20; viii, 25,
26; ix, 4; xvi, 12, 20. These libations consisted in offerings of bread,
wine, and salt. The Greeks and Latins offered libations with the
sacrifices, but they were poured on the victim’s head while it was
living. So Sinon, relating the manner in which he was to be sacrificed,
says he was in the priest’s hands ready to be slain, was loaded with
bands and garlands; that they were preparing to pour upon him the
libations of grain and salted meal:--

           _Jamque dies infanda aderat, mihi sacra parari,
           Et salsæ fruges, et circum tempora vittæ._
                                         Æneid ii, 130, 131.

[And now the horrible day being come, they began to prepare for me the
sacred rites.]

              The salted barley on my front was spread,
              The sacred fillets bound my destined head.”
                                               PITT.

And Dido, beginning to sacrifice, pours wine between the horns of the
victim:--

             _Ipsa tenens dextra pateram pulcherrima Dido,
             Candentsi vaccæ media inter cornua fudit._
                                                Æneid iv.

              The queen before the snowy heifer stands,
              Amid the shrines, a goblet in her hands;
              Between the horns she sheds the sacred wine,
              And pays due honours to the powers divine.”
                                                 PITT.

St. Paul describes himself, as it were, a victim about to be sacrificed,
and that the accustomed libations of meal and wine were already, in a
manner, poured upon him: For I am ready to be offered, and the time of
my departure is at hand,” 2 Tim. iv, 6. The same expressive sacrificial
term occurs in Phil. ii, 17, where the Apostle represents the faith of
the Philippians as a sacrifice, and his own blood as a libation poured
forth to hallow and consecrate it: “Yea, and if I be offered, σπένδομαι,
upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, ἐπῖ τῆ θυσίᾳ καὶ
λειτουργίᾳ, I joy and rejoice with you all.”

LIBERTINES. Mention is made of the synagogue of the Libertines, Acts vi,
9; concerning whom there are different opinions, two of which bid
fairest for the truth. The first is that of Grotius and Vitringa, that
they were Italian Jews or proselytes. The ancient Romans distinguished
between _libertus_ and _libertinus_. _Libertus_ was one who had been a
slave, and obtained his freedom; _libertinus_ was the son of a
_libertus_. But this distinction in after ages was not strictly
observed; and _libertinus_ also came to be used for one not born, but
made free, in opposition to _ingenuus_, or one born free. Whether the
_libertini_ mentioned in this passage of the Acts were Gentiles, who had
become proselytes to Judaism, or native Jews, who having been made
slaves to the Romans were afterward set at liberty, and in remembrance
of their captivity called themselves _libertini_, and formed a synagogue
by themselves, is differently conjectured by the learned. It is probable
the Jews of Cyrenia, Alexandria, &c, built synagogues at Jerusalem at
their own charge, for the use of their brethren who came from those
countries; as the Danes, Swedes, &c, build churches for the use of their
own countrymen in London; and that the Italian Jews did the same; and
because the greatest number of them were _libertini_, their synagogue
was therefore called the synagogue of the Libertines. The other opinion,
which is hinted by Œcumenius on the Acts, and mentioned by Dr.
Lardner, as more lately advanced by Mr. Daniel Gerdes, professor of
divinity in the university of Groningen, is this, that the Libertines
are so called from a city or country called Libertus, or Libertina, in
Africa, about Carthage. Suidas, in his Lexicon, on the word λιβερτινος,
says it was ονομα εθνους, _nomen gentis_. [The name of a nation.] And
the _glossa interlinearis_, of which Nicolas de Lyra made great use in
his notes, hath over the word _libertini, e regione_, denoting that they
were so styled from a country. In the acts of the famous conference with
the Donatists at Carthage, A. D. 411, there is mentioned one Victor,
bishop of the church of Libertina: and in the acts of the Lateran
council, which was held in 649, there is mention of _Januarius gratiâ
Dei episcopus sanctæ ecclesiæ Libertinensis_; [Januarius by the grace of
God bishop of the holy church of Libertina;] and therefore Fabricius, in
his Geographical Index of Christian Bishoprics,” has placed Libertina in
what was called Africa Propria, or the proconsular province of Africa.
Now, as all the other people of the several synagogues, mentioned in
this passage of the Acts, are denominated from the places from whence
they came, it is probable that the Libertines were so too; and as the
Cyrenians and Alexandrians, who came from Africa, are placed next to the
Libertines in that catalogue, it is probable they also belonged to the
same country. So that, upon the whole, there is little reason to doubt
of the Libertines being so called from the place from whence they came;
and the order of the names in the catalogue might lead us to think, that
they were farther off from Jerusalem than Alexandria and Cyrenia, which
will carry us to the proconsular province in Africa about Carthage.

LIBNAH, a city in the southern part of the tribe of Judah, Joshua xv,
42, of which a cession was made to the priests for their habitation, and
which was declared a city of refuge, 1 Chron. vi, 57.

LIBYA. The name, in its largest sense, was used by the Greeks to denote
the whole of Africa. But Libya Proper, or the Libya of the New
Testament, the country of the Lubims of the Old, was a large country
lying along the Mediterranean, on the west of Egypt. It was called
Pentapolitana Regio by Pliny, from its five chief cities, Berenice,
Arsinoe, Ptolemais, Apollonia, and Cyrene; and Libya Cyrenaica by
Ptolemy, from Cyrene its capital. Libya is supposed to have been first
peopled by, and to have derived its name from, the Lehabim, or Lubim.
These, its earlier inhabitants, appear in the times of the Old
Testament, to have consisted of wandering tribes, who were sometimes in
alliance with Egypt, and at others with the Ethiopians of Arabia; as
they are said to have assisted both Shishak and Zerah in their
expeditions into Judea, 2 Chron. xii, xiv, xvi. They were for a time
sufficiently powerful to maintain a war with the Carthaginians, by whom
they were in the end entirely overcome. Since that period, Libya, in
common with the rest of the east, has successively passed into the hands
of the Greeks, Romans, Saracens, and Turks. The city Cyrene, built by a
Grecian colony, was the capital of this country, in which, and other
parts, dwelt many Jews, who came up to Jerusalem at the feast of
pentecost, together with those dispersed among other nations, and are
called by St. Luke dwellers in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,” Acts
ii, 10.

LICE. Swarms of lice was the third plague with which God punished the
Egyptians, Exod. viii, 16. The Hebrew word בנים, which the LXX render
σκνίφες, some translate flies,” and think them the same as gnats. Origen
says that the _sciniphe_ is so small a fly, that it is scarcely
perceptible to the eye, but that it occasions a sharp stinging pain.
However, the original, according to the Syriac, and several good
interpreters, signifies lice.”

But Josephus, the Jewish rabbins, and most of the modern translators
render the Hebrew word at large _lice_; and Bochart and Bryant support
this interpretation. The former argues that _gnats_ could not be meant.
1. Because the creatures here mentioned sprang from the dust of the
earth, and not from the waters. 2. Because they were both on men and
cattle, which cannot be spoken of gnats. 3. Because their name comes
from the radix כון, which signifies _to make firm, fix, establish_,
which can never agree to gnats, flies, &c, which are ever changing their
place, and are almost constantly on the wing. 4. Because כנה is the term
by which the talmudists express the term louse, &c. To which may be
added, that if they were winged and stinging insects, as Jerom, Origen,
and others have supposed, the plague of flies is unduly anticipated; and
the next miracle will be only a repetition of the former. Mr. Bryant, in
illustrating the aptness of this miracle, has the following remarks:
“The Egyptians affected great external purity, and were very nice both
in their persons and clothing; bathing and making ablutions continually.
Uncommon care was taken not to harbour any vermin. They were
particularly solicitous on this head; thinking it would be a great
profanation of the temple which they entered, if any animalcule of this
sort were concealed in their garments.” The priests, says Herodotus, are
shaved, both as to their heads and bodies, every third day, to prevent
any louse, or any other detestable creature, being found upon them when
they are performing their duty to the gods. The same is mentioned by
another author, who adds, that all woollen was considered as foul, as
from a perishable animal; but flax is the product of the immortal earth,
affords a delicate and pure covering, and is not liable to harbour lice.
We may hence see what an abhorrence the Egyptians showed toward this
sort of vermin, and what care was taken by the priests to guard against
them. The judgments, therefore, inflicted by the hands of Moses, were
adapted to their prejudices. It was, consequently, not only most noisome
to the people in general, but was no small odium to the most sacred
order in Egypt, that they were overrun with these filthy and detestable
vermin.

LIGHT, φῶς, is used in a physical sense, Matt. xvii, 2; Acts ix, 3; xii,
7; 2 Cor. iv, 6; for a fire giving light, Mark xiv, 54; Luke xxii, 56;
for a torch, candle, or lamp, Acts xvi, 29; and for the material light
of heaven, as the sun, moon, or stars, Psalm cxxxvi, 7; James i, 17.
Figuratively taken, it signifies a manifest or open state of things,
Matt. x, 27; Luke xii, 3; also prosperity, truth, and joy.

God is said to dwell in light inaccessible, 1 Tim. vi, 16. This seems to
contain a reference to the glory and splendour which shone in the holy
of holies, where Jehovah appeared in the luminous cloud above the mercy
seat, and which none but the high priest, and he only once a year, was
permitted to approach unto, Lev. xvi, 2; Ezek. i, 22, 26, 28; but this
was typical of the glory of the celestial world. It signifies, also,
instruction, both by doctrine and example, Matt. v, 16; John v, 35; or
persons considered as giving such light, Matt. v, 14; Rom. ii, 19. It is
applied figuratively to Christ, the true Light, the Sun of
Righteousness, who is that in the spiritual, which the material light is
in the natural, world; who is the great Author, not only of illumination
and knowledge, but of spiritual life, health, and joy to the souls of
men.

The images of light and darkness, says Bishop Lowth, are commonly made
use of in all languages to imply or denote prosperity and adversity,
agreeably to the common sense and perception which all men have of the
objects themselves. But the Hebrews employ those metaphors more
frequently and with less variation than other people: indeed, they
seldom refrain from them whenever the subject requires or will even
admit of their introduction. These expressions, therefore, may be
accounted among those forms of speech, which in the parabolic style are
established and defined; since they exhibit the most noted and familiar
images, and the application of them on this occasion is justified by an
acknowledged analogy, and approved by constant and unvarying custom. In
the use of images, so conspicuous and so familiar among the Hebrews, a
degree of boldness is excusable. The Latins introduce them more
sparingly, and therefore are more cautious in the application of them.
But the Hebrews, upon a subject more sublime indeed, in itself, and
illustrating it by an idea which was more habitual to them, more
daringly exalt their strains, and give a loose rein to the spirit of
poetry. They display, for instance, not the image of the spring, of
Aurora, of the dreary night, but the sun and stars as rising with
increased splendour in a new creation, or again involved in chaos and
primeval darkness. Does the sacred bard promise to his people a renewal
of the divine favour, and a recommencement of universal prosperity? In
what magnificent colours does he depict it! Such, indeed, as no
translation can illustrate, but such as none can obscure:--

        The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,
        And the light of the sun shall be sevenfold.”
                                            Isaiah xxx, 26.

But even this is not sufficient:--

     No longer shalt thou have the sun for thy light by day;
     Nor by night shall the brightness of the moon enlighten thee:
     For Jehovah shall be to thee an everlasting light,
     And thy God shall be thy glory.
     Thy sun shall no more decline;
     Neither shall thy moon wane;
     For Jehovah shall be thine everlasting light;
     And the days of thy mourning shall cease.”
                                            Isaiah lx, 19, 20.

In another place he has admirably diversified the same sentiment:--

    And the moon shall be confounded, and the sun shall be ashamed;
    For Jehovah, God of Hosts, shall reign
    On Mount Sion, and in Jerusalem:
    And before his ancients shall he be glorified.”
                                            Isaiah xxiv, 25.

On the other hand, denouncing ruin against the proud king of Egypt:--

    And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heavens,
    And the stars thereof will I make dark:
    I will involve the sun in a cloud,
    Nor shall the moon give out her light.
    All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee,
    And I will set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord Jehovah.”
                                               Ezekiel xxvii, 7, 8.

These expressions are bold and daring; but the imagery is well known,
the use of it is common, the signification definite: they are therefore
perspicuous, clear, and truly magnificent.

LIGN-ALOES. See ALOE.

LIGURE, לשם, Exod. xxviii, 19; xxxix, 12, a precious stone of a deep red
colour, with a considerable tinge of yellow. Theophrastus and Pliny
describe it as resembling the carbuncle, of a brightness sparkling like
fire.

LILY, שישן, 1 Kings vii, 19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. iv, 5; Cant. ii, 2, 16;
iv, 5; v, 13; vi, 2, 3; vii, 2; Hosea xiv, 5; κρίνον, Matt. vi, 28; Luke
xii, 27; a well known sweet and beautiful flower, which furnished
Solomon with a variety of charming images in his Song, and with graceful
ornaments in the fabric and furniture of the temple. The title of some
of the Psalms upon Shushan,” or Shoshanim,” Psalms xlv; lx; lxix; lxxx,
probably means no more than that the music of these sacred compositions
was to be regulated by that of some odes, which were known by those
names or appellations. By the lily of the valley,” Cant. ii, 2, we are
not to understand the humble flower, generally so called with us, the
_lilium convallium_, but the noble flower which ornaments our gardens,
and which in Palestine grows wild in the fields, and especially in the
valleys. Pliny reckons the lily the next plant in excellency to the
rose; and the gay Anacreon compares Venus to this flower. In the east,
as with us, it is the emblem of purity and moral excellence. So the
Persian poet, Sadi, compares an amiable youth to the white lily in a bed
of narcissuses,” because he surpassed all the young shepherds in
goodness. As, in Cant. v, 13, the lips are compared to the lily, Bishop
Patrick supposes the lily here instanced to be the same which, on
account of its deep red colour, is particularly called by Pliny _rubens
lilium_, and which, he tells us, was much esteemed in Syria. Such may
have been the lily mentioned in Matt. vi, 28–30; for the royal robes
were purple: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all
his glory was not arrayed like one of these:” so in Luke xii, 27. The
scarcity of fuel in the east obliges the inhabitants to use, by turns,
every kind of combustible matter. The withered stalks of herbs and
flowers, the tendrils of the vine, the small branches of rosemary, and
other plants, are all used in heating their ovens and bagnios. We can
easily recognize this practice in that remark of our Lord, If God so
clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast
into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”
Matt. vi, 30. The grass of the field, in this passage, evidently
includes the lilies of which he had just been speaking, and, by
consequence, herbs in general; and in this extensive sense the word
χόρτος is not unfrequently taken. Those beautiful productions of nature,
so richly arrayed, and so exquisitely perfumed, that the splendour even
of Solomon is not to be compared to theirs, shall soon wither and decay,
and be used as fuel. God has so adorned these flowers and plants of the
field, which retain their beauty and vigour but for a few days, and are
then applied to some of the meanest purposes of life: will he not much
more take care of his servants who are so precious in his sight, and
designed for such important services in the world? This passage is one
of those of which Sir Thomas Browne says, The variously interspersed
expressions from plants and flowers elegantly advantage the significancy
of the text.”

Mr. Salt, in his Voyage to Abyssinia,” says, “At a few miles from Adowa,
we discovered a new and beautiful species of _amaryllis_, which bore
from ten to twelve spikes of bloom on each stem, as large as those of
the _belladonna_, springing from one common receptacle. The general
colour of the corolla was white, and every petal was marked with a
single streak of bright purple down the middle. The flower was sweet
scented, and its smell, though much more powerful, resembled that of the
lily of the valley. This superb plant excited the admiration of the
whole party; and it brought immediately to my recollection the beautiful
comparison used on a particular occasion by our Saviour: ‘I say unto
you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.’”
And Sir James E. Smith observes, “It is natural to presume the divine
Teacher, according to his usual custom, called the attention of his
hearers to some object at hand; and as the fields of the Levant are
overrun with the _amaryllis lutea_, whose golden lilaceous flowers in
autumn afford one of the most brilliant and gorgeous objects in nature,
the expression of ‘Solomon in all his glory not being arrayed like one
of these,’ is peculiarly appropriate. I consider the feeling with which
this was expressed as the highest honour ever done to the study of
plants; and if my botanical conjecture be right, we learn a
chronological fact respecting the season of the year when the sermon on
the mount was delivered.”

LIME, שיד, Deut. xxvii, 2, 4; Isaiah xxxiii, 12; Amos ii, 1; a soft
friable substance, obtained by calcining or burning stones, shells, or
the like. From Isa. xxxiii, 12, it appears that it was made in a kiln
lighted with thorn bushes; and from Amos ii, 1, that bones were
sometimes calcined for lime. The use of it was for plaster or cement,
the first mention of which is in Deut. xxvii, where Moses directed the
elders of the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command
you this day. And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over Jordan
unto the land which the Lord your God giveth you, that you shall set up
great stones, and plaster them with plaster, and shall write upon them
all the words of this law,” &c. The book of the law, in order to render
it the more sacred, was deposited beside the ark of the covenant. The
guardians of the law, to whom was entrusted the duty of making faithful
transcripts of it, were the priests. But Moses did not account even this
precaution sufficient for the due preservation of his law in its
original purity; for he commanded that it should beside be engraven on
stones, and these stones kept on a mountain near Sichem, in order that a
genuine exemplar of it might be transmitted even to the latest
generations.

LION, ארי, or ארה, Genesis xlix, 9; Deut. xxxiii, 22; Psalm vii, 2;
xxii, 13; Hosea xiii, 8; Micah v, 8; a large beast of prey, for his
courage and strength called the king of beasts. This animal is produced
in Africa, and the hottest parts of Asia. It is found in the greatest
numbers in the scorched and desolate regions of the torrid zone, in the
deserts of Zaara and Billdulgerid, and in all the interior parts of the
vast continent of Africa. In these desert regions, from whence mankind
are driven by the rigorous heat of the climate, this animal reigns sole
master. His disposition seems to partake of the ardour of his native
soil. Inflamed by the influence of a burning sun, his rage is
tremendous, and his courage undaunted. Happily, indeed, the species is
not numerous, and is said to be greatly diminished; for, if we may
credit the testimony of those who have traversed those vast deserts, the
number of lions is not nearly so great as formerly. Mr. Shaw observes
that the Romans carried more lions from Libya in one year for their
public spectacles, than could be found in all that country at this time.
The lion was also found in Palestine, and the neighbouring countries.
The length of the largest lion is between eight and nine feet, the tail
about four, and its height about four feet and a half. The female is
about one-fourth part less, and without a mane. As the lion advances in
years, his mane grows longer and thicker. The hair on the rest of the
body is short and smooth, of a tawny colour, but whitish on the belly.
Its roaring is loud and dreadful. When heard in the night it resembles
distant thunder. Its cry of anger is much louder and shorter. The
attachment of a lioness to her young is remarkably strong. For their
support she is more ferocious than the lion himself; makes her
incursions with greater boldness; destroys, without distinction, every
animal that falls in her way, and carries it reeking to her cubs. She
usually brings forth in the most retired and inaccessible places; and
when afraid that her retreat should be discovered, endeavours to hide
her track by brushing the ground with her tail. When much disturbed or
alarmed, she will sometimes transport her young, which are usually three
or four in number, from one place to another in her mouth; and, if
obstructed in her course, will defend them to the last extremity. The
habits of the lion and the lioness afford many spirited, and often
sublime, metaphors to the sacred writers.

The lion has several names in Scripture, according to his different ages
or character: 1. גור, a little lion, a lion’s whelp, Deut. xxxiii, 22;
Jer. li, 38; Ezek. xix, 2; Nahum ii, 13. 2. כפיר, a young lion that has
done sucking the lioness, and, leaving the covert, begins to seek prey
for himself. So Ezekiel xix, 2, 3: The lioness hath brought up one of
her whelps; it became a _chephir_; it learned to catch the prey; it
devoured men.” See Psalm xci, 13; Prov. xix, 12. 3. ארי, a grown and
vigorous lion, having whelps, eager in pursuit of prey for them, Nahum
ii, 12; valiant, 2 Sam. xvii, 10; arrogantly opposing himself, Num.
xxiii, 24. This is, indeed, the general name, and occurs frequently. 4.
שחל, one in the full strength of his age; a black lion, Job iv, 10; x,
16; Psalm xci, 13; Prov. xxvi, 13; Hosea v, 14; xiii, 7. 5. ליש, a
fierce or enraged lion, Job iv, 11; Prov. xxx, 30; Isaiah xxv, 6. A
regard to these characteristics and distinctions is very important for
illustrating the passages of Scripture where the animal is spoken of,
and discovering the propriety of the allusions and metaphors which he so
often furnishes to the Hebrew poets. The lion of the tribe of Judah,
mentioned Rev. v, 5, is Jesus Christ, who sprung from the tribe of
Judah, and overcame death, the world, and the devil. The lion from the
swelling of Jordan, Jer. l, 44, is Nebuchadnezzar marching against
Judea, with the strength and fierceness of a lion. Isaiah, describing
the happy time of the Messiah, says, that then the calf, and the young
lion, and the fatling should lie down together; and that a little child
should lead them; and that the lion should eat straw like the ox, Isaiah
xi, 6, 7, which is hyperbolical, and signifies the peace and happiness
which the church of Christ should enjoy. The lion hath roared, and who
shall not fear?” Amos iii, 8. “The king’s wrath is as the roaring of a
lion. Who provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul,” Prov.
xix, 12; xx, 2; that is, he seeketh his own death. Solomon says, A
living dog is better than a dead lion,” Eccles. x, 4; showing that death
renders those contemptible who otherwise are the greatest, most
powerful, and most terrible.

Then went Samson down and, behold, a young lion roared against him, and
the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he
would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand,” Judges xiv, 5,
6. An instance in quite modern times of an unarmed man attempting to
combat a lion is related by Poiret: “In a douar, or a camp of Bedouin
Arabs, near La Calle, a French factory, a young lion had seized a cow. A
young Moor threw himself upon the savage beast, to tear his booty from
him, and as it were to stifle him in his arms, but he would not let go
his prey. The father of the young man hastened to him, armed with a kind
of hoe; and aiming at the lion, struck his son’s hand, and cut off three
of his fingers. It cost a great deal of trouble to rescue the prey from
the lion. I saw this young man, who was attended by Mr. Gay, at that
time surgeon to the hospital of La Calle.” David, according to 1 Sam.
xvii, 34, had, when a shepherd, once fought with a lion, and another
time with a bear, and rescued their prey from them. Tellez relates, that
an Abyssinian shepherd had once killed a lion of extraordinary size with
only two poles. Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling
of Jordan against the habitation of the strong,” Jer. xlix, 19. The
comparison used by the prophet in these words will be perfectly
understood by the account which Mr. Maundrell gives of the river Jordan:
After having descended,” says he, “the outermost bank of Jordan, you go
about a furlong upon a level strand, before you come to the immediate
bank of the river. This second bank is so beset with bushes and trees,
such as tamarisks, willows, oleanders, &c, that you can see no water
till you have made your way through them. In this thicket anciently, and
the same is reported of it at this day, several sorts of wild beasts
were wont to harbour themselves, whose being washed out of the covert by
the overflowings of the river gave occasion to that allusion: ‘He shall
come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan.’”

He shall be cast into the den of lions,” Dan. vi, 7. In Morocco,” says
Höst, “the king has a lions’ den, into which men, particularly Jews, are
sometimes thrown; but the latter generally come off unhurt, because the
keepers of these animals are Jews, who may safely be with them, with a
rod in the hand, if they only take care to go out backward, as the lion
does not suffer any one to turn his back upon him. The other Jews do not
let their brethren remain longer than a night among the lions, as they
might otherwise become too hungry; but ransom them with money, which is,
in fact, the king’s object.” In another place in the same work we find
the following description of the construction of this lions’ den: “At
one end of the royal palace there is a place for ostriches and their
young; and beyond the other end, toward the mountains, there is a large
lions’ den, which consists of a large square hole in the ground, with a
partition, in the middle of which there is a door, which the Jews, who
are obliged to maintain and keep them for nothing, are able to open and
shut from above, and can thus entice the lions, by means of the food,
from one division to the other, to clean the other in the mean time. It
is all in the open air, and a person may look down over a wall, which is
a yard and a quarter high.”

LITANY, a solemn form of supplication to God. The word is derived from
λιτανεία, _supplication_. At first the use of litanies was not fixed to
any stated time; but they were employed only as exigencies required.
They were observed in imitation of the Ninevites with ardent
supplications and fastings, to avert the threatened judgments of fire,
earthquake, inundations, or hostile invasions. The days on which they
were used were called rogation days. Several of these days were
appointed by the canons of different councils, till the seventeenth
council of Toledo decreed that litanies should be used in every month.
Thus, by degrees, these solemn supplications came to be used weekly, on
Wednesdays and Fridays, the ancient stationary days in all churches. As
to the form in which litanies are made, namely, in short petitions by
the priest with responses by the people, St. Chrysostom derives the
custom from the primitive ages, when the priest began and uttered by the
Spirit some things fit to be prayed for, and the people joined the
intercessions, saying, We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.” When the
miraculous gift of the Spirit began to cease, they wrote down several of
these forms, which were the original of our present litanies. St.
Ambrose has left us one, which agrees in many particulars with that of
our own church. About the year 400, litanies began to be used in
processions, the people walking barefoot, and repeating them with great
devotion. It is pretended that several countries were delivered from
great calamities by this means. About the year 600, Gregory the Great,
from all the litanies extant, composed the famous sevenfold litany, by
which Rome, it is said, was delivered from a grievous mortality. This
has served as a pattern to all the western churches since; and to it
ours of the church of England comes nearer than that of the Romish
missal, in which later popes have inserted the invocation of saints,
which our Reformers properly expunged. These processional litanies
having occasioned much scandal, it was decreed that in future the
litanies should be used only within the walls of the church. Before the
last review of the Common Prayer, the litany was a distinct service by
itself, and used some time after the morning prayer was ended. At
present it forms one office with the morning service, being ordered to
be read after the third collect for grace, instead of the intercessional
prayers in the daily service.

LITURGY denotes all the ceremonies in general belonging to divine
service. The word comes from the Greek, λειτȣργία, _public service_, or
_public ministry_; formed of λεῖτος, _public_, and ἔργον, _work_. In a
more restrained signification, liturgy is used among the Romanists to
signify the mass; and among us, the common prayer. All who have written
on liturgies agree that, in primitive days, divine service was
exceedingly simple, clogged with very few ceremonies, and consisted of
but a very small number of prayers; but, by degrees, they increased the
number of ceremonies, and added new prayers, to render the office more
awful and venerable to the people. At length, things were carried to
such a pitch that a regulation became necessary; and it was found
needful to put the service, and the manner of performing it, into
writing; and this was what they called a liturgy. Liturgies have been
different at different times and in different countries. We have the
liturgy of St. Chrysostom, of St. Peter, the Armenian liturgy, Gallican
liturgy, &c. The properties required in a public liturgy,” says Paley,
are these: it must be compendious; express just conceptions of the
divine attributes; recite such wants as a congregation are likely to
feel, and no other; and contain as few controverted propositions as
possible.” The liturgy of the church of England was composed A. D. 1547,
and established in the second year of King Edward VI. In the fifth year
of this prince, it was reviewed, because some things were contained in
that liturgy which showed a compliance with the superstitions of those
times; and exceptions were taken against it by learned men at home, and
by Calvin abroad. Some alterations were made in it, which consisted in
adding the general confession and absolution, and the communion service,
to begin with the commandments. The use of oil in confirmation and
extreme unction, was left out, and also prayers for souls departed, and
what related to a belief of the real presence of Christ in the
eucharist. The liturgy, so reformed, was established by the acts of 5th
and 6th of Edward VI., chap. 1. However, it was abolished by Queen Mary,
who enacted that the service should stand as it was commonly used in the
last year of King Henry VIII. That of Edward VI. was reëstablished, with
some few alterations, by Elizabeth. Some farther alterations were
introduced, in consequence of the review of the Common Prayer Book, by
order of King James, in the first year of his reign; particularly in the
office of private baptism, in several rubrics, and other passages, with
the addition of five or six new prayers and thanksgivings, and all that
part of the catechism which contains the doctrines of the sacraments.
This Book of Common Prayer, so altered, remained in force from the first
year of King James to the fourteenth of Charles II. The last review of
the liturgy was in the year 1661. It is an invidious cavil, says Dr.
Nichols, that our liturgy was compiled out of popish books. Our
reformers took nothing from them, but what was taken before from the
oldest writers. We have many things out of the Greek liturgies of Basil
and Chrysostom; more out of the litanies of Ambrose and Gregory; very
much out of the ancient forms of the church dispersed in the works of
the fathers, who wrote long before the Roman Breviary, and Canon of the
Mass. Our Reformers added many prayers, and thanksgivings, and
exhortations, to supply the defect.

LIZARD, לטאה, Levit. xi, 30. All interpreters agree that the original
word here signifies a sort of lizard. Bochart takes it for that kind
which is of a reddish colour, lies close to the earth, and is of a
venomous nature.

LOCUST, ארבה. The word is probably derived from רבה, which signifies _to
multiply_, _to become numerous_, &c; because of the immense swarms of
these animals by which different countries, especially in the east, are
infested. See this circumstance referred to, Judges vi, 5; vii, 12;
Psalm cv, 34; Jer. xlvi, 23; li, 14; Joel i, 4; Nahum iii, 15; Judith
ii, 19, 20; where the most numerous armies are compared to the _arbeh_,
or locust.

The locust, in entomology, belongs to a genus of insects known among
naturalists by the name of _grylli_. The common greatσκνιφες brown
locust is about three inches in length, has two antennæ about an inch
long, and two pairs of wings. The head and horns are brown; the mouth,
and insides of the larger legs, bluish; the upper side of the body, and
upper wings, brown; the former spotted with black, and the latter with
dusky, spots. The back is defended by a shield of a greenish hue; the
under wings are of a light brown hue, tinctured with green, and nearly
transparent. The general form and appearance of the insect is that of
the grasshopper so well known in this country. These creatures are
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. They were employed as one of
the plagues for the punishment of the Egyptians; and their visitation
was threatened to the Israelites as a mark of the divine displeasure.
Their numbers and destructive powers very aptly fit them for this
purpose. When they take the field, they always follow a leader, whose
motions they invariably observe. They often migrate from their native
country, probably in quest of a greater supply of food. On these
occasions they appear in such large flocks as to darken the air; forming
many compact bodies or swarms, of several hundred yards square. These
flights are very frequent in Barbary, and generally happen at the latter
end of March or beginning of April, after the wind has blown from the
south for some days. The month following, the young brood also make
their appearance, generally following the track of the old ones. In
whatever country they settle, they devour all the vegetables, grain,
and, in fine, all the produce of the earth; eating the very bark off the
trees; thus destroying at once the hopes of the husbandman, and all the
labours of agriculture: for though their voracity is great, yet they
contaminate a much greater quantity than they devour; as their bite is
poisonous to vegetables, and the marks of devastation may be traced for
several succeeding seasons. There are various species of them, which
consequently have different names; and some are more voracious and
destructive than others, though all are most destructive and insatiable
spoilers. Bochart enumerates ten different kinds which he thinks are
mentioned in the Scripture.

Writers in natural history bear abundant testimony to the Scriptural
account of these creatures. Dr. Shaw describes at large the numerous
swarms and prodigious broods of those locusts which he saw in Barbary.
Dr. Russel says, Of the noxious kinds of insects may well be reckoned
the locusts, which sometimes arrive in such incredible multitudes, that
it would appear fabulous to give a relation of them; destroying the
whole of the verdure wherever they pass.” Captain Woodroffe, who was for
some time at Astrachan, a city near the Volga, sixty miles to the
north-west of the Caspian Sea, in latitude 47°, assures us, that, from
the latter end of July to the beginning of October, the country about
that city is frequently infested with locusts, which fly in such
prodigious numbers as to darken the air, and appear at a distance as a
heavy cloud. As for the Mosaic permission to the Jews of eating the
locusts, Lev. xi, 22, however strange it may appear to the mere English
reader, yet nothing is more certain than that several nations, both of
Asia and Africa, anciently used these insects for food; and that they
are still eaten in the east to this day. Niebhur gives some account of
the several species of locusts eaten by the Arabs, and of their
different ways of dressing them for food. The Europeans,” he adds, do
not comprehend how the Arabs can eat locusts with pleasure; and those
Arabs who have had no intercourse with the Christians will not believe,
in their turn, that these latter reckon oysters, crabs, shrimps,
cray-fish, &c, for dainties. These two facts, however, are equally
certain.” Locusts are often used figuratively by the prophets, for
invading armies; and their swarms aptly represented the numbers, the
desolating march of the vast military hordes and their predatory
followers, which the ancient conquerors of the east poured down upon
every country they attacked.

LOG, Lev. xiv, 12, a Hebrew measure for things liquid, containing
five-sixths of a pint.

LOLLARDS, the supposed followers of Walter Lollard, or rather of Walter
the Lollard, who, according to Dr. Mosheim, was a Dutchman of remarkable
eloquence and piety, though tinctured with mysticism, and who, for
teaching sentiments contrary to the church of Rome, and nearly
corresponding with those of Wickliffe, was burned alive at Cologne in
1322. But before this there existed, in different parts of Germany and
Flanders, various societies of Cellites, to whom the term Lollards was
applied, and who were protected by the magistrates and inhabitants, on
account of their usefulness to the sick, and in burying the dead. They
received the name Lollards, from the old German or Belgic word _lullen_,
(Latin, _lallo_,) to sing with a low voice,” to _lull_ to sleep,”
(whence _lullaby_,) because when they carried to the grave, the bed of
death, such as died of the plague, which at that period ravaged all
Europe, they sung a dirge or hymn, probably, in a soft and mournful
tone. These Lollards obtained many papal grants, by which their
institution was confirmed, their persons exempted from the cognizance of
the inquisitors, and subjected entirely to the jurisdiction of the
bishops; and, at last, for their farther security, Charles, duke of
Burgundy, in 1472, obtained a bull from Pope Sixtus IV., by which they
were ranked among the religious orders, and delivered from the
jurisdiction of their bishops; which privileges were yet more extended
by Pope Julius II. in 1506.

In England the followers of Wickliffe were called Lollards by way of
reproach, either on account of the humble offices of the original
Lollards, (the Cellites,) or from the attachment of the Wickliffites to
singing hymns. Their enemies probably meant to describe them as poor
melancholy creatures, only fit to sing psalms at a funeral.

LOOKING GLASS. Moses states that the women who waited all night at the
door of the tabernacle, cheerfully offered their looking glasses, to be
employed in making a brazen laver for the purification of the priests,
Exod. xxxviii, 8. These looking glasses were doubtless of brass, since
the basin here mentioned, and the basis thereof, were made from them.
The ancient looking glasses were mirrors, not made of glass as ours; but
of brass, tin, silver, and a mixture of brass and silver, which last
were the best and most valuable.

LORD’s DAY. See SABBATH.

LORD’s SUPPER, an ordinance instituted by our Saviour in commemoration
of his death and sufferings. The institution of this sacrament is
recorded by the first three evangelists, and by the Apostle Paul, whose
words differ very little from those of his companion St. Luke; and the
only difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is, that the latter
omits the words, for the remission of sins.” There is so general an
agreement among them all, that it will only be necessary to recite the
words of one of them: Now, when the even was come, he sat down with the
twelve,” to eat the passover which had been prepared by his direction;
and as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it,
and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And
he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye
all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins,” Matt. xxvi, 20, 26–28. The sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper being thus instituted, was adopted by all the early
Christians, with very few exceptions; and no modern sect rejects it,
except the Quakers and some mystics, who make the whole of religion to
consist of contemplative love.

In the early times of the Gospel the celebration of the Lord’s Supper
was both frequent and numerously attended. Voluntary absence was
considered as a culpable neglect; and exclusion from it, by the sentence
of the church, as a severe punishment. Every one brought an offering
proportioned to his ability; these offerings were chiefly of bread and
wine; and the priests appropriated as much as was necessary for the
administration of the eucharist. The clergy had a part of what was left
for their maintenance; and the rest furnished the repast called ἀγάπη,
or _love-feast_, which immediately followed the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper, and of which all the communicants, both rich and poor,
partook. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper greatly resembled the
religious feasts to which the Jews were accustomed. At those feasts they
partook of bread and wine in a serious and devout manner, after a solemn
blessing or thanksgiving to God for his manifold mercies. This was
particularly the case at the feast of the passover, which our Saviour
was celebrating with his Apostles when he instituted this holy
sacrament. At that feast, they commemorated the deliverance of their own
peculiar nation from the bondage of Egypt; and there could not be a more
suitable opportunity for establishing an ordinance which was to
commemorate the infinitely more important deliverance of all mankind
from the bondage of sin. The former deliverance was typical of the
latter; and instead of keeping the Jewish passover, which was now to be
abrogated, they were to commemorate Christ, their passover, who was
sacrificed for them; the bread broken was to represent his body offered
upon the cross; and the wine poured out was to represent his blood,
which was shed for the salvation of men. The nourishment which these
elements afford to our bodies is figurative of the salutary effects
which the thing signified has upon our souls. And as the celebration of
the passover was not only a constant memorial of the deliverance of the
Israelites out of the land of Egypt, but also a symbolical action, by
which they had a title to the blessings of the old covenant; so the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not only a constant memorial of the
death of Christ, but also a pledge or earnest to the communicant of the
benefits promised by the new covenant. As the passover was instituted
the night before the actual deliverance of the Israelites, so the Lord’s
Supper was instituted the night before the redemption of man was
accomplished by the crucifixion of the blessed Jesus. It is to be
partaken of by all who look for remission of sins by the death of
Christ; we are not only to cherish that trust in our minds, and express
it in our devotions, but we are to give an outward proof of our reliance
upon the merits of his passion as the means of our salvation, by eating
that bread, and drinking that wine, which are typical representations of
the body and blood of Christ, who by his one oblation of himself once
offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” See SACRAMENTS.

LOT, the son of Haran, and nephew to Abraham. He accompanied his uncle
from Ur to Haran, and from thence to Canaan; a proof of their mutual
attachment, and similarity of principles respecting the true religion.
With Abraham he descended into Egypt, and afterward returned with him
into Canaan: but the multiplicity of their flocks, and still more the
quarrels of their servants, rendered a friendly separation necessary.
When God destroyed the cities of the plain with fire and brimstone, he
delivered just Lot” from the conflagration, according to the account of
the divine historian. The whole time that Lot resided there was
twenty-three years. During all this period he had been a preacher of
righteousness among this degenerate people. In him they had before their
eyes an illustrious example of the exercise of genuine piety, supported
by unsullied justice and benevolent actions. And doubtless it was for
these purposes that Divine Providence placed him for a time in that
city. The losses which Lot sustained on this melancholy occasion were
very great; his wife, property, and all the prospects of the future
settlement of his family blasted. Pity must therefore draw a friendly
veil over the closing scene of this man of affliction; and let him that
thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall into deeds more
reprehensible than those of Lot, without having equal trials and
sufferings to plead in his favour. Respecting his wife, whether grieving
for the loss of her property, or inwardly censuring the severity of the
divine dispensation, or whether moved by unbelief or curiosity, cannot
now be known; but, looking back, she became a pillar of salt, Gen. xix,
26. It would be endless to present the reader with all the opinions on
this subject. Some contend that nothing more is meant than that she was
suffocated: others, that a column or monument of metallic salt was
erected upon her grave: others affirm that she became encrusted with the
sulphur, insomuch that she appeared like an Egyptian mummy, which is
embalmed with salt. Our Lord warns his disciples to remember Lot’s wife
in their flight from Jerusalem, and not to imitate her tardiness, Luke
xvii, 32.

2. Lot, any thing cast or drawn in order to determine any matter in
question, Proverbs xviii, 18. We see the use of lots among the Hebrews
in many places of Scripture: God commands, for example, that lots should
be cast upon the two goats which were offered for the sins of the
people, upon the solemn day of expiation, to know which of the two
should be sacrificed, and which liberated, Lev. xvi, 8–10. He required
also that the land of promise should be divided by lot as soon as it was
conquered; which command Joshua accordingly executed, Num. xxvi, 55, 56;
xxxiii, 54; xxxiv, 13, &c; Joshua xiv-xvi; hence the term lot” is used
for an inheritance, Thou maintainest my lot;” and figuratively for a
happy state or condition. The priests and Levites had their cities
appointed by lot. Lastly, in the time of David, the four and twenty
classes of the priests and Levites were distributed by lot, to determine
in what order they should wait in the temple, 1 Chron. vi, 54, 61; xxiv,
5; xxv, 8. In the division of the spoil, after victory, lots were
likewise cast, to give every man his portion, Obadiah 11; Nahum iii, 10,
&c. In the New Testament, after the death of Judas, lots were cast to
decide who should occupy the place of the traitor, Acts i, 26. From the
above instances, it is clear that when men have recourse to this method,
the matter ought to be of the greatest importance, and no other apparent
way left to determine it; and the manner of making the appeal should be
solemn and grave, if we would escape the guilt of taking the name of God
in vain. It unquestionably implies a solemn appeal to the Most High to
interpose by his decision; and so every thinking man will be very
careful that he has a true and religious ground for so serious a
proceeding; and few if any cases can now occur in which it can have any
justification. The ancient manner of casting lots, was either in some
person’s lap,” or fold of the robe; into a helmet, or urn, or other
vessel, in which they might be shaken before they were drawn or cast.

LOVE-FEASTS. It is Godwin’s opinion, that the _agapæ_, or love-feasts,
of the primitive Christians, were derived from the חגים or feasts upon
the sacrifices, at which the Jews entertained their friends, and fed the
poor; Deut. xii, 18; xxvi, 12. There were also feasts of much the same
kind in use among the Greeks and Romans. The former were wont to offer
certain sacrifices to their gods, which were afterward given to the
poor. They had likewise public feasts for certain districts, suppose for
a town or a city, toward which all who could afford it, contributed, in
proportion to their different abilities, and all partook of it in
common. Of this sort were the συσσίτια of the Cretans; and the φιδιτία
of the Lacedæmonians, instituted by Lycurgus, and so called ϖαρὰ τῆς
φιλίας, (the λ being changed into δ according to their usual
orthography,) as denoting that love and friendship which they were
intended to promote among neighbours and fellow citizens. The Romans
likewise had a feast of the same kind, called _charistia_; which was a
meeting only of those who were akin to each other; and the design of it
was, that if any quarrel or misunderstanding had happened among any of
them, they might there be reconciled. To this Ovid alludes in the second
book of his Fasti:--

         _Proxima cognati dixere charistia cari,
         Et venit ad socios turba propinqua deos._     v. 617.

[The feasts next in order beloved relatives called _charistia_, at which
the kindred throng assembled under their family household gods.]

In imitation either of these Jewish or Gentile love-feasts, or probably
of both, the primitive Christians, in each particular church, had
likewise their love-feasts, which were supplied by the contribution of
the members, according to their several abilities, and partaken of by
all in common. And whether they were converts from among the Jews or
Gentiles, they retained their old custom with very little alteration,
and as their ἀγάπαι had been commonly annexed to their sacrifices, so
they were now annexed to the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ at
the Lord’s Supper; and were therefore held on the Lord’s day before or
after the celebration of that ordinance. It would seem at Corinth, in
the Apostles’ days, they were ordinarily held before; for when the
Corinthians are blamed for unworthily receiving the Lord’s Supper, it is
partly charged upon this, that some of them came drunk to that
ordinance, having indulged to excess at the preceding love-feast: Every
one taketh before, ϖρολαμϐανει, his own supper, and one is hungry, and
another is drunken,” 1 Cor. xi, 21. This shows, says Dr. Whitby, that
this banquet, namely, the love-feast, was celebrated before the Lord’s
Supper. But Chrysostom gives an account of it, as being in his time kept
after it. It is commonly supposed, that when St. Jude mentions certain
persons, who were spots in the feasts of charity, ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις, verse
12, he means in the Christian love-feasts; though Dr. Lightfoot and Dr.
Whitby apprehend the reference in this passage is rather a custom of the
Jews, who, on the evening of their Sabbath, had their κοινωνία, or
communion, when the inhabitants of the same city met in a common place
to eat together. However that be, all antiquity bears testimony to the
reality of the Christian ἀγάπαι, or love-feasts.

The most circumstantial account, says Dr. Townley, of the manner in
which the ancient _agapæ_ were celebrated, is given by Tertullian, in
his Apology,” written in the second century: Our supper,” says he, which
you accuse of luxury, shows its reason in its very name, for it is
called ἀγάπη, that is, _love_. Whatever charge we are at, it is gain to
be at expense upon the account of piety. For we therewith relieve and
refresh the poor. There is nothing vile or immodest committed in it. For
we do not sit down before we have first offered up prayer to God. We eat
only to satisfy hunger, and drink only so much as becomes modest
persons. We fill ourselves in such a manner, as that we remember still
that we are to worship God by night. We discourse as in the presence of
God, knowing that he hears us. Then, after water to wash our hands, and
lights brought in, every one is moved to sing some hymn to God, either
out of Scripture, or, as he is able, of his own composing, and by this
we judge whether he has observed the rules of temperance in drinking.
Prayer again concludes our feast; and thence we depart, not to fight and
quarrel; not to run about and abuse all we meet; not to give up
ourselves to lascivious pastime; but to pursue the same care of modesty
and chastity, as men that have fed at a supper of philosophy and
discipline, rather than a corporeal feast.” Ignatius, in his epistle to
the church of Smyrna, in the first century, affords us the additional
information, that it was not lawful to baptize, or celebrate the
love-feasts, without the bishop, or minister.” Lucian, the epicurean,
has also a passage which seems to refer to the _agapæ_. He tells us that
when Peregrinus, a Christian, was in prison, you might have seen, early
in the morning, old women, some widows, and orphans, waiting at the
prison. Their presidents bribed the guards, and lodged in the prison
with him. Afterward (that is, in the evening) various suppers (that is,
suppers consisting of various dishes, and various kinds of meat, brought
thither by various persons of the company) were brought in, and they
held their sacred conversations, ἴεροι λογοι, or their sacred discourses
were delivered.” Pliny, in his celebrated epistle to Trajan, mentions
the “_cibus promiscuus et innoxius_,”--“common and harmless meal” of the
Christians, which they ate together after the celebration of the
eucharist. This primitive practice, though under a simpler form, and
more expressly religious, is retained in modern times, only by the
Moravians, and by the Wesleyan Methodists.

LOVE TO GOD. To serve and obey God on the conviction that it is right to
serve and obey him, is in Christianity joined with that love to God
which gives life and animation to service, and renders it the means of
exalting our pleasures, at the same time that it accords with our
convictions. The supreme love of God is the chief, therefore, of what
have sometimes been called our theopathetic affections. It is the sum
and the end of the law; and though it has been lost by us in Adam, it is
restored to us by Christ. When it regards God absolutely, and in
himself, as a Being of infinite and harmonious perfections and moral
beauties, it is that movement of the soul toward him which is produced
by admiration, approval, and delight. When it regards him relatively, it
fixes upon the ceaseless emanations of his goodness to us all in the
continuance of the existence which he at first bestowed; the
circumstances which render that existence felicitous; and, above all,
upon that great love wherewith he loved us,” manifested in the gift of
his Son for our redemption, and in saving us by his grace; or, in the
forcible language of St. Paul, upon the exceeding riches of his grace in
his kindness to us through Christ Jesus.” Under all these views an
unbounded gratitude overflows the heart which is influenced by this
spiritual affection. But the love of God is more than a sentiment of
gratitude: it rejoices in his perfections and glories, and devoutly
contemplates them as the highest and most interesting subjects of
thought; it keeps the idea of this supremely beloved object constantly
present to the mind; it turns to it with adoring ardour from the
business and distractions of life; it connects it with every scene of
majesty and beauty in nature, and with every event of general and
particular providence; it brings the soul into fellowship with God, real
and sensible, because vital; it moulds the other affections into
conformity with what God himself wills or prohibits, loves or hates; it
produces an unbounded desire to please him, and to be accepted of him in
all things; it is jealous of his honour, unwearied in his service, quick
to prompt to every sacrifice in the cause of his truth and his church;
and it renders all such sacrifices, even when carried to the extent of
suffering and death, unreluctant and cheerful. It chooses God as the
chief good of the soul, the enjoyment of which assures its perfect and
eternal interest and happiness: Whom have I in heaven but thee? and
there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee,” is the language of
every heart, when its love of God is true in principle and supreme in
degree.

If, then, the will of God is the perfect rule of morals; and if supreme
and perfect love to God must produce a prompt and unwearied, a
delightful subjection to his will, or rather an entire and most free
choice of it as the rule of all our principles, affections, and actions;
the importance of this affection in securing that obedience to the law
of God in which true morality consists, is manifest; and we clearly
perceive the reason why an inspired writer has affirmed, that love is
the fulfilling of the law.” The necessity of keeping this subject before
us under those views in which it is placed in the Christian system, and
of not surrendering it to mere philosophy, is, however, an important
consideration. With the philosopher the love of God may be the mere
approval of the intellect; or a sentiment which results from the
contemplation of infinite perfection, manifesting itself in acts of
power and goodness. In the Scriptures it is much more than either, and
is produced and maintained by a different process. We are there taught
that the carnal mind is enmity to God,” and is not, of course, capable
of loving God. Yet this carnal mind may consist with deep attainments in
philosophy, and with strongly impassioned poetic sentiment. The mere
approval of the understanding, and the susceptibility of being impressed
with feelings of admiration, awe, and even pleasure, when the character
of God is manifested in his works, as both may be found in the carnal
mind which is enmity to God, are not therefore the love of God. They are
principles which enter into that love, since it cannot exist without
them; but they may exist without this affection itself, and be found in
a vicious and unchanged nature. The love of God is a fruit of the Holy
Spirit; that is, it is implanted by him only in the souls which he has
regenerated; and as that which excites its exercise is chiefly, and in
the first place, a sense of the benefits bestowed by the grace of God in
our redemption, and a well grounded persuasion of our personal interest
in those benefits, it necessarily presupposes our reconciliation to God
through faith in the atonement of Christ, and that attestation of it to
the heart by the Spirit of adoption. We here see, then, another proof of
the necessary connection of Christian morals with Christian doctrine,
and how imperfect and deceptive every system must be which separates
them. Love is essential to true obedience; for when the Apostle declares
love to be the fulfilling of the law,” he declares, in effect, that the
law cannot be fulfilled without love; and that every action which has
not this for its principle, however virtuous in its show, fails of
accomplishing the precepts which are obligatory upon us. But this love
to God cannot be felt so long as we are sensible of his wrath, and are
in dread of his judgments. These feelings are incompatible with each
other, and we must be assured of his reconciliation to us, before we are
capable of loving him. Thus the very existence of love to God implies
the doctrines of atonement, repentance, faith, and the gift of the
Spirit of adoption to believers; and unless it be taught in this
connection, and through this process of experience, it will be exhibited
only as a bright and beauteous object to which man has no access; or a
fictitious and imitative sentimentalism will be substituted for it, to
the delusion of the souls of men.

LUCIAN, a philosopher and wit, who appeared as one of the early opposers
of the Christian religion and its followers. The hostile sentiments of
the Heathens toward Christianity, says Dr. Neander, were different
according to the difference of their philosophical and religious views.
There entered then upon the contest two classes of men, who have never
since ceased to persecute Christianity. These were the superstitious, to
whom the honouring God in spirit and in truth was a stumbling stone, and
the careless unbeliever, who, unacquainted with all feelings of
religious wants, was accustomed to laugh and to mock at every thing
which proceeded from them, whether he understood it or not, and at all
which supposed such feelings, and proposed to satisfy them. Such was
Lucian. To him Christianity, like every other remarkable religious
phenomenon, appeared only as a fit object for his sarcastic wit. Without
giving himself the trouble to examine and to discriminate, he threw
Christianity, superstition, and fanaticism, into the same class. It is
easy enough, in any system which lays deep hold on man’s nature, to find
out some side open to ridicule, if a man brings forward only that which
is external in the system, abstracted from all its inward power and
meaning, and without either understanding, or attempting to understand,
this power. He, therefore, who looked on Christianity with cold
indifference, and the profane every-day feelings of worldly prudence,
might easily here and there find objects for his satire. The Christian
might indeed have profited by that ridicule, and have learned from the
children of darkness to join the wisdom of the serpent with the meekness
of the dove. In the end the scoffer brings himself to derision, because
he ventures to pass sentence on the phenomena of a world of which he has
not the slightest conception, and which to his eyes, buried as they are
in the films of the earth, is entirely closed. Such was Lucian. He
sought to bring forward all that is striking and remarkable in the
external conduct and circumstances of Christians, which might serve for
the object of his sarcastic raillery, without any deeper inquiry as to
what the religion of the Christians really was. And yet even in that at
which he scoffed, there was much which might have taught him to remark
in Christianity no common power over the hearts of men, had he been
capable of such serious impressions. The firm hope of eternal life which
taught them to meet death with tranquillity, their brotherly love one
toward another, might have indicated to him some higher spirit which
animated these men; but instead of this he treats it all as delusion,
because many gave themselves up to death with something like fanatical
enthusiasm. He scoffs at the notion of a crucified man having taught
them to regard all mankind as their brethren, the moment they should
have abjured the gods of Greece; as if it were not just the most
remarkable part of all this, that an obscure person in Jerusalem, who
was deserted by every one, and executed as a criminal, should be able, a
good century after his death, to cause such effects as Lucian, in his
own time, saw extending in all directions, and in spite of every kind of
persecution. How blinded must he have been to pass thus lightly over
such a phenomenon! But men of his ready wit are apt to exert it with too
great readiness on all subjects. They are able to illustrate every thing
out of nothing; with their miserable _nil admirari_,” they can close
their hearts against all lofty impressions. With all his wit and
keenness, with all his undeniably fine powers of observation in all that
has no concern with the deeper impulses of man’s spirit, he was a man of
very little mind. But hear his own language: The wretched people have
persuaded themselves that they are altogether immortal, and will live
for ever; therefore they despise death, and many of them meet it of
their own accord. Their first lawgiver has persuaded them also to regard
all mankind as their brethren, as soon as they have abjured the Grecian
gods, and, honouring their crucified Master, have begun to live
according to his laws. They despise every thing Heathen equally, and
regard all but their own notions as profaneness, while they have yet
embraced those notions without sufficient examination.” He has no
farther accusation to make against them here, except the ease with which
they allowed their benevolence toward their fellow Christians to be
abused by impostors, in which there may be much truth, but there is,
nevertheless, some exaggeration.

LUDIM. There were two Luds; the one the son of Shem, from whom the
Lydians of Asia Minor are supposed to have sprung, and the other the son
of Mizraim, whose residence was in Africa. The descendants of the latter
only are mentioned in Scripture: they are joined by Isaiah, lxvi, 19,
with Pul, whose settlement is supposed to have been about the island
Philoe, near the first cataract of the Nile; by Jeremiah, xlvi, 9, with
the Ethiopians and Libyans; by Ezekiel, xxvii, 10, with Phut, as the
mercenary soldiers of Tyre, and xxx, 5, with the Ethiopians and Libyans;
all plainly denoting their African position; but in what particular part
of that continent this position was, is not known.

LUKE. The New Testament informs us of very few particulars concerning
St. Luke. He is not named in any of the Gospels. In the Acts of the
Apostles, which were, as will hereafter be shown, written by him, he
uses the first person plural, when he is relating some of the travels of
St. Paul; and thence it is inferred, that at those times he was himself
with that Apostle. The first instance of this kind is in the eleventh
verse of the sixteenth chapter; he there says, Loosing from Troas, we
came up with a straight course to Samothracia.” Thus, we learn that St.
Luke accompanied St. Paul in this his first voyage to Macedonia. From
Samothracia they went to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. At this last
place we conclude that St. Paul and St. Luke separated, because in
continuing the history of St. Paul, after he left Philippi, St. Luke
uses the third person, saying, Now when _they_ had passed through
Amphipolis,” &c, Acts xvii, 1; and he does not resume the first person
till St. Paul was in Greece the second time. We have no account of St.
Luke during this interval; it only appears that he was not with St.
Paul. When St. Paul was about to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his
second visit into that country, St. Luke, mentioning certain persons,
says, These going before tarried for _us_ at Troas; and _we_ sailed away
from Philippi,” Acts xx, 5, 6. Thus again we learn that St. Luke
accompanied St. Paul out of Greece, through Macedonia to Troas; and the
sequel of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, and some passages in his
epistles, 2 Tim. iv, 11; Col. iv, 14, Philemon 24, written while he was
a prisoner at Rome, informs us that St. Luke continued from that time
with Paul, till he was released from his confinement at Rome; which was
a space of about five years, and included a very interesting part of St.
Paul’s life, Acts xx-xxviii.

Here ends the certain account of St. Luke. It seems probable, however,
that he went from Rome into Achaia; and some authors have asserted that
he afterward preached the Gospel in Africa. None of the most ancient
fathers having mentioned that St. Luke suffered martyrdom, we may
suppose that he died a natural death; but at what time, or in what
place, is not known. We are told by some that St. Luke was a painter,
and Grotius and Wetstein thought that he was in the earlier part of his
life a slave; but I find, says Bishop Tomline, no foundation for either
opinion in any ancient writer. It is probable that he was by birth a
Jew, and a native of Antioch in Syria; and I see no reason to doubt that
Luke, the beloved physician,” mentioned in the Epistle to the
Colossians, iv, 14, was Luke the evangelist.

Lardner thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of
the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas and Polycarp; and in
Justin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the
earliest author, who actually mentions St. Luke’s Gospel, is Irenæus;
and he cites so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel
which we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness.
We may however observe, that his testimony is supported by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and many
others. Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson have compared many parallel passages of
St. Mark’s and St. Luke’s Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that
St. Luke had seen St. Mark’s Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had
seen St. Luke’s; but there does not appear to be a sufficient similarity
of expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among
the ancients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these
two Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point.

There is also great doubt about the place where this Gospel was
published. It seems most probable that it was published in Greece, and
for the use of Gentile converts. Dr. Townson observes, that the
evangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the
scribes and Pharisees, which he would have omitted if he had been
writing for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the
Jews. We must conclude that the histories of our Saviour, referred to in
the preface to this Gospel, were inaccurate and defective, or St. Luke
would not have undertaken this work. It does not, however, appear that
they were written with any bad design; but being merely human
compositions, and perhaps put together in great haste, they were full of
errors. They are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are
not known. When the four authentic Gospels were published, and came into
general use, all others were quickly disregarded and forgotten.

St. Luke’s Gospel is addressed to Theophilus; but there was a doubt,
even in the time of Epiphanius, whether a particular person, or any good
Christian in general, be intended by that name. Theophilus was probably
a real person, that opinion being more agreeable to the simplicity of
the sacred writings. We have seen that St. Luke was for several years
the companion of St. Paul; and many ancient writers consider this Gospel
as having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark’s had
that of St. Peter. Whoever will examine the evangelist’s and the
Apostle’s account of the eucharist in their respective original works,
will observe a great coincidence of expression, Luke xxii; 1 Cor. xi.
St. Luke seems to have had more learning than any other of the
evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This
superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in
Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education, than
fell to the lot of the writers of the other three Gospels. This Gospel
contains many things which are not found in the other Gospels; among
which are the following: the birth of John the Baptist; the Roman census
in Judea; the circumstances attending Christ’s birth at Bethlehem; the
vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna;
Christ’s conversation with the doctors in the temple when he was twelve
years old; the parables of the good Samaritan, of the prodigal son, of
Dives and Lazarus, of the wicked judge, and of the publican and
Pharisee; the miraculous cure of the woman who had been bowed down by
illness eighteen years; the cleansing of the ten lepers; and the
restoring to life the son of a widow at Nain; the account of Zaccheus,
and of the penitent thief; and the particulars of the journey to Emmaus.
It is very satisfactory that so early a writer as Irenæus has noticed
most of these peculiarities; which proves not only that St. Luke’s
Gospel, but that the other Gospels also, are the same now that they were
in the second century.

LUNATICS, σεληνιαζομένους, _lunatici_, Matt. iv, 24. Thus those sick
persons were called, who were thought to suffer most severely at the
changes of the moon; for example, epileptical persons, or those who have
the falling sickness, insane persons, or those tormented with fits of
morbid melancholy. Mad people are still called lunatics, from an
ancient, but now almost exploded, opinion, that they are much influenced
by that planet. A sounder philosophy has taught us, that, if there be
any thing in it, it must be accounted for, not in the manner the
ancients imagined, nor otherwise than by what the moon has in common
with other heavenly bodies, occasioning various alterations in the
gravity of our atmosphere, and thereby affecting human bodies. However,
there is considerable reason to doubt the fact; and it is certain that
the moon has no perceivable influence on our most accurate barometers.
It has been the fashion to decry and ridicule the doctrine of demoniacal
possessions, and to represent the patients merely as lunatics or madmen.
And some think that this is countenanced by the calumny of the
unbelieving Jews concerning Christ, He hath a demon, and is mad,” John
x, 20; both possession and madness often producing the same symptoms of
convulsions, paralysis, &c, Matt. xvii, 15–18. But that they were
distinct diseases, may be collected from the following considerations:
1. The evangelists, enumerating the various descriptions of patients,
distinguish δαιμονιζόμενοι, _demoniacs_, σεληνιαζόμενοι, _lunatics_, and
ϖαραλυτικοί, _paralytics_, from persons afflicted with other kinds of
diseases, Matt. iv, 24; Mark i, 34; Luke vi, 17, 18. 2. That a real
dispossession took place, seems to follow from the number of these
impure inmates. Mary of Magdala, or the Magdalene, was afflicted with
seven demons, Mark xvi, 9. A legion” besought Christ’s permission to
enter into a numerous herd of two thousand swine; which they did, and
drove the whole herd down a precipice into the sea, where they were all
drowned. This remarkable case is noticed by the three evangelists most
circumstantially, Matt. viii, 28; Mark v, 1; Luke viii, 26. 3. The
testimony of the demoniacs to Christ was not that of madmen or idiots.
It evinced an intimate knowledge both of his person and character, which
was hidden from the wise and prudent” of the nation, the chief priests,
scribes, and Pharisees. Their language was, What hast thou to do with
us, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to torment us before the time?” I
know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God:” thou art the Christ, the
Son of God, the Son of the most high God,” Matt. viii, 29; Mark i, 24;
iii, 11; Luke iv, 34–41. And they repeatedly besought him not to torment
them, not to order them to depart into the abyss, Luke viii, 28–31. See
DEMONIACS.

LUTHERANS, or the LUTHERAN CHURCH, the disciples and followers of Martin
Luther, an Augustine friar, who was born at Isleben, in Upper Saxony, in
the year 1483. He possessed an invincible magnanimity, and uncommon
vigour and acuteness of genius. He first took offence at the indulgences
which were granted in 1517, by Pope Leo X., to those who contributed
toward finishing St. Peter’s church at Rome, Luther being then professor
of divinity at Wittemberg. Those indulgences promised remission of all
sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to all
who were rich enough to purchase them. At this Luther raised his warning
voice; and in ninety-five propositions, which he maintained publicly at
Wittemberg, September 30, 1517, exposed the doctrine of indulgences,
which led him to attack also the authority of the pope. This was the
commencement of that memorable revolution in the church which is styled
the Reformation; though Mosheim fixes the era of the Reformation from
1520, when Luther was excommunicated by the pope.

In 1523 Luther drew up a liturgy, that, in many things, differed but
little from the Mass Book; but he left his followers to make farther
reforms, as they saw them necessary; and, in consequence, the forms of
worship in the Lutheran churches vary in points of minor importance: but
they agree in reading the Scriptures publicly, in offering prayers and
praises to God through the Mediator in their own language, in popular
addresses to the congregation, and the reverend administration of the
sacraments.

The Augsburgh Confession (see _Confessions_) forms the established creed
of the Lutheran church. The following are a few of the principal points
of doctrine maintained by this great reformer, and a few of the
Scriptures by which he supported them.

1. That the Holy Scriptures are the only source whence we are to draw
our religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice, John
v, 39; 1 Cor. iv, 16; 2 Tim. iii, 15–17. Reason also confirms the
sufficiency of the Scriptures; for, if the written word be allowed to be
a rule in one case, how can it be denied to be a rule in another?

2. That justification is the effect of faith exclusive of good works;
and that faith ought to produce good works purely in obedience to God,
and not in order to our justification; for St. Paul, in his Epistle to
the Galatians, strenuously opposed those who ascribed our justification,
though but in part, to works: If righteousness come by the law, then
Christ is dead in vain,” Gal. ii, 21. Therefore it is evident we are not
justified by the law, or by our works; but to him that believeth, sin is
pardoned, and Christ’s righteousness imputed. This article of
justification by faith alone, Luther used frequently to call _articulus
stantis vel cadentis ecclesiæ_;” that by which the church must stand or
fall.

3. That no man is able to make satisfaction for his sins; for our Lord
teaches us to say, when we have done all things that are commanded us,
We are unprofitable servants,” Luke xvii, 10. Christ’s sacrifice is
alone sufficient to satisfy for sin, and nothing need be added to the
infinite value of his atonement.

Luther also rejected tradition, purgatory, penance, auricular
confession, masses, invocation of saints, monastic vows, and other
doctrines of the church of Rome. Luther differed widely from Calvin on
matters of church discipline; and on the presence of Christ’s body in
the sacrament. His followers also deviated from him in some things;
but the following may be considered as a fair statement of their
principles, and the difference between them and the Calvinists: 1. The
Lutherans in Germany reject both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, but
appoint superintendents for the government of the church, who preside
in their consistories, when that office is not supplied by a delegate
from the civil government; and they hold meetings in the different
towns and villages, to inquire into the state of the congregations and
the schools. The appointment of superintendents, and the presentation
to livings, is generally in the prince, or ecclesiastical courts. The
Swedes and Danes have an ecclesiastical hierarchy, similar to that of
England. 2. They differ in their views of the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper. All the Lutherans reject _trans_-substantiation, but affirm
that the body and blood of Christ are _materially_ present in the
sacrament, though in an incomprehensible manner: this they called
_con-_substantiation. The Calvinists hold, on the contrary, that Jesus
Christ is only _spiritually_ present in the ordinance, by the external
signs of bread and wine. 3. They differ as to the doctrine of the
eternal decrees of God respecting man’s salvation. The modern
Lutherans maintain that the divine decrees, respecting the salvation
and misery of men, are founded upon the divine prescience. The
Calvinists, on the contrary, consider these decrees as absolute and
unconditional.

The Lutherans are generally divided into the moderate and the rigid. The
moderate Lutherans are those who submitted to the _Interim_ published by
the Emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this party, and they
were called Adiaphorists. The rigid Lutherans are those who would not
endure any change in their master’s sentiments, of whom M. Flaccius was
the head. The Lutherans are partial to the use of instrumental music in
their churches, and admit statues and paintings, as the church of
England does, without allowing them any religious veneration; but the
rigid Calvinists reject these, and allow only the simplest forms of
psalmody. The modern Lutherans, about the close of the seventeenth
century, enlarged their liberality toward other sects, and gave up the
supposed right of persecution; confessing that Christians are
accountable to God only for their religious faith. They admit, also,
into their sacred canon the Epistle of St. James, which Luther rashly
rejected, because he could not reconcile it with St. Paul’s doctrine of
justification; and the Revelation of St. John, which Luther also
rejected, because he could not explain it.

On some of the doctrines of the early German reformers the
following remarks by Archbishop Laurence are entitled to high
consideration:--Against the church of Rome, which always, when
attacked, fled for protection to the shield of scholastical
sophistry, Luther had waged a dauntless, unwearied, and effectual
warfare. He entered the field of contest without distrust or
apprehension, under a rooted persuasion that the victory over
superstition would prove easy at an era when learning had already
begun to extend itself in every direction, and was become closely
allied to theological attainments. When the light of day appeared,
the genuine doctrines of Scripture and the primitive opinions of
antiquity began to be more distinctly perceived, and more
accurately investigated. With an attachment to classical pursuits
arose a zeal for Biblical inquiries. Taste and truth went hand in
hand. Luther, than whom no one was more capable of infusing energy
into the cause in which he had embarked, was of all men the worst
adapted to conduct it with moderation: he was calculated to
commence, but not to complete, reformation. Prompt, resolute, and
impetuous, he laboured with distinguished success in the
demolition of long established error; he also hastily threw
together the rough and cumbrous materials of a better system. But
the office of selecting, modelling, and arranging them was
consigned to a correcter hand. Melancthon was of a character
directly opposite to that of Luther, possessing every requisite to
render truth alluring and reformation respectable; and hence upon
him, in preference, the princes of Germany conferred the honour of
compiling the public profession of their faith. But it ought not
to be concealed, that, previously to the time when Lutheranism
first became settled upon a permanent basis, and added public
esteem to public notice, tenets were advanced, which retarded the
progress of truth more than all the subtleties of scholastic
argument, or the terrors of papal anathema. At the beginning of
the Reformation, as Melancthon frankly observed to Cranmer, there
existed among its advocates stoical disputations respecting fate,
offensive in their nature, and noxious in their tendency. The
duration, however, of these stoical disputations was but short;
and the substitution of a more rational as well as practical
system, for the space of more than twenty years before the
appearance of our Articles, prevented the founders of our church
from mistaking, for the doctrines of the Lutherans, those which
they themselves wished to forget, and were anxious to obliterate.
As we descend to particulars, it will be necessary to keep our eye
upon one prominent doctrine, which was eminently conspicuous in
all the controversies of the Lutherans,--the doctrine of COMPLETE
REDEMPTION BY CHRIST, which in their idea their adversaries (the
Papists) disregarded, who denied in effect the depravity of our
nature, believed the favour of Heaven in this life recoverable by
what was denominated _merit of congruity_, and, in the life to
come, by that which was termed _merit of condignity_, and founded
predestination upon merits of such a description; thus in every
instance, while retaining the name of Christians, rendering
Christianity itself superfluous. In opposition to opinions so
repugnant in many respects to reason, and in almost all so
subversive of Scripture, the Lutherans constantly pressed the
unsophisticated tenet of the atonement, not contractedly in a
Calvinistical, but comprehensively in a Christian, point of
view,--in one in which both Calvinists and Arminians alike embrace
it.

Upon original sin the doctrine of the schoolmen was no less fanciful and
remote from every Scriptural idea, than flattering to human pride. They
contended that the infection of our nature is not a mental but a mere
corporeal taint; that the body alone receives and transmits the
contagion, while the soul in all instances proceeds immaculate from the
hands of her Creator. This disposition to disease, such as they allowed
it to be, was considered by some of them as the effect of a peculiar
quality in the forbidden fruit; by others, as having been contracted
from the poisonous breath of the infernal spirit which inhabited the
serpent’s body. On one point they were all united; by preserving to the
soul the bright traces of her divine origin unimpaired, they founded on
a deceitful basis an arrogant creed, which, in declaring peace and
pardon to the sinner, rested more upon personal merit than the
satisfaction of a Saviour. In commenting upon the celebrated _Book of
Sentences_, a work once not much less revered than the Scriptures
themselves, the disciples of Lombard never failed to improve every hint
which tended to degrade the grace of God and exalt the pride of man.
Original sin the Romish schoolmen directly opposed to original
righteousness; and this they considered not as something connatural with
man, but as a superinduced habit or adventitious ornament, the removal
of which could not prove detrimental to the native powers of his mind.
When, therefore, they contemplated the effects of the fall, by confining
the evil to a corporeal taint, and not extending it to the nobler
faculties of the soul, they regarded man as an object of divine
displeasure, not because he possessed that which was offensive, but
because he was defective in that which was pleasing to the Almighty.
Adam, they said, received for himself and his posterity the gift of
righteousness, which he subsequently forfeited; in his loins we were
included, and by him were virtually represented: his will was ours, and
hence the consequence of his lapse is justly imputable to us his
descendants. By our natural birth, therefore, under this idea, we are
alienated from God, _innocent_ in our individual persons, but _guilty_
in that of him from whom we derived our existence; a guilt which,
although contracted through the fault of another, yet so closely adheres
to us that it effectually precludes our entrance at the gate of
everlasting life, until the reception of a new birth in baptism. Thus
they contended, that the sin of Adam conveys to us solely imputed guilt;
the corporeal infection which they admitted not being sin itself, but
only the subject matter of it,--not _peccatum_, but, according to their
phraseology, _fomes peccati_, a kind of fuel which the human will
kindles or not at pleasure. Such was the outline of the doctrine
maintained in the church of Rome. The tenet of the Lutherans, on the
other hand, is remarkable for its simplicity and perspicuity. Avoiding
all intricate questions upon the subject, they taught that original sin
is a corruption of our nature in a general sense, a depravation of the
mental faculties and the corporeal appetites; that the resplendent image
of the Deity, which man received at the creation of the world, although
not annihilated, is nevertheless greatly impaired; and that, in
consequence, the bright characters of unspotted sanctity, once deeply
engraven on his mind by the hand of the living God, are become
obliterated, the injury extending to his intellect, and affecting as
well his reason and his will as his affections and passions. To conceive
that inclination to evil incurs not in itself the disapprobation of
Heaven, appeared to them little better than an apology for crime, or at
least a dangerous palliation of that which the Christian’s duty compels
him not only to repress but abhor.

The case of Cornelius, whose prayers and alms are said to have ascended
up for a memorial before God, was often quoted, by the advocates of the
church of Rome, to prove the merit of works before the reception of
grace; to prove the human will capable, by its own inherent rectitude,
of deserving the favour and approbation of Heaven. The Lutherans, on the
other hand, contended, that the argument supported not the conclusion
drawn from it, and was therefore irrelevant; that the works of Cornelius
were not the _causes_ but the _effects_ of grace; and that this is
sufficiently apparent from the context, in which he is described as a
devout man, who feared God and prayed continually.” The disciples of
Lombard, in whatever mode disposed to pervert reason and annihilate
Scripture, universally held, that neither before nor after the fall was
man in himself capable of meriting heaven; that by the gratuitous
endowments of his creation, even in paradise, he was only enabled to
preserve his innocence, and not to sin; and that he was utterly
incompetent to proceed one step farther, efficaciously to will a
remunerable good, and by his natural exertions to obtain a reward above
his nature; original righteousness being reputed not a connate quality,
but a supernatural habit. Thus, he could resist evil, but not advance
good to perfection; could in some sense live well, by living free from
sin, but could not without divine aid so live as to deserve everlasting
life. For such a purpose they asserted that grace was necessary, to
operate upon his will in its primary determinations, and to co-operate
with it in its ultimate acts. It was, therefore, in the loss of this
celestial aid, this superadded gift, and not in any depravity of his
mind, that they supposed the principal evil derivable from his lapse to
consist; a loss, however, which, by a due exertion of his innate
abilities, they deemed to be retrievable; and hence sprung that
offensive doctrine of human sufficiency which, in the Lutheran’s eye,
completely obscured the glory of the Gospel, and which, when applied to
the sinner’s conscience, taught the haughty to presume, and the humble
to despair. According, then, to the system under consideration, the
favour of God in this life, and his beatific vision in the life to come,
are both attainable by personal merit; the former by _congruous_, as it
was termed, the latter by _condign_; the one without, the other with,
the assistance of grace. By our natural strength, it was said, we can
fulfil the commands of God as far as their obligation extends; yet was
it added, that we cannot fulfil them according to the intention of the
divine Legislator; an intention of rewarding only those who obey them in
virtue formed by charity, under the influence of a quality rather
regulating the tendency, than augmenting the purity, of the action. They
stated, that we may so prepare ourselves for grace as to become entitled
to it congruously, not as to a debt which in strict justice God is bound
to pay, but as to a grant which it is congruous in him to give, and
which it would be inconsistent with his attributes to withhold. This
favourite doctrine was supported by every denomination of scholastics,
and by every individual of the church of Rome. Congruous merit was
universally esteemed a pearl above all price, the intrinsic value of
which attracted the regard, and conciliated the benevolence, of the
Almighty. According to their conception, we are endowed with an innate
propensity to good, which vice itself can never obliterate, and are able
not only to reverence and adore the supreme Being, but to love him above
other objects. They supposed man competent no less to the efficient
practice, than to the barren admiration, of holiness; enabled as well to
obey the laws, as to love the goodness, of the Almighty; and, if not to
deserve the rewards, at least to discharge the obligations, of religion.
Impressed, therefore, with such exalted notions of human ability, and
forgetful of the Christian propitiation for sin, the sophists of the
schools maintained, that the soul of man possesses in the freedom, or
rather in the capacity, of her WILL a faculty almost divine. Stimulated
by the most upright propensities, and undepraved in her noblest powers,
she directs her progress in the path of truth and the road to bliss, by
the pure and inextinguishable light of an unperverted reason. Although
mutable in her decisions, nevertheless complete controller of her
conduct, she becomes at pleasure either the servant of righteousness or
the slave of sin; and, disdaining to be anticipated by God himself,
prevents him in his supernatural gifts by a previous display of her own
meritorious deeds, challenging, as a congruous right, that which only
could have been otherwise conferred as a favour undeserved. By the bare
observance of my holy order,” exclaimed the secluded devotee, I am able
not solely to obtain grace for myself, but, by the works which I then
may do, can accumulate merit sufficient both to supply my own wants and
those of others; so that I may sell the superabundance of my acquired
treasure.” Can we be surprised that a reformer of Luther’s manly
disposition, who wrote without reserve and reasoned without control,
when adverting to opinions of so noxious a tendency, should sometimes,
from excess of zeal, lose sight of moderation in his censures? The
Lutherans commenced the attack upon these unscriptural dogmas, under a
persuasion that the position of their opponents militated against the
leading principles of Christianity. If man,” they said, be capable of
pleasing God by his own works abstractedly considered, without divine
assistance, where is the necessity, and what is the utility, of that
assistance?” They argued, that, were it possible for the moral virtues
of the mind by their own efficiency to render our persons acceptable to
God and obtain his lost favour, no need would exist of any other
satisfaction for sin, and thus the whole scheme of Gospel redemption
would have been fruitless, and Christ have died in vain. While,
therefore, the doctrine of the atonement presented nothing but _a cloud
and darkness to their adversaries, it gave light by night to these_; on
them it shone, amidst surrounding gloom, with lustre unobscured. Luther
advanced a proposition which proved highly offensive to the Papists, and
which they never ceased to condemn and calumniate. His assertion was,
that he who exerts himself to the utmost of his ability still continues
to sin. On the other side, unassisted man was thought incapable of
performing an action remunerably good, or, as it was usually termed,
condignly meritorious, even before his lapse; and that consequently, in
his fallen state, all to which he was conceived competent by his innate
strength was _not to sin_. When Luther therefore drew up his thesis for
public disputation against the tenet of congruous works, if little
delicacy, yet some caution, and much discrimination, appeared requisite.
Had he stated them to be thus good in a scholastic sense, he would have
completely lost sight of his object, and allowed more than even his
opponents themselves. Had he described them as not demeritorious, or, in
other words, not sinful, he would have precisely maintained the adverse
position, and might consequently have spared his labour, at the same
time that he would have tacitly acknowledged them to possess, what he
could not consistently with truth attribute to them, every natural
perfection of virtue and holiness. Under what denomination, then, could
he class them, except under that of _sinful_? a denomination which he
the more readily adopted because, even among his adversaries themselves,
the words SIN and GRACE, as he remarked, were in general immediately
opposed to each other. Anxious to rescue Christian theology from the
grasp of those who embraced only to betray, the Lutherans laboured to
restore that importance to the doctrine of redemption with which the
Scriptures invest it, but of which, by a subtle perversity, it had been
deprived. The principal object, therefore, in their view evidently was,
to Christianize the speculations of the schools; and the principal drift
of their argument is to prove, that human virtue, how extravagantly
soever extolled by a vain philosophy, is wholly insufficient (because
imperfect) to merit the favour of Heaven. Allowing no medium between
righteousness and unrighteousness, the approbation and disapprobation of
the Almighty, characterizing that as sinful which is confessedly not
holy, and thus annihilating every ground of self-presumption, they
inculcated the necessity of contemplating with the eye of faith those
means of reconciliation which Christianity alone affords. But it has
been insinuated, that the Lutheran doctrine went to prove man’s total
inability to extricate himself from crime, until the arrival of some
uncertain moment, which brings with it a regeneration from on high, the
sudden transfusion of a new light and new virtues. But those who thus
conceive of it are not probably aware, that Melancthon, the venerable
author of the Augsburgh Confession, warmly reprobates this precise idea,
which he denominates _a Manichean conceit and a horrible falsehood_.
Upon the abstract question of free will it is indeed true, that
Melancthon, no less than Luther, at first held opinions which he was
happy to retract. But when this is acknowledged it should be added, that
he made ample amends for his indiscretion by not only expunging the
offensive passages from the single work which contained them, but by
introducing others of a nature diametrically opposite. And although the
more inflexible coadjutor of Melancthon was too lofty to correct what he
had once made public, and too magnanimous to regard the charge of
inconsistency which his adversaries urged against him; yet what his
better judgment approved clearly appears from a preface written not long
before his death; in which, while he expressed an anxiety to have his
own chaotic labours, as he styled them, buried in eternal oblivion, he
recommended in strong terms, as a work admirably adapted to form the
Christian divine, that very performance of his friend which was
remarkable for something more than a mere recantation of the opinions
alluded to. It was not against any conceived deficiency in the quality
of our virtue that they argued, but against its supposed competency,
whether wrought in or out of grace, with greater or less degrees of
purity, to effect that which the oblation of Christ alone accomplishes.
Upon both points Luther treated the doctrine of his adversaries as
altogether frivolous, and incapable of corroboration by a single fact.
Futile, however, as the scholastical tenet appeared to be, although
deficient in proof and unsupported by example, upon this, he remarked
with indignation and grief, was founded the whole system of papal
delusion.

Justification was on both sides supposed to consist entirely in the
remission of sins. The popish scholastics, on this head, were
remarkably distinct in their ideas, and express in their language.
They represented it as an effect produced by the infusion of divine
grace into the mind; not as a consequent to a well spent life, but as
preceding all remunerable obedience, as the intervening point between
night and day, the gloom of a guilty and the light of a self-approving
conscience; or, in other words, and to adopt their own phraseology, as
the exact boundary where merit of congruity ends and where merit of
condignity begins, the infallible result of a previous disposition on
our part, which never fails of alluring from on high that supernatural
quality which, being itself love, renders the soul beloved. While the
Lutherans, however, adhered to the general import of the term as
understood in the schools, they waged an incessant warfare upon
another point; while they allowed that justification consists in the
remission of sin, they denied that this remission is to be acquired by
the merit of the individual. Their scholastic opponents maintained
that man is justified in the sight of God in consequence of his own
preparation, and on account of his personal qualities. They, on the
other band, argued with an inflexibility which admitted of no
compromise, that, possessing not merits of his own to plead, man
freely received forgiveness through the mercy of God solely on account
of the merits of Christ. The effective principle, therefore, or
_meritorious cause of justification_, was the great point contested.
The doctrine of the popish divines, explained more at large, was this:
When the sinner, conscious of his past transgressions, inquired where
he was to seek the expiation of his crime, and deliverance from the
dreadful consequences of it, the general answer was, _In the merit of
penitence_; a merit capable of annihilating guilt, and appeasing the
anger of incensed Omnipotence. He, they argued, who, having disobeyed
the laws of Heaven, is desirous of returning into that state of
acceptance from which he has fallen, must not expect free forgiveness;
but previously by unfeigned sorrow of heart deserve the restoration of
grace, and, with it, the obliteration of his offences. To effect this
desirable purpose he is bound strictly to survey and detest his former
conduct, accurately to enumerate his transgressions and deeply feel
them; and, impressed with a due sense of their magnitude, impurity,
and consequences, to condemn his folly and deplore his fault, which
have made him an outcast of Heaven, and exposed him to eternal misery.
So far he can proceed by that operation of the mind which they
denominated ATTRITION, and which, being within the sphere of his
natural powers, they regarded as _congruous piety meritorious of
justification_, as a preparation of the soul more or less necessary to
receive and merit justifying grace. When, therefore, he is arrived at
this point, ATTRITION ceases and CONTRITION commences; the habit of
sin is expelled, while that of holiness is superinduced in its stead,
and with the infusion of charity, the plastic principle of a new
obedience, justification becomes complete. But even here it was not
conceived that a total deliverance takes place; a liberation from
guilt and _eternal_ punishment is effected, but not from _temporal_,
which is never remitted unless either by the infliction of some
personal suffering or satisfactory compensation required of him who is
already justified and approved by Heaven. However, to accomplish this
remaining object, nothing more is wanting than a continuation, to a
sufficient intensity, of that compunction of heart which is now
denominated CONTRITION, grace supplying the defects of nature, and
enabling penitential merit not only to justify, but to obtain
exemption from punishment of every species. But so great appeared to
the popish scholastics the frailty of man and the severity of God,
that no inconsiderable difficulty occurred in the due application of
this favourite doctrine to individuals; for the means of expiation,
they imagined, ought always to be proportionate to the magnitude of
the offences. How,” they reasoned, are we to be assured that our
contrition has been either sufficient or sincere, and whether it has
been so in the obliteration not only of one crime, but of all; whether
it has atoned for past transgressions of every kind, the number of
which may perplex, as well as their guilt confound, us?” Instead,
therefore, of penitence in its strictest acceptation as a perfect
virtue, God, they said, in condescension to human infirmity, has
substituted for general practice _the sacrament of penitence_, which,
for the attainment of full remission, requires only a moderate
compunction of soul, with confession to the priest, and the discharge
of such satisfaction as he may enjoin. And, still lower to reduce the
terms of acceptance, they even argued that it is not absolutely
necessary for the penitent to experience an entire conversion of
heart, but only not to oppose the impediment of mortal crime, to feel
some displeasure at his past conduct, and to express a resolution of
amending it in future. But, after all, and in spite of the boasted
authority of the keys, complete confidence in divine forgiveness was
never inculcated; for it was neither the interest nor the inclination
of the church of Rome to teach the simple doctrine of Christian faith,
but rather to involve it in metaphysical obscurity. Under the pretext,
therefore, of relieving the throbbing breast from its apprehensions,
they had recourse to numerous inventions for propping the insecure
fabric of penitential hope; asserting, among other extravagancies,
that the sacraments are in themselves efficacious by virtue of their
own operation, exclusively of all merit in the recipient; and that the
sacrament of the altar, in particular, acts so powerful in this
respect as to communicate grace not only to those who partake of it,
but to others from whom it is received by substitution, provided its
operation be not hindered by confessedly flagrant immorality. So
deeply rooted in the minds of the papists had become the persuasion of
its thus effecting the best of purposes, and that even without the
necessity of an actual participation of it by him upon whom the
benefit is conferred, that the celebration of the mass was universally
regarded as the means of appeasing the anger of Heaven, and obtaining
pardon and peace, of procuring divine assistance for the living, and,
for the dead, deliverance from the bitter pains of purgatory. Nor by
the sacraments alone, but by every good external work, as well as
internal disposition, was justifying grace supposed to be merited
_congruously_, and satisfaction for sin to be made _condignly_. In
monastical institutions, likewise, were found no mean materials for
similar purposes; for in those feigned religions,” as the homily _On
Good Works_ describes them, the devotees boasted of having lamps which
ran always over, able to _satisfy_ not only for their own sins, but
also for all other their benefactors, brothers and sisters of
religion, as most ungodly and craftily they had persuaded the
multitude of ignorant people; keeping in divers places marts or
markets of merits, being full of their holy relics, images, shrines,
and works of overflowing abundance, ready to be sold.” Yet, whether
the dubious penitent was instructed to derive consolation from the
efficacy of the sacraments, from his own personal qualities, or from
any of what Cranmer aptly termed “the fantastical works of man’s
invention,” it should be observed that he was not directly taught to
consider these as wholly superseding the virtue of repentance, but as
supplying his deficiencies in the performance of it; an incongruous
system of atonement, fabricated by the avarice of Rome, and the
obsequiousness of scholastical philosophy, to augment the treasures
and extend the influence of the church, to extinguish the light of
Gospel truth, and, while keeping the world at large in ignorance, to
hold the conscience of the individual in slavery. Upon the whole,
then, the scholastics maintained that justification is unattainable
without repentance, at least, without some degree of attrition on our
part; but in the common apprehension of the doctrine even this seems
to have been forgotten, and merit of congruity considered in a general
point of view as alone efficacious. Thus good works of every species
preceding grace were said to deserve it, and, by deserving grace, to
deserve the justifying principle. And always were they careful to
impute the cause of forgiveness, not to the mercy of God in Christ,
but to the sole change in the individual, to his transmutation from a
state of unrighteousness to one of righteousness, to his possession of
a quality which renders him a worthy object of divine approbation. For
in every instance personal merit was conceived to be the solid basis
upon which rests the complete remission of sin. Upon no one point,
perhaps, has the opinion of Luther been more misrepresented than upon
this. Some have ascribed to it a solifidian tendency, if not of the
most enthusiastical, at least, of the most unqualified, description.
But it seems indeed impossible accurately to comprehend the position
which he maintained, if we examine it in an insulated point of view,
unless we connect it with that of which in the church of Rome it
properly formed a part, and from which he never intended to separate
it,--the doctrine of penitence. In opposing the absurdity of papal
indulgences, (the first impiety against which his manly mind
revolted,) a ray of light, before unnoticed, darted upon him, and
opened a completely new scene, which, while it stimulated his efforts
as a reformer, animated his hopes as a Christian. Hence, averting with
disdain from the speculations of sophists, and turning to the sacred
page of revelation, he there beheld an affiance very different from
what the schools inculcated; and thus, while _their_ vain language
was, Repent, and trust to the efficacy of your contrition, either with
or without extraneous works, according to the degree of its intensity,
for the expiation of your offences;” _his_, more Scriptural and more
consoling, became simply this: Repent, and trust not for expiation to
your own merits of any kind, but solely to those of your Redeemer.”
Rejecting the dreams of their adversaries with respect to the nature
and effects of this important duty, they represented it as consisting
of two essential parts, CONTRITION and FAITH, the latter as always
associated with the former. Hence, in the Apology of their Confession,
they repeatedly declared a disavowal of all faith, except such as
exists in the contrite heart. Far was it from their intention to
encourage the presumptuous or fanatical sinner in a false security;
their object was very different and laudable,--they laboured to fix
the eye of him who both laments and detests his offences, upon the
only deserving object of human confidence and divine complacency.
Properly, then, as they frequently remarked, their doctrine of
justification was appropriated to troubled consciences, at every
period of true repentance, and particularly at the awful hour of
death, when the time for habitual proofs of amendment has elapsed, and
when the past appears replete with guilt and the future with terror.
At such moments, they taught not, with the schools, an affiance in
human merit, but in the gratuitous mercy of God through Christ: to
contrition, as a preparatory qualification or previous requisite, they
added faith; and from faith they deemed every principle of real piety
and virtue inseparable. Good works, or the outward fruits of an inward
renovation of mind, were said to _follow_ remission of sins;
_internal_ necessarily preceding _external_ reformation. For the
individual, they argued, must himself be good before the action can be
so denominated, be justified before it can be deemed just, and
accepted before it can prove acceptable,--distinguishing between the
primary admission into God’s favour, and the subsequent preservation
of that favour.

The unfathomable depths of divine predestination and predetermination
human reason in vain attempts to sound, finite faculties to scan
infinite, or the limited intellect of man to comprehend the immensity of
the Godhead. Erasmus, a peculiar favourite with the reformers of our own
country, when contemplating this inexplicable subject, observed, that in
the Holy Scriptures there are certain secret recesses, which God is
unwilling for us too minutely to explore; and which, if we endeavour to
explore, in proportion as we penetrate farther, our minds become more
and more oppressed with darkness and stupefaction; that thus we might
acknowledge the inscrutable majesty of the divine wisdom, and the
imbecility of the human mind.” Congenial, also, with the feelings and
sentiments of Erasmus upon this point were those of Luther. To acquire
any knowledge,” he remarked, of a deity not revealed in Scripture, to
know what his existence is, his actions and dispositions, belongs not to
me. My duty is only this; to know what are his precepts, his promises,
and his threatenings. Pernicious and pestilent is the thought of
investigating causes, and brings with it inevitable ruin, especially
when we ascend too high, and wish to philosophize upon predestination.”
How differently Calvin felt upon the same subject, and with what little
reserve, or rather with what bold temerity, he laboured to scrutinize
the unrevealed Divinity, is too well known to require any thing beyond a
bare allusion to the circumstance. His sentiments, however, were much
less regarded than some are disposed to allow; and upon this particular
question, so far were they from having attained their full celebrity at
the period when the articles of the church of England were framed, that
they were not taught without opposition even in his own unimportant
territory of Geneva. For at that precise era he was publicly accused (by
Sebastian Castellio) of making God the author of sin; and although, not
contented with silencing, he first imprisoned and afterward banished his
accuser, yet he could not expel the opinions of his adversary. While the
church of Rome maintained a predestination to life of one man in
preference to another individually _on account of personal merit_, the
Lutherans taught a gratuitous predestination of Christians collectively,
of those whom God has chosen in Christ out of mankind; and by this
single point of difference were the contending opinions principally
contradistinguished. With us the system of Calvin still retains so many
zealous advocates, that to a modern ear the very term PREDESTINATION
seems to convey a meaning only conformable with _his_ particular system.
It should, however, be observed that this word was in familiar use for
centuries before the Reformation, in a sense, very different from what
Calvin imputed to it, not as preceding the divine prescience, but as
resulting from it, much in the same sense as that in which it has since
been supported by the Arminians. Yet, obvious as this appears, writers
of respectability strangely persuade themselves, that, immediately prior
to the Reformation, the doctrines of the church of Rome were completely
Calvinistical; a conclusion to which, certainly, none can subscribe who
are sufficiently conversant with the favourite productions of that time.
So far, indeed, was this from being the fact, that Calvin peculiarly
prided himself on departing from the common definition of the term,
which had long been adopted by the adherents of the schools, and
retained with a scrupulous precision. For while they held that the
expression _predestinati_ is exclusively applicable to the elect, whom
God, foreknowing as meritorious objects of his mercy, predestinates to
life; and while they appropriated that of _præsciti_ to the non-elect,
whose perseverance in transgression is simply foreknown; Calvin, on the
other side, treating the distinction as a frivolous subterfuge,
contended that God, decreeing the final doom of the elect and non-elect
irrespectively, predestinates both, not subsequently but previously to
all foreknowledge of their individual dispositions, especially devotes
the latter to destruction through the medium of crime, and creates them
by a fatal destiny to perish. Whatever, therefore, modern conjecture may
have attributed to the popish scholastics, it is certain that, abhorring
every speculation which tends in the remotest degree to make God the
author of sin, they believed that only salutary good is predestinated;
grace to those who deserve it _congruously_, and glory to those who
deserve it _condignly_. They maintained that almighty God, before the
foundations of the world were laid, surveying in his comprehensive idea,
or, as they phrased it, in his prescience of simple intelligence, the
possibilities of all things before he determined their actual existence,
foresaw that, if mankind were created, (although he willed the salvation
of all, and was inclined to assist all indifferently, yet) some would
deserve eternal happiness, and others eternal misery; and that therefore
he approved and elected the former, but disapproved or reprobated the
latter. Thus, grounding election upon foreknowledge, they contemplated
it, not as an arbitrary principle, separating one individual from
another under the influence of a blind chance or an irrational caprice;
but, on the contrary, as a wise and just principle, which presupposes a
diversity between those who are accepted and those who are rejected.
Hence it was, that in order to systematize upon this principle of
election, and to show how consistent it is as well with the justice as
the benevolence of the Deity, the will of God was considered in a double
point of view, as _absolute_ and _conditional_, or, in the technical
language of the schools, as _antecedent_ and _consequent_. In the first
instance, by his absolute or antecedent will, he was said to desire the
salvation of every man; in the latter, by his conditional or consequent
will, that only of those whom he foresaw abstaining from sin and obeying
his commandments: the one expressed his general inclination, the other
his particular resolution upon the view of individual circumstances and
conditions. To the inquiry, why some are unendowed with grace, their
answer was, Because some are not willing to receive it, and not because
God is unwilling to give it.” He,” they said, offers his light to all.
He is absent from none; but man absents himself from the present Deity,
like one who shuts his eyes against the noon-day blaze.” To the
foregoing statement it should be added, that they held an election, or
rather an ordination, to grace (which they expressly asserted to be
defectible) distinct from an election to glory; that according to them,
a name may be written in the book of life at one period, which at
another many be erased from it; and that predestination to eternal
happiness solely depends upon final perseverance in well doing. On the
whole it is evident, that they considered the dignity or worthiness of
the individual as the meritorious basis of predestination; merit of
congruity as the basis of a preordination to grace, and merit of
condignity as that of a preordination to glory. Thus, not more
fastidious in the choice of their terms than accurate in the use of
them, while they denied that the prescience of human virtue, correctly
speaking, could be the primary cause of the divine will, because nothing
in time can properly give birth to that which has existed from eternity,
they strenuously maintained it to be a secondary cause, the ratio or
rule in the mind of the Deity which regulated his will in the formation
of its ultimate decisions. Although in the established confession of
their faith the Lutherans avoided all allusion to the subject of
predestination, it was nevertheless introduced into another work of
importance, and of considerable public authority, the _Loci Theologici_
of Melancthon, a production which was every where received as the
standard of Lutheran divinity. Both Luther and Melancthon, after the
Diet of Augsburgh, kept one object constantly in view,--to inculcate
only what was plain and practical, and never to attempt philosophizing.
But to what, it may be asked, did the Lutherans object in the theory of
their opponents when they themselves abandoned the tenet of necessity?
Certainly, not to the sobriety and moderation of that part of it which
vindicated the justice, and displayed the benevolence, of the Almighty;
but, generally, to the principles upon which it proceeded; to the
_presumption_, in overleaping the boundary which Heaven has prescribed
to our limited faculties, and which we cannot pass without plunging into
darkness and error; and to its _impiety_ in disregarding, if not
despising, the most important truths of Christianity. A system of such a
nature they hesitated not to reject, anxious to conduct themselves by
the light of Scripture alone, nor presuming to be wise above what God
has been pleased to discover. Maintaining not a particular election of
personal favourites, either by an absolute will, or even a conditional
one, dependent upon the ratio of merit, but a general election of all
who, by baptism in their infancy, or by faith and obedience in mature
years, become the adopted heirs of Heaven; they conceived this to be the
only election to which the Gospel alludes, and, consequently, the only
one upon which we can speak with confidence, or reason without
presumption. If it be observed, that the selection of an integral body
necessarily infers that of its component parts, the answer is obvious:
The latter, although indeed it be necessarily inferred by the former, is
nevertheless not a prior requisite, but a posterior result of the divine
ordination. What they deemed absolute on the part of God was his
everlasting purpose to save his elect in Christ, or real Christians
considered as a whole, and contrasted with the remainder of the human
race; the completion of this purpose being regulated by peculiar
circumstances, operating as inferior causes of a particular segregation.
For, persuaded of his good will toward all men without distinction, of
his being indiscriminately disposed to promote the salvation of all, and
of his seriously (not _fictitiously_, as Calvin taught) including all in
the universal promise of Christianity, they imputed to him nothing like
a partial choice, no limitation of favours, no irrespective exclusion of
persons; but assuming the Christian character as the sole ground of
individual preference, they believed that every baptized infant, by
being made a member of Christ, not by being comprised in a previous
arbitrary decree, is truly the elect of God, and, dying in infancy,
certain of eternal happiness; that he who, in maturer years, becomes
polluted by wilful crime, loses that state of salvation which before he
possessed; that nevertheless by true repentance, and conversion to the
Father of mercy and God of all consolation, he is again reinstated in
it; and that, by finally persevering in it, he at length receives the
kingdom prepared for every sincere Christian before the foundation of
the world. Can any man, whom prejudice has not blinded, rank these
sentiments with those of Calvin? It may seem almost unnecessary to
subjoin, that the Lutherans held the defectibility of grace; its
indefectibility being a position supported but by those who think that
the Redeemer died for a selected few alone. Upon the whole then it
appears, that the Lutherans, affecting not in any way to philosophize,
but committing themselves solely to the guidance of Scripture, differed
from the church of Rome in several important particulars. For, although
on some points they coincided with her, although they inculcated, with
equal zeal and upon a better principle, both the universality and the
defectibility of grace, as well as a conditional admission into the
number of the elect, they nevertheless were entirely at variance with
her upon the very foundation of the system. Thus while their opponents
taught, that predestination consists in the prospective discrimination
of individuals by divine favour, according to the foreseen ratio of
every man’s own merit,--works of congruity deserving grace here, and
works of condignity eternal life hereafter, and that in this way it
principally rests upon human worth; the Lutherans, disclaiming every
idea of such a discrimination, placed it upon the same basis as they
assumed in the case of justification,--that of an effectual redemption
by Christ. Instead, therefore, of holding the election of individuals as
men _on account of personal dignity or worthiness_, they maintained the
election of a general mass as Christians _on account of Christ alone_;
adding that we are admitted into that number, or discarded from it, in
the eye of Heaven, proportionably as we embrace or reject the salvation
offered to all, embracing it with a faith inseparable from genuine
virtue, or rejecting it by incredulity and crime. For neither in this,
nor in the instance of justification, did they exclude repentance and a
true conversion of the heart and life, as _necessary requisites_, but
only as _meritorious causes_, from the contemplation of God’s omniscient
intellect. Let those,” said Luther, who wish to be elected avoid an evil
conscience, and not transgress the divine commandments.” Instructed then
by the unerring page of truth, they asserted no other predestination
than what is there expressly revealed; that of the good and gracious
Father of mankind, who from eternity has been disposed to promote the
happiness and welfare of all men, has destined Christ to be the Saviour
of the whole world, and withholden from none the exalted hope of the
Christian calling. Convinced that this is the only predestination which
Christianity discloses, and consequently the only one which we can
either with safety or certainty embrace, they discouraged every attempt
at investigating the will, out of the word, of God; every attempt at
effecting impossibilities, at unveiling the secret counsels of Him who
shrouds his divine perfections in darkness impervious to mortal eyes.
With such investigations, indeed, the world had already been
sufficiently bewildered by the scholastics, who, endowed with a ready
talent at perplexing what before was plain, and at rendering
abstruseness still more abstruse, had made the subject totally
inexplicable, vainly labouring to develope with precision that
mysterious will upon which the wise must ever think it _folly_, and the
good _impiety_, to speculate. Disquisitions of this presumptuous nature,
from a personal experience of their mischievous tendency, Luther abjured
himself, and deprecated in others. Are we, miserable men,” he exclaimed,
“who as yet are incapable of comprehending the rays of God’s promises,
the glimmerings of his precepts and his works, although confirmed by
words and miracles, are we, infirm and impure, eager to comprehend all
that is great and glorious in the solar light itself, in the
incomprehensible light of a miraculous Godhead? Do we not know, that God
dwells in splendour inaccessible? And yet do we approach, or rather do
we presume to approach it? Are we not aware, that his judgments are
inscrutable? And yet do we endeavour to scrutinize them? And these
things we do, before we are habituated even to the faint lustre of his
promises and precepts, with a vision still imperfect, blindly rushing
into the majesty of that light which, secret and unseen, has never been
by words or miracles exhibited. What wonder, then, if, while we explore
its majesty, we are overwhelmed with its glory?” For a farther account
of the Lutheran views on predestination, see the last pages of the
article CALVINISM.

After this very ample exposition of the sentiments of the German
reformers on the chief points of Christian doctrine, it is only
necessary to give a few additional particulars in corroboration of some
portions of the preceding statement. The high estimation in which Luther
held the productions of the judicious Melancthon is apparent from a
passage in the preface to the first volume of Luther’s works, dated
1545. In that year also appeared the last amended edition of
Melancthon’s Common Places,” to which he alludes. Long and earnestly,”
he says, have I resisted the importunity of those who have wished me to
publish my works, or, to speak more correctly, my confused and
disorderly lucubrations; not only because I was unwilling that the
labours of the ancients should be turned aside by my novelties, and that
the reader should be hindered from perusing them, but likewise because
now, by the grace of God, a great number of methodical books are extant;
among which the _Common Places_ of our Philip claim the preference, for
by them a divine and a bishop may be abundantly and satisfactorily
confirmed, so as to become powerful in the word of the doctrine of
piety, especially when the Holy Bible itself can now be procured in
almost every language. But the want of order in the matters to be
discussed in my books induced, nay compelled, me to render them a sort
of rude and indigested chaos, which it would now require even on my part
no small exertion to digest into a methodical form. Under the influence
of such motives as these, I was desirous that all my productions should
be buried in perpetual oblivion, that they might give place to others of
a better description.” In this preface Luther also gives the following
testimony to the general usefulness of Melancthon’s labours: In the same
year Philip Melancthon had been called to this university by Prince
Frederick to fill the chair of Greek professor, but no doubt with the
intention that I should have him as my colleague in the labours of the
divinity professorship. For his works are sufficiently in proof of what
the Lord hath effected by this his choice instrument, not only in polite
literature, but in theology, although Satan be enraged and all his
party.” Though the early opinions of Luther upon the doctrine of a
philosophical necessity appear to have been occasionally expressed in a
harsh and repulsive manner, yet his followers pertinaciously contend
that even the harshest of them cannot, with propriety, be construed into
a sense favourable to the Calvinistical system. Those of Melancthon in
the first edition of his _Loci Theologici_, although occurring but in
one or two instances, were nevertheless still more offensive, and less
capable of a mitigated interpretation. So far indeed did he carry the
doctrine of divine predetermination as to degrade man to a level with
the brutes, as will be obvious from the following passage in the edition
of 1525. Lastly, divine predestination takes away human liberty. For all
things come to pass according to divine predestination, not only
external works, but also internal thoughts in all creatures.” After the
Diet of Augsburgh in 1530, we hear no more of this obnoxious tenet.
Indeed so early as 1527 these reformers seem to have abandoned it. At
least, when in that year a form of doctrine was drawn up for the
churches of Saxony, free will in acts of morality was thus inculcated:
The human will is so far free as to be able in some sort to perform the
righteousness of the flesh, or civil justice, when it is obliged by the
law and by force not to steal, not to kill, not to commit adultery, &c.
Therefore let ministers teach, that it is in a measure in our own hands
to restrain carnal affections, and to perform civil justice; and let
them diligently exhort men to a strict and proper course of life,
because God also requires this kind of righteousness, and will
grievously punish those men who live so negligent of their duty. For as
we are bound to make a good use of the other gifts of God, so is it
likewise our duty to employ to good purpose those powers which God has
bestowed on nature.” For God takes no delight in that ferocious mode of
life which is adopted by some men, who, after having heard that we are
not justified by our own powers and works, foolishly dream that they
will wait until they be drawn by God, and in the mean time their course
of life is most impure. Such persons God will most severely punish; and
they must therefore be earnestly reprehended and admonished by those
whose province it is to teach in the churches.” This work, which is
generally termed, _Libellus Visitationis Saxonic_, was first composed in
German by Melancthon in 1527, and afterward republished by Luther with a
preface, in which he thus expresses himself: We do not publish these as
rigorous precepts, nor do we again employ ourselves in drawing up
pontifical decrees, but we relate matters of history and public deeds,
and present the confession and symbol of our belief.” The previous
controversy between Luther and Erasmus, on the topic of free will, had
probably tended to produce an amelioration of the doctrinal system of
the Lutheran church. In this view it was not without reason that Erasmus
made the following reflections in a letter dated 1528, soon after he had
seen this production: The Lutheran fever, every succeeding day, assumes
a milder form; so that Luther himself now writes recantations on almost
every thing, and on this account he is considered by the rest as a
heretic and a madman.” Similar caustic remarks occur in other letters of
Erasmus; and as, in those days of high religious excitement, taunts of
this kind were considered too good to be confined as secrets within the
breast of the correspondents to whom they were addressed, it is not
improbable that Luther might be prevented through them, among other
reasons, from making farther doctrinal concessions; it being no uncommon
circumstance in the history of the human mind for persons of otherwise
strong understandings to be under the influence of this pitiable
weakness. That Melancthon not only abandoned but reprehended the
doctrine in 1529, we cannot doubt, because his own express testimony in
proof of it remains on record. In a letter to Christopher Stathmio,
dated March 20th, 1559, which was not long before his death, he notices
the subject in these words: Thirty years ago, not through the desire of
contention, but on account of the glory of God, and for the sake of
discipline, I sharply reprehended the Stoical paradoxes concerning
necessity, because they are reproachful toward God and injurious to
morals. At this time the legions of the Stoics are waging war against
me; but in the answer which I have written in opposition to the Bavarian
inquisition, I have once more pointed out in a modest manner that
opinion (on fate or predestination) in which anxious minds may acquiesce
and be at rest.” On consulting the tract to which his letter alludes, we
find him employing this strong and unequivocal language: I also openly
reject and abhor those Stoical and Manichean furies who affirm that all
things _necessarily_ happen, evil as well as good actions. But
concerning these I refrain at present from any lengthened discussion;
only I entreat young people to avoid these monstrous opinions, which are
contumelious against God, and pernicious to morals.” From the _Loci
Theologici_, in which Melancthon had first introduced this obnoxious
tenet, he expunged _necessity_ in the edition of 1533, and inserted in
its place the opposite one of _contingency_. The following are extracts
from this amended work: The discussion on _the cause of sin_ and that on
_contingency_ have sometimes greatly agitated the church, and excited
mighty tragedies. Men of acute minds collect multitudes of inextricable
and absurd things about both these subjects. Because there is some
danger in them, young people must be warned to abstain from these
interminable disputes, and in preference to search out a simple and
pious opinion, beneficial to religion and morals, in which they may
abide, nor suffer themselves to be withdrawn from it by those fallacious
tricks of disputations. But this is a pious and true sentiment to be
embraced with both hands, and to be retained rather by the whole
heart,--that God is not the cause of sin, and that he does not will sin.
But the causes of sin are the will of the devil, and the will of man.”
But this sentiment being once laid down, that God is not the cause of
sin, it evidently follows that contingency must be granted. The freedom
of the will is the cause of the contingency of our actions.” Neither
must the delirious doatings about Stoical fate, or about necessity, be
conveyed into the church, because they are inextricable and sometimes
injurious to piety and morals.” From these opinions it becomes the pious
to be abhorrent in their ears and in their hearts.” These extracts serve
to prove, that Melancthon reprobated the idea of introducing into the
church the doctrine of Stoical fate, before Calvin had distinguished
himself either as an author or a reformer. Into his subsequent
productions of almost every description Melancthon introduced the
doctrine of contingency, and strenuously defended it, particularly in
the amended edition of his _Loci Theologici_ in 1545. Luther never
formally revoked any of his own writings; but on this last corrected
production of his friend, as we have shown, he bestowed the highest
commendations. Yet he did not scruple publicly to assert, that at the
beginning of the Reformation he had not completely settled his creed. In
the seventh volume of his works this sentence is found: I have also
published the confession of my faith; in which I have openly testified
what and how I believe, and in what articles I think myself at length to
be at rest.” He seems, indeed, to have generally avoided the subject,
from the period of his controversy with Erasmus, to the publication of
his Commentary on Genesis,--his last work of any importance. But in
this, after a long argument to prove that, as we have no knowledge of
the unrevealed Deity, we have nothing to do with those things which are
above our comprehension; and that we are not to reason upon
predestination out of Christianity; he thus apologizes for his former
opinions: “It has been my wish diligently and accurately to deliver
these charges and admonitions; because, after my death, many persons
will publish my books to the world, and by that course will confirm
errors of every kind and their own delirious ravings. But among other
matters I have written, that all things are absolute and necessary; but
at the same time I added, that we must behold God as he is revealed to
us, as we sing in the Psalm, ‘Jesus Christ is the Lord of sabaoth, nor
is there any other God.’ In several other passages I have used similar
expressions. But these people will pass by all such passages, and will
only seize upon those concerning a hidden Deity. You, therefore, who now
hear me, recollect that I have taught this,--We must not inquire
concerning the predestination of a hidden God, but we must abide and
acquiesce in those things which are revealed by calling and by the
ministry of the word.” But in other passages of my different works I
have inculcated the same sentiments, and I now deliver them again with
an audible voice; therefore I am excused.” For the more modern state of
the Lutheran church see NEOLOGY.

The following account of the union between the Lutheran and Calvinistic
churches, as given in the advertisement to Baron Von Wessenberg’s
Correspondence with the Court of Rome,” may not be uninteresting to the
reader: The Germans have just set the noble example of forming a union
between these two branches of the Protestant faith. This union, which
originated, we believe, in the grand duchy of Nassau, has taken place
almost universally throughout Germany; and the separate appellations of
Lutheran and Calvinistic churches have merged in the common appellation
of the Evangelical church. The Lutheran and Reformed churches of Prussia
met in synod together, on the invitation of their monarch, the first of
October, 1817, and soon came to an agreement; and the union was
celebrated on the day of the tri-centenary festival of the Reformation.
A similar synod of the Lutherans and Calvinists in Hesse-Cassel was held
at Hanau in May and June, 1818, and attended with the same result. The
royal confirmation was given to the Bavarian union on the first of
October following. Saxe-Weimar, and most of the other small states have
followed this example. The Protestant Germans have now, therefore, only
one Gospel, one temple, one divine Instructer, and one mode of
communion; and, what is singular, and highly honourable to their
liberality, this union was every where accomplished with the greatest
ease, and without a dissentient voice having been raised against it.”
How different was this result from that of the synods and councils of
other times; and what a change in the state of public opinion does it
indicate! And yet it is to be feared that the _liberality_ from which
this union has resulted, is rather indifference to the grand
peculiarities of the Christian faith than mutual charity.

LYCAONIA, a province of Asia Minor, accounted a part of Cappadocia,
having Pisidia on the west, and Cilicia on the south. In it were the
cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, mentioned in the travels of St.
Paul. The former was the capital, and the country itself at that time a
Roman province. The speech of Lycaonia,” mentioned Acts xiv, 11, is
supposed to have been a corrupt Greek, intermingled with many oriental
words.

LYCIA, a country of Asia Minor, having Phrygia on the north, Pamphylia
on the east, the Mediterranean on the south, and Caria on the west. The
greatest part of the country, however, is a peninsula projecting into
the Mediterranean. Lycia derived its name from Lycus, the son of
Pandion, who settled here. It was conquered by Crœsus, king of Lydia,
and passed with his kingdom into the hands of the Persians. It
afterward, in common with the neighbouring countries of Asia Minor,
formed part of the Macedonian empire, under Alexander; then of that of
the Seleucidæ, his successors in those countries; and, at the time of
the Apostles, was reduced to the state of a Roman province.

LYDDA, by the Greeks called Diospolis. It lay in the way from Jerusalem
to Cæsarea, four or five leagues to the east of Joppa. Lydda belonged to
the tribe of Ephraim. It seems to have been inhabited by the Benjamites,
at the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Neh. xi, 35.
St. Peter coming to Lydda, cured a sick man of the palsy named Eneas,
Acts ix, 33, 34.

LYDIA, a woman of Thyatira, a seller of purple, who dwelt in the city of
Philippi, in Macedonia. She was converted to the faith by St. Paul, and
both she and her family were baptized. She offered her house to the
Apostle, and pressed him to abide there so earnestly, that he yielded to
her entreaties. She was not a Jewess by birth, but a proselyte, Acts
xvi, 14, 15, 40.

2. LYDIA, an ancient celebrated kingdom of Asia Minor, which, in the
time of the Apostles, was reduced to a Roman province. Sardis was the
capital.

LYSTRA, a city of Lycaonia, the native place of Timothy. The Apostle
Paul and Barnabas having preached here, and healed a cripple, were taken
for gods. But so fickle are human praise and popular encomiums, that, in
the space of a few hours, those who had been deemed gods were regarded
as less than mortals, and were stoned by the very persons who so lately
deified them. See Acts xiv.


MAACAH, or BETH-MAACHA, a little province of Syria to the east and the
north of the sources of the river Jordan, upon the road to Damascus.
Abel or Abela was in this country, whence it was called
Abelbeth-Maachah. We learn from Joshua xiii, 13, that the Israelites did
not destroy the Maachathites, but permitted them to dwell in the land
among them. The distribution of the half tribe of Manasseh, beyond
Jordan, extended as far as this country, Deut. iii, 14; Joshua xii, 5.

MACCABEES, two apocryphal books of Scripture, containing the history of
Judas and his brothers, and their wars against the Syrian kings in
defence of their religion and liberties, so called from Judas, the son
of Mattathias, surnamed Maccabæus, as some authors say, from the word
מכבי, formed of the initials of מי-כמכה באלים יהוה, Who is like unto
thee, O Lord, among the gods?” Exod. xv, 11, which was the motto of his
standard; whence those who fought under his standard were called
Maccabees, and the name was generally applied to all who suffered in the
cause of true religion, under the Egyptian or Syrian kings. This name,
formed by abbreviation according to the common practice of the Jews,
distinguished Judas Maccabæus by way of eminence, as he succeeded his
father, B. C. 166, in the command of those forces which he had with him
at his death; and, being joined by his brothers, and all others that
were zealous for the law, he erected his standard, on which he inscribed
the above mentioned motto. Those, also, who suffered under Ptolemy
Philopater of Alexandria, fifty years before this period, were afterward
called Maccabees; and so were Eleazar, and the mother and her seven
sons, though they suffered before Judas erected his standard with the
motto from which the appellation originated. And therefore, as these
books which contain the history of Judas and his brothers, and their
wars against the Syrian kings, in defence of their religion and
liberties, are called the first and second books of the Maccabees; so
that book which gives us the history of those who, in the like cause,
under Ptolemy Philopater, were exposed to his elephants at Alexandria,
is called the third book of the Maccabees; and that which is written by
Josephus, of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their
mother, is called the fourth book of the Maccabees.

The first book of the Maccabees is an excellent history, and comes
nearest to the style and manner of the sacred historians of any extant.
It was written originally in the Chaldee language, of the Jerusalem
dialect, and was extant in this language in the time of Jerom, who bad
seen it. From the Chaldee it was translated into Greek, from the Greek
into Latin. Theodotion is conjectured to have translated it into Greek;
but this version was probably more ancient, as we may infer from its use
by ancient authors, as Tertullian, Origen, and others. It is supposed to
have been written by John Hyrcanus, the son of Simon, who was prince and
high priest of the Jews near thirty years, and began his government at
the time where this history ends. It contains the history of forty
years, from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon, the
high priest; that is, from the year of the world 3829 to the year 3869,
B. C. 131. The second book of the Maccabees begins with two epistles
sent from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt and Alexandria, to
exhort them to observe the feast of the dedication of the new altar
erected by Judas, on his purifying the temple. The first was written in
the 169th year of the era of the Seleucidæ, that is, B. C. 144; and the
second, in the 188th year of the same era, or B. C. 125; and both appear
to be spurious. After these epistles follows the preface of the author
to his history, which is an abridgment of a larger work, composed by one
Jason, a Jew of Cyrene, who wrote in Greek the history of Judas
Maccabæus, and his brethren, and the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes,
and Eupator his son. The two last chapters contain events under the
reign of Demetrius Soter, the successor of Antiochus Eupator, and
contain such varieties in their style, as render it doubtful whether
they had the same author as the rest of the work. This second book does
not by any means equal the accuracy and excellency of the first. It
contains a history of about fifteen years, from the execution of
Heliodorus’s commission, who was sent by Seleucus to fetch away the
treasures of the temple, to the victory obtained by Judas Maccabæus over
Nicanor; that is, from the year of the world 3828 to the year 3843, B.
C. 157.

There are in the Polyglott Bibles, both of Paris and London, Syriac
versions of both these books; but they, as well as the English versions
which we have among the apocryphal writers in our Bibles, are derived
from the Greek. For a farther account of Judas Maccabæus, and of his
brothers, whose history is recorded in the first and second books of the
Maccabees, and also by Josephus, we refer to the article JEWS. The third
book of the Maccabees contains the history of the persecution of Ptolemy
Philopater against the Jews in Egypt, and their sufferings under it; and
seems to have been written by some Alexandrian Jew in the Greek
language, not long after the time of Siracides. This book, with regard
to its subject, ought to be called the first, as the things which are
related in it occurred before the Maccabees, whose history is recorded
in the first and second books; but as it is of less authority and repute
than the other two, it is reckoned after them. It is extant in Syriac,
though the translator did not seem to have well understood the Greek
language. It is in most of the ancient manuscript copies of the Greek
Septuagint, particularly in the Alexandrian and Vatican, but was never
inserted into the vulgar Latin version of the Bible, nor, consequently,
into any of our English copies. The first authentic mention we have of
this book is in Eusebius’s _Chronicon_.” It is also named with two other
books of the Maccabees in the eighty-fifth of the apostolic canons. But
it is uncertain when that canon was added. Grotius thinks that this book
was written after the two first books, and shortly after the book of
Ecclesiasticus, from which circumstance it was called the third book of
Maccabees. Moreover, Josephus’s history of the martyrs that suffered
under Antiochus Epiphanes, is found in some manuscript Greek Bibles,
under the name of the fourth book of the Maccabees. This book, ascribed
to Josephus, occurs under the title, Concerning the Empire or Government
of Reason;” but learned men have expressed a doubt whether this was the
book known to the ancients as the fourth book of the Maccabees.

MACEDONIA, a kingdom of Greece, having Thrace to the north, Thessaly
south, Epirus west, and the Ægean Sea east. Alexander the Great, son of
Philip, king of Macedonia, having conquered Asia, and subverted the
Persian empire, the name of the Macedonians became very famous
throughout the east; and it is often given to the Greeks, the successors
of Alexander in the monarchy. In like manner, the name of Greeks is
often put for Macedonians, 2 Maccabees iv, 36. When the Roman empire was
divided, Macedonia fell to the share of the emperor of the east. After
it had long continued subject to the Romans, it fell under the power of
the Ottoman Turks, who are the present masters of it.

St. Paul was invited by an angel of the Lord, who appeared to him at
Troas, to come and preach the Gospel in Macedonia, Acts xvi, 9. After
this vision, the Apostle no longer doubted his divine call to preach the
Gospel in Macedonia; and the success that attended his ministry
confirmed him in his persuasion. Here he laid the foundation of the
churches of Thessalonica and Philippi.

MAGDALA, a city on the west side of the sea of Galilee, near Dalmanutha;
Jesus, after the miracle of the seven loaves, being said by St. Matthew
to have gone by ship to the coasts of Magdala, Matt. xv, 39; and by St.
Mark, to the parts of Dalmanutha,” Mark viii, 10. Mr. Buckingham came to
a small village in this situation called Migdal, close to the edge of
the lake, beneath a range of high cliffs, in which small grottoes are
seen, with the remains of an old square tower, and some larger
buildings, of rude construction, apparently of great antiquity. Migdol
implies a tower, or fortress; and this place, from having this name
particularly applied to it, was doubtless, like the Egyptian Migdol, one
of considerable importance; and may be considered as the site of the
Migdal of the Naphtalites, as well as the Magdala of the New Testament.

MAGI, or MAGIANS, a title which the ancient Persians gave to their wise
men, or philosophers. Magi, among the Persians, answers to σόφοι, or
φιλόσοφοι, among the Greeks; _sapientes_, among the Latins; druids,
among the Gauls; gymnosophists, among the Indians; and priests, among
the Egyptians.

The ancient magi, according to Aristotle and Laertius, were the sole
authors and conservators of the Persian philosophy; and the philosophy
principally cultivated among them was theology and politics; they being
always esteemed as the interpreters of all law, both divine and human;
on which account they were wonderfully revered by the people. Hence
Cicero observes that none were admitted to the crown of Persia, but such
as were well instructed in the discipline of the magi; who taught τὰ
βασιλικὰ, and showed princes how to govern. Plato, Apuleius, Laertius,
and others, agree that the philosophy of the magi related principally to
the worship of the gods: they were the persons who were to offer
prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, as if the gods would be heard by
them alone. But, according to Lucian, Suidas, &c, this theology, or
worship of the gods, as it is called, about which the magi were
employed, was little more than the diabolical art of divination; so that
μαγεί.ἁ, strictly taken, was the art of divination. These people were
held in such veneration among the Persians, that Darius, the son of
Hystaspes, among other things, had it engraven on his monument, that he
was the master of the magi. Philo Judæus describes the magi to be
diligent inquirers into nature, out of the love they bear to truth; and
who, setting themselves apart from other things, contemplate the divine
virtues the more clearly, and initiate others in the same mysteries. The
magi, or magians, formed one of the two grand sects into which the
idolatry of the world was divided between 500 and 600 years before
Christ. These abominated all those images which were worshipped by the
other sect, denominated Sabians, and paid their worship to the Deity
under the emblem of fire. Their chief doctrine was, that there were two
principles, one of which was the cause of all good, and the other the
cause of all evil. The former was represented by light, and the latter
by darkness, as their truest symbols; and of the composition of these
two they supposed that all things in the world were made. The sect of
the magians was revived and reformed by Zoroaster. This celebrated
philosopher, called by the Persians Zerdusht, or Zaratush, began about
the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Darius to restore and reform the
magian system of religion. He was not only excellently skilled in all
the learning of the east that prevailed in his time, but likewise
thoroughly versed in the Jewish religion, and in all the sacred writings
of the Old Testament that were then extant: whence some have inferred
that he was a native Jew both by birth and profession; and that he had
been servant to one of the prophets, probably Ezekiel or Daniel. He made
his first appearance in Media, in the city of Xix, now called Aderbijan,
as some say; or, according to others in Ecbatana, now called Tauris.
Instead of admitting the existence of two first causes, with the
magians, he asserted the existence of one supreme God, who created both
these, and out of these two produced, according to his sovereign
pleasure, every thing else. According to his doctrine, there was one
supreme Being independently and self-existing from all eternity. Under
him there are two angels: one the angel of light, the author and
director of all good; and the other the angel of darkness, who is the
author and director of all evil. These two, probably speaking
figuratively, out of the mixture of light and darkness, made all things
that are; and they are in a state of perpetual conflict; so that where
the angel of light prevails, there the most is good; and where the angel
of darkness prevails, there the most is evil. This struggle shall
continue to the end of the world; and then there shall be a general
resurrection, and a day of judgment: after which, the angel of darkness
and his disciples shall go into a world of their own, where they shall
suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil deeds; and
the angel of light and his disciples shall go into a world of their own,
where they shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto their
good deeds: and henceforward they shall for ever remain separate.

Of the controversy as to Zoroaster, Zeratusht, or Zertushta, and the
sacred books said to have been written by him, called Zend or
Zendavesta, which has divided the most eminent critics, it would answer
no important end to give an abstract. Those who wish for information on
the subject are referred to Hyde’s _Religio Veterum Persarum_;”
Prideaux’s Connection;” Warburton’s Divine Legation;” Bryant’s
Mythology;” The Universal History;” Sir W. Jones’s Works, vol. iii, p.
115; M. Du Perron, and Richardson’s Dissertation,” prefixed to his
Persian and Arabic Dictionary. But whatever may become of the authority
of the whole or part of the Zendavesta, and with whatever fables the
history of the reformer of the magian religion may be mixed, the learned
are generally agreed that such a reformation took place by his
instrumentality. Zeratusht,” says Sir W. Jones, reformed the old
religion by the addition of genii or angels, of new ceremonies in the
veneration shown to fire, of a new work which he pretended to have
received from heaven, and, _above all, by establishing the actual
adoration of the supreme Being_;” and he farther adds, The reformed
religion of Persia continued in force till that country was conquered by
the Musselmans; and, without studying the Zend, we have ample
information concerning it in the modern Persian writings of several who
profess it. Bahman always named Zeratusht with reverence; he was, in
truth, a pure Theist, and strongly disclaimed any adoration of the fire
or other elements; and he denied that the doctrine of two coëval
principles, supremely good and supremely bad, formed any part of his
faith.” The Zeratusht of Persia, or the Zoroaster of the Greeks,” says
Richardson, was highly celebrated by the most discerning people of
ancient times; and his tenets, we are told, were most eagerly and
rapidly embraced by the highest in rank, and the wisest men in the
Persian empire.” He distinguished himself by denying that good and evil,
represented by light and darkness, were coëval, independent principles;
and asserted the supremacy of the true God, in exact conformity with the
doctrine contained in a part of that celebrated prophecy of Isaiah in
which Cyrus is mentioned by name: I am the Lord, and there is none else,
there is no God beside me,” no coëval power. I form the light, and
create darkness, I make peace,” or good, and create evil, I the Lord do
all these things.” Fire, by Zerdushta, appears to have been used
emblematically only; and the ceremonies for preserving and transmitting
it, introduced by him, were manifestly taken from the Jews, and the
sacred fire of their tabernacle and temple.

The old religion of the Persians was corrupted by Sabianism, or the
worship of the host of heaven, with its accompanying superstition. The
magian doctrine, whatever it might be at first, had degenerated; and two
eternal principles, good and evil, had been introduced. It was therefore
necessarily idolatrous also, and, like all other false systems,
flattering to the vicious habits of the people. So great an improvement
in the moral character and influence of the religion of a whole nation
as was effected by Zoroaster, a change which is not certainly paralleled
in the ancient history of the religion of mankind, can scarcely,
therefore, be thought possible, except we suppose a divine
interposition, either directly, or by the occurrence of some very
impressive events. Now as there are so many authorities for fixing the
time of Zoroaster or Zeratusht not many years subsequent to the death of
the great Cyrus, the events connected with the conquest of Babylon may
account for his success in that reformation of religion of which he was
the author. For, had not the minds of men been prepared for this change
by something extraordinary, it is not supposable that they would have
adopted a purer faith from him. That he gave them a better doctrine, is
clear from the admission of even Dean Prideaux, who has very unjustly
branded him as an impostor. Let it then be remembered, that as the Most
High ruleth in the kingdoms of men,” he often overrules great political
events for moral purposes. The Jews were sent into captivity to Babylon
to be reformed from their idolatrous propensities, and their reformation
commenced with their calamity. A miracle was there wrought in favour of
three Hebrew confessors of the existence of one only God, and that under
circumstances to put shame upon a popular idol in the presence of the
king and all the rulers of the provinces,” that the issue of this
controversy between Jehovah and idolatry might be made known throughout
that vast empire.--Worship was refused to the idol by a few Hebrew
captives, and the idol had no power to punish the public affront:--the
servants of Jehovah were cast into a furnace, and he delivered them
unhurt; and a royal decree declared that there was no god who could
deliver after this sort.” The proud monarch himself also is smitten with
a singular disease;--he remains subject to it until he acknowledges the
true God; and, upon his recovery, he publicly ascribes to him both the
justice and the mercy of the punishment. This event takes place, also,
in the accomplishment of a dream which none of the wise men of Babylon
could interpret. It was interpreted by Daniel, who made the fulfilment
to redound to the honour of the true God, by ascribing to him the
perfection of knowing the future, which none of the false gods, appealed
to by the Chaldean sages, possessed; as the inability of their servants
to interpret the dream sufficiently proved. After these singular events,
Cyrus takes Babylon, and he finds there the sage and the statesman,
Daniel, the worshipper of the true God, who creates both good and evil,”
who makes the light, and forms the darkness.” There is little doubt but
that he and the principal Persians throughout the empire would have the
prophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, delivered more than a hundred years
before he was born, and in which his name stood recorded, along with the
predicted circumstances of the capture of Babylon, pointed out to them.
Every reason, religious and political, urged the Jews to make the
prediction a matter of notoriety; and from Cyrus’s decree in Ezra it is
certain that he was acquainted with it; because there is in the decree
an obvious reference to the prophecy. This prophecy, so strangely
fulfilled, would give mighty force to the doctrine connected with it,
and which it proclaims with so much majesty:--

             I am JEHOVAH, and none else,
             Forming LIGHT, and creating DARKNESS,
             Making PEACE, and creating EVIL;
             I JEHOVAH am the author of all these things.”

Here the great principle of corrupted magianism was directly attacked;
and, in proportion as the fulfilment of the prophecy was felt to be
singular and striking, the doctrine blended with it would attract
notice. Its force was both felt and acknowledged, as we have seen, in
the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple. In that Cyrus
acknowledged the true God to be supreme, and thus renounced his former
faith; and the example, the public example, of a prince so beloved, and
whose reign was so extended, could not fail to influence the religious
opinions of his people. That the effect did not terminate in Cyrus, we
know; for, from the book of Ezra, it appears that both Darius and
Artaxerxes made decrees in favour of the Jews, in which Jehovah has the
emphatic appellation repeatedly given to him, the God of heaven,” the
very terms used by Cyrus himself. Nor are we to suppose the impression
confined to the court; for the history of the three Hebrew youths, of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, sickness, and reformation from idolatry, of the
interpretation of the hand writing on the wall by Daniel the servant of
the living God, of his deliverance from the lions, and the publicity of
the prophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, were too recent, too public,
and too striking in their nature, not to be often and largely talked of.
Beside, in the prophecy respecting Cyrus, the intention of almighty God
in recording the name of that monarch in an inspired book, and showing
beforehand that he had chosen him to overturn the Babylonian empire, is
expressly mentioned as having respect to two great objects, first, the
deliverance of Israel, and, second, the making known his supreme
divinity among the nations of the earth. We again quote Lowth’s
translation:--

           For the sake of my _servant Jacob_,
           And of Israel my chosen,
           I have even called thee by thy name,
           I have surnamed thee, though thou knewest me not.
           I am JEHOVAH, and none else,
           Beside me there is no God;
           I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me,
           _That they may know, from the rising of the sun_,
           And from the west, that there is NONE BESIDE ME.”

It was therefore intended by this proceeding on the part of Providence
to teach, not only Cyrus, but the people of his vast empire, and
surrounding nations, 1. That the God of the Jews was Jehovah, the
self-subsistent, the eternal God; 2. That he was God alone, there being
no deity beside himself; and, 3. That good and evil, represented by
light and darkness, were neither independent nor eternal subsistences,
but his great instruments, and under his control.

The Persians, who had so vastly extended their empire by the conquest of
the countries formerly held by the monarchs of Babylon, were thus
prepared for such a reformation of their religion as Zoroaster effected.
The principles he advocated had been previously adopted by Cyrus and
other Persian monarchs, and probably by many of the principal persons of
that nation. Zoroaster himself thus became acquainted with the great
truths contained in this famous prophecy, which attacked the very
foundations of every idolatrous and Manichean system. From the other
sacred books of the Jews, who mixed with the Persians in every part of
the empire, he evidently learned more. This is sufficiently proved from
the many points of similarity between his religion and Judaism, though
he should not be allowed to speak so much in the style of the Holy
Scriptures as some passages in the Zendavesta would indicate. He found
the people, however, prepared of the Lord” to admit his reformations,
and he carried them. This cannot but be looked upon as one instance of
several merciful dispensations of God to the Gentile world, through his
own peculiar people, the Jews, by which the idolatries of the Heathen
were often checked, and the light of truth rekindled among them. In this
view the ancient Jews evidently considered the Jewish church as
appointed not to preserve only but to extend true religion. God be
merciful to us and bless us; that thy way may be known upon earth, thy
saving health unto all nations.” This renders Pagan nations more
evidently without excuse.” That this dispensation of mercy was afterward
neglected among the Persians, is certain. How long the effect continued
we know not, nor how widely it spread; perhaps longer and wider than may
now distinctly appear. If the magi, who came from the east to seek
Christ, were Persians, some true worshippers of God would appear to have
remained in Persia to that day; and if, as is probable, the prophecies
of Isaiah and Daniel were retained among them, they might be among those
who waited for redemption,” not at Jerusalem, but in a distant part of
the world. The _Parsees_, who were nearly extirpated by Mohammedan
fanaticism, were charged by their oppressors with the idolatry of fire,
and this was probably true of the multitude. Some of their writers,
however, warmly defended themselves against the charge. A considerable
number of them remain in India to this day, and profess to have the
books of Zoroaster.

2. The term _magi_ was also anciently used generally throughout the
east, to distinguish philosophers, and especially astronomers. Pliny and
Ptolemy mention Arabi as synonymous with magi; and it was the opinion of
many learned men in the first ages of Christianity, that the magi who
presented offerings to the infant Saviour, Matt. ii, 1, came from
southern Arabia; for it is certain that gold, frankincense, and myrrh,”
were productions of that country. They were philosophers among whom the
best parts of the reformed magian system, which was extensively
diffused, were probably preserved. They were pious men, also, who had
some acquaintance, it may be, with the Hebrew prophecies, and were
favoured themselves with divine revelations. They are to be regarded as
members of the old patriarchal church, never quite extinguished among
the Heathen; and they had the special honour to present the homage of
the Gentile world to the infant Saviour.

MAGICIAN not unfrequently occurs in Scripture. Generally it signifies a
diviner, a fortune teller, &c. Moses forbids recourse to such on pain of
death: The soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and
after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face
against that soul, and even cut him off from among his people,”
Leviticus xix, 31; xx, 6. The Hebrew is אל-האבת ואל-הידענים, which
signify literally,--the first, those possessed with a spirit of Python,
or a demon that fortels future events;--the second, knowers, they who
boast of the knowledge of secret things. It was such sort of people that
Saul extirpated out of the land of Israel, 1 Sam. xxviii, 3. Daniel also
speaks of magicians and diviners in Chaldea, under Nebuchadnezzar,
Daniel i, 20, &c; לחרטמים ולאשׁפים ולמכשׁפים ולכשדים. He names four
sorts: _Chartumim_, _Asaphim_, _Mecasphim_, and _Casdim_, Daniel ii, 2.
The first, _Chartumim_, according to Theodotion, signifies enchanters;”
according to the LXX, sophists;” according to Jerom, _hariolas_,
diviners, fortune tellers, casters of nativities.” The second word,
_Asaphim_, has a great resemblance to the Greek word σοφὸς, wise man;”
whether the Greeks took this word from the Babylonians, or _vice versâ_.
Theodotion and Jerom have rendered it magicians;” the LXX,
philosophers.” The third word, _Mecasphim_, by Jerom and the Greeks, is
translated _malefici_, enchanters;” such as used noxious herbs and
drugs, the blood of victims, and the bones of the dead, for their
superstitious operations. The fourth word, _Casdim_, or Chaldeans, has
two significations: first, the Chaldean people, over whom Nebuchadnezzar
was monarch; the second, a sort of philosophers, who dwelt in a separate
part of the city, who were exempt from all public offices and
employments. Their studies were physic, astrology, divination,
foretelling of future events by the stars, interpretation of dreams,
augury, worship of the gods, &c. All these inquisitive and superstitious
arts were prohibited among the Israelites, as founded on imposture or
devilism, and as inconsistent with faith in God’s providence, and trust
in his supremacy.

MAGOG. See GOG.

MAHANAIM, a city of the Levites, of the family of Merari, in the tribe
of Gad, upon the brook Jabbok, Joshua xxi, 38; xiii, 26. The name
_Mahanaim_ signifies two hosts,” or two fields.” The patriarch gave it
this name because in this place he had a vision of angels coming to meet
him, Genesis xxxii, 2. Mahanaim was the seat of the kingdom of
Ishbosheth, after the death of Saul, 2 Sam. ii, 9, 12. It was also to
this place that David retired during the usurpation of Absalom, 2 Sam.
xvii, 24; and this rebellious son was subdued, and suffered death, not
far from this city.

MAHOMETANISM. Mohammed, its distinguished founder, was born in Arabia,
toward the conclusion of the sixth century. Although he had been reduced
to poverty, he was descended from ancestors who had long been
conspicuous by rank and by influence; but having been shut out from the
advantages of education, which in his peculiar case might have rather
cramped than invigorated the astonishing powers of his mind, he had been
compelled to seek his subsistence by devoting himself to a menial
occupation. Yet although thus unfavourably situated, he was led, in
conducting the commercial transactions which, in the service of Cadijah,
a woman of great wealth, he was employed to arrange, to survey the state
of several of the neighbouring nations; became acquainted with the most
striking features in the characters of those by whom he was surrounded;
and he was enabled to profit by the information which he thus procured,
from his adding to the graces of personal elegance and beauty, the most
captivating manners, and the most winning address. Exalted by the
partiality of Cadijah, who conferred on him her hand and her extensive
possessions, he seems early to have formed the scheme of announcing
himself as the author of a new religion, and, in virtue of this sacred
office, of ascending to that supremacy of political influence which it
was his singular fortune, soon after he unfolded his pretensions, to
attain. Taking advantage of that insensibility into which, by the
attacks of epilepsy, he was occasionally thrown, he pretended that he
was wrapped in divine contemplation, or was actually holding
communication with higher orders of beings, who were committing to him
the divine instructions which he was to disseminate through the world.

When the time which he conceived to be favourable for the grand object
of his ambition had arrived, he openly declared that he was the prophet
of the most high God; but the magistrates of Mecca, despising his
pretensions, or dreading the evils which might result from religious
innovation, vigorously opposed him, and he found himself compelled, in
order to avoid the punishment which they were preparing to inflict on
him, to have recourse to flight. He did not, however, relinquish the
scheme upon which he had so long meditated, and which he was convinced
that he was qualified to carry into execution. After his departure from
Mecca, from which event the Mohammedan era of the hegira takes its
commencement, he was joined by a few followers determined to share his
fate; and having solemnly consecrated the banner under which he was to
extend his power and propagate his tenets, he commenced hostilities
against those by whom he had been opposed. His first efforts, however,
were not crowned with success, but he had infused into his attendants a
spirit which misfortune could not subdue: they renewed their enterprise,
and Mecca at length submitted to his arms. From this period his
exaltation was very rapid; he was venerated as the favoured messenger of
Heaven, and his countrymen bowed down before a sovereign protected, as
they believed, by the Omnipotent, and commissioned to reveal his will.
There were many causes which satisfactorily account for his success. The
Christian religion, in the corrupted form in which it existed in the
regions contiguous to the country of the prophet, was not interwoven
with the affections of its professors; they were split into factions,
contending about the most frivolous distinctions and the most ridiculous
tenets; and the sword of persecution was mutually wielded by them all,
to spread misery where there should have been the ties of charity and
love. Thus divided, they presented no steady resistance to the attempt
made to wrest from them their religion; and, indeed, as many of them had
adopted that religion, not from conviction, but from dread of the
tyranny by which it had been imposed on them, they only did what they
had previously done, when, shrinking from the ferocious zeal of the
emissaries of the prophet, they submitted to his doctrine. With
admirable address, too, he had framed his religious system, so as to
gratify those to whom it was announced. Laying down the sublime and
unquestionable doctrine of the unity of God, he professed to revere the
patriarchs, whose memory the Arabs held in veneration; he admitted that
Moses was a messenger from God; he acknowledged Jesus as an exalted
prophet; and he founded his own pretensions upon the intimation which
our Saviour had given that the Paraclete, or Comforter, was to be sent
to lead the world into all truth. Thus each party found in the Koran
much of what it had been accustomed to believe; and the transition was
in this way rendered more easy to the admission that a new revelation
had been vouchsafed.

This effect was facilitated by the ignorance which prevailed in Arabia.
Accustomed to a wandering life, the Arabs had devoted no time to the
acquisition of knowledge; most of them were even unable to read the
Koran, the sublimity and beauty of which were held forth to them as
incontestable proofs of the inspiration of its author. Had Mohammed,
indeed rested his doctrine upon miracles, it might have happened that
the imposture by some would have been detected; but, with his usual
policy, he avoided what he knew was so hazardous; and, with the
exception of his reference to the Koran, as surpassing the capacity of
man, he explicitly disclaimed having been authorized to do such mighty
works as had been wrought to establish the previous dispensations of the
Almighty. The fascinating representation that he gave of the joys of
paradise, which he accommodated to the conceptions and wishes of the
eastern nations, also made a deep and favourable impression; the
wantonness of imagination was gratified with the anticipation of a state
abounding with sensual gratification raised to the highest degree of
exquisiteness; while the dismal fate allotted through eternity to all
who rejected the message which he brought, alarmed the fears of the
credulous and superstitious multitude whom he was eager to allure. When
with these causes are combined the vigour of his administration, and the
certainty of suffering or of death in the event of withstanding his
doctrine, there is sufficient to account for the success of his
religion; and there is in that success nothing which can, with the
shadow of reason, be employed, as, with strange perversion of argument,
it has sometimes been, to invalidate the proof for the truth of
Christianity deduced from its rapid diffusion. That proof does not rest
upon the mere circumstance that the religion of Jesus was widely and
speedily propagated; there might, under particular circumstances, have
been in this nothing wonderful; but on the facts that it was so
propagated, when all the human means to which they who preached it could
have recourse, would have retarded rather than promoted what actually
took place; that it employed no force; that it held out no earthly
advantages; that it accommodated itself to no previous religious
prejudices; and that it opposed and reproved all, and did not gratify
any, of the corruptions and lusts of human nature.

But Mohammed did not limit his views to the sovereignty of Arabia: he
was elevated by the hope of universal empire; and he moulded his system
so as to promote what he was eager to attain. For this purpose he
promised to all who enrolled themselves under his banner full license to
plunder the nations against which they were led; and he made it a
fundamental tenet of his faith that they who fell in the warlike
enterprises destined to enlarge the number of believers were at once
delivered from the guilt and misery of their sins, and were admitted to
the happy scenes prepared for the faithful. He thus collected around him
an army thoroughly devoted, prepared for meeting every danger,
stimulated to the most laborious exertions by the hope of plunder, and
steeled against all which can weaken courage or exhaust resolution, by
the enthusiasm of hope; whatever was their fate, they had nothing to
dread; if they escaped the weapons of their enemies, they were loaded
with spoil, and invited to indulgence; and if they fell, they were
canonized by those who survived, and exchanged the vicissitudes and
troubles of this world for the delights of a sensual paradise. An army
thus constituted and thus impelled must, under any circumstances, have
been formidable; against them the usual methods to defeat invasion and
to prevent conquest would have failed; they could have been successfully
encountered only by men who had imbibed a similar spirit, and who
identified patience and courage in the field with the most sacred duty
required by religion. Of the advantages which, after Arabia had
acknowledged his sway, and hailed him as the prophet of the Lord, he
might confidently anticipate, Mohammed was abundantly sensible; but
while he was preparing to bring into action the mighty machine which he
had erected, his earthly career was terminated, and he left to others to
execute the schemes which he had fondly devised.

The energy of the system remained after the author of it was removed
from the world; and his successors lost no time in extending their
dominions far beyond the bounds of Arabia. The obstacles opposed to them
instantly yielded; a feeble and degenerate empire sinking under its own
weight, and unable to resist any power acting against it, at once
submitted to the host of fanatical plunderers, who spread desolation as
they advanced; the richest provinces soon were wrested from it; and the
most fertile regions of Asia fell under the conquering fury of the
caliphs. Persia, which had long persecuted Christianity, was added to
their increasing territories; Syria submitted to their yoke; and, what
filled with horror and with anguish the believers in the Gospel,
Palestine, that holy land from which the light of divine truth had
beamed upon the nations, which had been the scene of those awful or
interesting events recorded in the inspired Scriptures, which had
witnessed the life, the ministry, the death, the resurrection, and
ascension of the Redeemer of mankind, bent under the iron sceptre of an
infidel sovereign, nominally, indeed, revering the Founder of its
religion, but filled with bigoted and implacable hatred against the most
attached and conscientious of his disciples. But the caliphs did not
accomplish their principal object when they reduced to subjection the
countries which they ravaged: to them it was of infinitely more moment
to propagate the Musselman faith; and, accordingly, although in the
commencement of that faith some indulgence was, from political
considerations, granted to the Christians, there was soon no alternative
left to the trembling captives but to embrace the doctrine of the
prophet, or to submit to slavery or death. We cannot wonder that tenets
thus enforced rapidly spread; they supplanted, in many extensive
regions, the religion of Jesus; and, incorporating themselves with civil
governments, or rather founding all governments upon the Koran, they
continue, at the distance of eleven hundred years, to be believed
through a large proportion of the world.

The effect of this signal revolution was first experienced by those
Christians who inhabited the eastern parts of the empire; but the
account of it must have been speedily conveyed throughout Christendom,
and the gigantic enterprises of the Saracens soon threatened all nations
with slavery and superstition. The successors of the prophet, in the
eighth century, directed their steps toward Europe; and having at length
crossed the narrow sea which separates Africa from Spain, they dispersed
the troops of Roderick, king of the Goths, took possession of the
greater part of his dominions, subverted the empire of the Visigoths,
which had been established in Spain for upward of three centuries, and
planted themselves along the coast of Gaul, from the Pyrenean mountains
to the Rhine. Charlemagne, alarmed at their progress, made a great
effort to crush them; but he failed in accomplishing his object, and
they committed, in various parts of Europe which they visited, the most
shocking devastations.

When a great part of the life of Mohammed had been spent in preparatory
meditation on the system he was about to establish, the chapters of the
Alcoran or Koran, which was to contain the rule of the faith and
practice of his followers, were dealt out slowly and separately during
the long period of three-and-twenty years. He entrusted his beloved
wife, Raphsa, the daughter of Omar, with the keeping of the chest of his
apostleship, in which were laid up all the originals of the revelations
he pretended to have received by the ministration of the Angel Gabriel,
and out of which the Koran, consisting of one hundred and fourteen
_surats_, or chapters, of very unequal length, was composed after his
death. Yet, defective in its structure, and not less exceptionable in
its doctrines and precepts, was the work which he thus delivered to his
followers as the oracles of God. We will not detract from the real merit
of the Koran; we allow it to be generally elegant and often sublime; but
at the same time we reject with disdain its arrogant pretensions to any
thing supernatural. Nay, if, descending to a minute investigation of it,
we consider its perpetual inconsistency and absurdity, we shall indeed
have cause for astonishment at that weakness of humanity which could
ever have received such compositions as the work of the Deity, and which
could still hold it in such high admiration as it is held by the
followers of Mohammed to the present day. Far from supporting its
arrogant claim to a supernatural work, it sinks below the level of many
compositions confessedly of human original; and still lower does it fall
when compared with that pure and perfect pattern which we justly admire
in the Scriptures of truth. The first praise of all the productions of
genius is invention; but the Koran bears little impression of this
transcendent character. It does not contain one single doctrine which
may not fairly be derived either from the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures, from the spurious and apocryphal Gospels, then current in
the east, from the Talmudical legends, or from the traditions, customs,
and opinions of the Arabians. And the materials collected from these
several sources are here heaped together with perpetual and needless
repetitions, without any settled principle, or visible connection. The
most prominent feature of the Koran, that point of excellence in which
the partiality of its admirers has ever delighted to view it, is the
sublime notion it generally impresses of the nature and attributes of
God. But if its author had really derived these just conceptions from
the inspiration of that Being whom they attempt to describe, they would
not have been surrounded, as they now are, on every side with error and
absurdity. By attempting to explain what is inconceivable, to describe
what is ineffable, and to materialize what in itself is spiritual, he
absurdly and impiously aimed to sensualize the purity of the divine
essence. But it might easily be proved, that whatever the Koran justly
defines of the divine attributes, was borrowed from our Holy Scriptures;
which, even from their first promulgation, but especially from the
completion of the New Testament, have extended the views, and
enlightened the understandings, of mankind.

The Koran, indeed, every where inculcates that grand and fundamental
doctrine of the unity of the supreme Being, the establishment of which
was constantly alleged by the impostor as the primary object of his
pretended mission; but on the subject of the Christian trinity, its
author seems to have entertained very gross and mistaken ideas, and to
have been totally ignorant of the perfect consistency of that opinion
with the unity of the Deity. With respect to the great doctrine of a
future life, and the condition of the soul after its departure from the
body, it must indeed be acknowledged that the prophet of Arabia has
presented us with a nearer prospect of the invisible world, and
disclosed to us a thousand particulars concerning it, which the Holy
Scriptures had wrapped in the most profound and mysterious silence. But
in his various representations of another life, he generally descends to
an unnecessary minuteness and particularity, which excite disgust and
ridicule, instead of reverence. He constantly pretended to have received
these stupendous secrets by the ministry of the Angel Gabriel, from that
eternal book in which the divine decrees have been written by the finger
of the Almighty from the foundation of the world; but the learned
inquirer will discover a more accessible, and a far more probable,
source whence they might be derived, partly in the wild and fanciful
opinions of the ancient Arabs, and chiefly in those exhaustless stores
of marvellous and improbable fiction, the works of the rabbins. Hence,
that romantic fable of the angel of death, whose peculiar office it is,
at the destined hour, to dissolve the union between soul and body, and
to free the departing spirit from its prison of flesh. Hence, too, the
various descriptions of the general resurrection and final judgment with
which the Koran every where abounds; and hence the vast but ideal
balance in which the actions of all mankind shall then be impartially
weighed, and their eternal doom be assigned them, either in the regions
of bliss or misery, according as their good or evil deeds shall
preponderate. Here, too, may be traced the grand and original outlines
of that sensual paradise, and those luxurious enjoyments, which were so
successfully employed in the Koran, to gratify the ardent genius of the
Arabs, and allure them to the standard of the prophet.

The same observation which has been applied with respect to the sources
whence the doctrines were drawn, may, with some few limitations, be
likewise extended to the precepts which the Arabian legislator has
enjoined. That the Koran, amidst a various and confused heap of
ridiculous and even immoral precepts, contains many interesting and
instructive lessons of morality, cannot with truth be denied. Of these,
however, the merit is to be ascribed, not to the feeble imitation, but
to the great and perfect original from which they were manifestly drawn.
Instead of improving on the Christian precepts by a superior degree of
refinement; instead of exhibiting a purer and more perfect system of
morals than that of the Gospel; the prophet of Arabia has miserably
debased and weakened even what he has borrowed from that system. We are
told by our Saviour, that a man is to be the husband of one wife, and
that there is to be an inseparable union between them. By Mohammed’s
confession, Jesus Christ was a prophet of the true God, and the Holy
Spirit was with him. Yet in the Koran we find permission for any person
to have four wives, and as many concubines as he can maintain. Again:
our Saviour expressly tells us, that, at the resurrection, they will
neither marry nor be given in marriage; but be like the angels of God in
heaven.” We are informed also by St. Paul, that we shall be changed, and
have a spiritual and glorified body; for flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of heaven; neither can corruption inherit incorruption.” But
Mohammed gives a very different account: it is clear, from his own
confession, that the happiness promised in the Koran consists in base
and corporeal enjoyments. According to its author, there will not only
be marriage, but also servitude in the next world. The very meanest in
paradise will have eighty thousand servants, and seventy-two wives of
the girls of paradise, beside the wives he had in this world; he will
also have a tent erected for him of pearls, hyacinths, and emeralds. And
as marriage will take place, so a new race will be introduced in heaven;
for, says the Koran, If any of the faithful in paradise be desirous of
issue, it shall be conceived, born, and grown up in the space of an
hour.” But on the contradictions in point of doctrine, though sufficient
of themselves to confute the pretensions of Mohammed, we forbear to
insist.

The impure designs which gave birth to the whole system may be traced in
almost every subordinate part; even its sublimest descriptions of the
Deity, even its most exalted moral precepts, not unfrequently either
terminate in, or are interwoven with, some provision to gratify the
inordinate cravings of ambition, or some license for the indulgence of
the corrupt passions of the human heart. It has allowed private revenge,
in the case of murder; it has given a sanction to fornication; and, if
any weight be due to the example of its author, it has justified
adultery. It has made war, and rapine, and bloodshed, provided they be
exercised against unbelievers, not only meritorious acts, but even
essential duties to the good Musselman; duties by the performance of
which he may secure the constant favour and protection of God and his
prophet in this life, and in the next entitle himself to the boundless
joys of paradise. In the Koran are advanced the following assertions,
among others already noticed: That both Jews and Christians are
idolaters; that the patriarchs and Apostles were Mohammedans; that the
angels worshipped Adam, and that the fallen angels were driven from
heaven for not doing so; that our blessed Saviour was neither God, nor
the Son of God; and that he assured Mohammed of this in a conference
with the Almighty and him; yet that he was both the word and Spirit of
God: not to mention numberless absurdities concerning the creation, the
deluge, the end of the world, the resurrection, the day of judgment, too
gross to be received by any except the most debased understandings.

It was frequently the triumphant boast of St. Paul, that the Gospel of
Jesus Christ had for ever freed mankind from the intolerable burden of
ceremonial observances. But the Koran renews and perpetuates the
slavery, by prescribing to its votaries a ritual still more oppressive,
and entangling them again in a yoke of bondage yet more severe than that
of the law. Of this kind, amidst a variety of instances, is that great
and meritorious act of Mohammedan devotion, the pilgrimage to the holy
city of Mecca; an act which the Koran has enjoined, and the pious
Musselman implicitly performs, as necessary to the obtaining pardon of
his sins, and qualifying him to be a partaker of the alluring pleasures
and exquisite enjoyments of paradise. To the several articles of faith
to which all his followers were to adhere, Mohammed added four
fundamental points of religious practice; namely, prayer five times a
day, fasting, alms-giving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. Under the first
of these are comprehended those frequent washings or purifications which
he prescribed as necessary preparations for the duty of prayer. So
necessary did he think them, that he is said to have declared, that the
practice of religion is founded upon cleanliness, which is one half of
faith, and the key of prayer. The second of these he conceived to be a
duty of so great moment, that he used to say it was the gate of
religion, and that the odour of the mouth of him who fasteth is more
grateful to God than that of musk. The third is looked upon as so
pleasing in the sight of God, that the Caliph Omar Ebn Abdalaziz used to
say, Prayer carries us half way to God; fasting brings us to the door of
his palace; and alms procure us admission.” The last of these practical
religious duties is deemed so necessary, that, according to a tradition
of Mohammed, he who dies without performing it, may as well die a Jew or
a Christian.” As to the negative precepts and institutions of this
religion, the Mohammedans are forbidden the use of wine, and are
prohibited from gaming, usury, and the eating of blood and swine’s
flesh, and whatever dies of itself, or is strangled, or killed by a
blow, or by another beast. They are said, however, to comply with the
prohibition of gaming, (from which chess seems to be excepted,) much
better than they do with that of wine, under which all strong and
inebriating liquors are included; for both the Persians and Turks are in
the habit of drinking freely.

However successful and triumphant from without, the progress of the
followers of Mohammed received a considerable check by the civil
dissensions which arose among themselves soon after his death. Abubeker
and Ali, the former the father-in-law, the latter the son-in-law, of
this pretended prophet, aspired both to succeed him in the empire which
he had erected. Upon this arose a cruel and tedious contest, whose
flames produced that schism which divided the Mohammedans into two great
factions; and this separation not only gave rise to a variety of
opinions and rites, but also excited the most implacable hatred, and the
most deadly animosities, which have been continued to the present day.
With such furious zeal is this contention still carried on between these
two factions, who are distinguished by the name of Sonnites and
Schiites, that each party detest and anathematize the other as
abominable heretics, and farther from the truth than either the
Christians or the Jews. The chief points in which they differ are: 1.
The Schiites reject Abubeker, Omar, and Othman, the first three caliphs,
as usurpers and intruders; but the Sonnites acknowledge and respect them
as rightful caliphs or imams. 2. The Schiites prefer Ali to Mohammed,
or, at least, esteem them both equal; but the Sonnites admit neither
Ali, nor any of the prophets, to be equal to Mohammed. 3. The Sonnites
charge the Schiites with corrupting the Koran, and neglecting its
precepts; and the Schiites retort the same charge on the Sonnites.

4. The Sonnites receive the _Sonna_, or book of traditions of their
prophet, as of canonical authority; but the Schiites reject it as
apocryphal, and unworthy of credit. The Sonnites are subdivided into
four chief sects, of which the first is that of the Hanefites, who
generally prevail among the Turks and Tartars; the second, that of the
Malecites, whose doctrine is chiefly followed in Barbary, and other
parts of Africa; the third, that of the Shafeites, who are chiefly
confined to Arabia and Persia; and the fourth orthodox sect is that of
the Hanbalites, who are not very numerous, and seldom to be met with out
of the limits of Arabia. The heretical sects among the Mohammedans are
those which are counted to hold heterodox opinions in fundamentals, or
matters of faith; and they are variously compounded and decompounded of
the opinions of four chief sects; the Motazalites, the Safatians, the
Kharejites, and the Schiites.

Ever since the valour of John Sobieski rolled back the hosts of Islamism
from eastern and central Europe, the civil dominion of the false prophet
has been rather retrograde than advancing. A free philosophy in many
places is destroying the influence of the system among the better
informed; and the barbarism and misery which a bad government inflicts
upon the people, weakens its power, and is preparing the way for great
changes. The throwing off the Turkish yoke by the Greeks, and the rising
greatness of Russia, are symptoms of the approaching subversion of
Mohammedanism as a power; and thus the fall of this eastern antichrist
cannot long be delayed. It is, indeed, even now supported only by the
rival interests of Christian powers; and a new combination among them
would suddenly withdraw its only support.

MALACHI, the last of the twelve minor prophets. Malachi prophesied about
B. C. 400; and some traditionary accounts state that he was a native of
Sapha, and of the tribe of Zebulun. He reproves the people for their
wickedness, and the priests for their negligence in the discharge of
their office; he threatens the disobedient with the judgments of God,
and promises great rewards to the penitent and pious; he predicts the
coming of Christ, and the preaching of John the Baptist; and with a
solemnity becoming the last of the prophets, he closes the sacred canon
with enjoining the strict observance of the Mosaic law, till the
forerunner, already promised, should appear in the spirit of Elias, to
introduce the Messiah, who was to establish a new and everlasting
covenant.

MAMMON, a Syriac word which signifies _riches_, Matt. vi, 24.

MAMRE, an Amorite, brother of Aner and Eshcol, and friend of Abraham,
Gen. xiv, 13. It was with these three persons, together with his own and
their domestics, that Abraham pursued and overcame the kings after their
conquest of Sodom and Gomorrah.

2. MAMRE, the same as Hebron. In Gen. xxiii, 19, it is said, that
Abraham buried Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah, before
Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.” And in Gen. xxxv, 27,
it is said, that Jacob came unto Isaac his father, unto Mamre, unto the
city of Arba, which is Hebron.” The city probably derived its name from
that Mamre who joined Abraham in the pursuit of Chedorlaomer, and the
rescue of Lot, Gen. xiv.

MAMRE, PLAIN OF, a plain near Mamre, or Hebron, said to be about two
miles to the south of the town. Here Abraham dwelt after his separation
from Lot; here he received from God himself a promise of the land, in
which he was then a stranger, for his posterity; here he entertained the
angels under an oak, and received a second promise of a son; and here he
purchased a burying place for Sarah; which served also as a sepulchre
for himself and the rest of his family.

MANAHEM was the sixteenth king of Israel, and son of Gadi. He revenged
the death of his master Zachariah, by killing Shallum, son of Jabesh,
who had usurped the crown of Israel, A. M. 3232, 2 Kings xv, 13, &c.
Manahem reigned in his stead.

MANASSEH, the eldest son of Joseph, and grandson of the patriarch Jacob,
Gen. xii, 50, was born, A. M. 2290, B. C. 1714. The name Manasseh
signifies _forgetfulness_, because Joseph said, “God hath made me forget
all my toil, and all my father’s house.” When Jacob was going to die,
Joseph brought his two sons to him, that his father might give them his
last blessing, Gen. xlviii. Jacob, having seen them, adopted them. The
tribe of Manasseh came out of Egypt in number thirty-two thousand two
hundred men, upward of twenty years old, under the conduct of Gamaliel,
son of Pedahzur, Num. ii, 20, 21. This tribe was divided in the land of
promise. One half tribe of Manasseh settled beyond the river Jordan, and
possessed the country of Bashan, from the river Jabbok, to Mount
Libanus; and the other half tribe of Manasseh settled on this side
Jordan, and possessed the country between the tribe of Ephraim south,
and the tribe of Issachar north, having the river Jordan east, and the
Mediterranean Sea west, Joshua xvi; xvii.

2. MANASSEH, the fifteenth king of Judah, and son and successor of
Hezekiah, was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned
fifty-five years, 2 Kings xx, 21; xxi, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxxiii, 1, 2, &c.
His mother’s name was Hephzibah. He did evil in the sight of the Lord;
worshipped the idols of the land of Canaan; rebuilt the high places that
his father Hezekiah had destroyed; set up altars to Baal; and planted
groves to false gods. He raised altars to the whole host of heaven, in
the courts of God’s house; made his son pass through the fire in honour
of Moloch; was addicted to magic, divinations, auguries, and other
superstitions; set up the idol Astarte in the house of God; finally, he
involved his people in all the abomination of the idolatrous nations to
that degree, that Israel committed more wickedness than the Canaanites,
whom the Lord had driven out before them. To all these crimes Manasseh
added cruelty; and he shed rivers of innocent blood in Jerusalem. The
Lord being provoked by so many crimes, threatened him by his prophets, I
will blot out Jerusalem as a writing is blotted out of a writing
tablet.” The calamities which God had threatened began toward the
twenty-second year of this impious prince. The king of Assyria sent his
army against him, who, seizing him among the briers and brambles where
he was hid, fettered his hands and feet, and carried him to Babylon, 2
Chron. xxxiii, 11, 12, &c. It was probably Sargon or Esar-haddon, king
of Assyria, who sent Tartan into Palestine, and who taking Azoth,
attacked Manasseh, put him in irons, and led him away, not to Nineveh,
but to Babylon, of which Esar-haddon had become master, and had reunited
the empires of the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. Manasseh, in bonds at
Babylon, humbled himself before God, who heard his prayers, and brought
him back to Jerusalem; and Manasseh acknowledged the hand of the Lord.
Manasseh was probably delivered out of prison by Saosduchin, the
successor of Esar-haddon, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 13, 14, &c. Being returned to
Jerusalem, he restored the worship of the Lord; broke down the altars of
the false gods; abolished all traces of their idolatrous worship; but he
did not destroy the high places: which is the only thing Scripture
reproaches him with, after his return from Babylon. He caused Jerusalem
to be fortified; and he inclosed with a wall another city, which in his
time was erected west of Jerusalem, and which went by the name of the
second city, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 14. He put garrisons into all the strong
places of Judah. Manasseh died at Jerusalem, and was buried in the
garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza, 2 Kings xxi, 18. He was
succeeded by his son Amon.

MANDRAKE, דודאים, Gen. xxx, 14–16; Cant. vii, 13. Interpreters have
wasted much time and pains in endeavouring to ascertain what is intended
by the Hebrew word _dudaim_. Some translate it by violet,” others,
lilies,” jasmines,” truffle or mushroom,” and some think that the word
means flowers,” or fine flowers,” in general. Bochart, Calmet, and Sir
Thomas Browne, suppose the citron intended; Celsius is persuaded that it
is the fruit of the lote tree; Hiller, that cherries are spoken of; and
Ludolf maintains that it is the fruit which the Syrians call mauz,
resembling in figure and taste the Indian fig; but the generality of
interpreters and commentators understand by _dudaim_, mandrakes, a
species of melon; and it is so rendered in the Septuagint, and in both
the Targums, on Gen. xxx, 14. It appears from Scripture, that they were
in perfection about the time of wheat harvest, have an agreeable odour,
may be preserved, and are placed with pomegranates. Hasselquist, the
pupil and intimate friend of Linnæus, who travelled into the Holy Land
to make discoveries in natural history, imagines that the plant commonly
called mandrake, is intended. Speaking of Nazareth, in Galilee, he says,
“What I found most remarkable at this village was the great number of
mandrakes which grew in a vale below it. I had not the pleasure to see
this plant in blossom, the fruit now (May 5th, O. S.) hanging ripe on
the stem, which lay withered on the ground. From the season in which
this mandrake blossoms and ripens fruit, one may form a conjecture that
it was Rachel’s _dudaim_. These were brought her in the wheat harvest,
which in Galilee is in the month of May, about this time, and the
mandrake was now in fruit.”

MANICHÆANS, or MANICHEES, a denomination founded in the latter part of
the third century, by Mani, Manes, or Manichæus. Being a Persian or
Chaldean by birth, and educated among the magi, he attempted a coalition
of their doctrine with the Christian system, or rather, the explication
of the one by the other. Dr. Lardner, so far from taking Mani and his
followers for enthusiasts, as some have done, thinks they erred on the
other side, and were rather a sect of reasoners and philosophers, than
visionaries and enthusiasts. So Faustus, one of their leaders, says, the
doctrine of Mani taught him not to receive every thing recommended as
said by our Saviour, but first to examine and consider whether it be
true, sound, right, genuine; while the Catholics, he says, swallowed
every thing, and acted as if they despised the benefit of human reason,
and were afraid to examine and distinguish between truth and falsehood.
St. Augustine, it is well known, was for some time among this sect; but
they were not pretensions to inspiration, but specious and alluring
promises of rational discoveries, by which Augustine was deluded, as he
particularly states in his letter to his friend Honoratus. So Beausobre
remarks: These heretics were philosophers, who, having formed certain
systems, accommodated revelation to them, which was the servant of their
reason, not the mistress.”

Mani, according to Dr. Lardner, believed in an eternal self-existent
Being, completely happy and perfect in goodness, whom alone he called
God, in a strict and proper sense; but he believed, also, in an evil
principle or being, which he called _hyle_, or the devil, whom he
considered as the god of this world, blinding the eyes of them that
believe not, 2 Cor. iv, 4. God, the supreme and good, they considered as
the Author of the universe; and, according to St. Augustine, they
believed, also, in a consubstantial trinity, though they strangely
supposed the Father to dwell in light inaccessible, the Son to have his
residence in the solar orb, and the Holy Spirit to be diffused
throughout the atmosphere; on which account they paid a superstitious,
and perhaps an idolatrous, reverence to the sun and moon. Their belief
in the evil principle was, no doubt, adopted to solve the mysterious
question of the origin of evil, which, says Dr. Lardner, was the ruin of
these men, and of many others. As to the _hyle_, or the devil, though
they dared not to consider him as the creature of God, neither did they
believe in his eternity; for they contended, from the Greek text of John
viii, 44, that he had a father. But they admitted the eternity of
matter, which they called darkness; and supposed _hyle_ to be the result
of some wonderful and unaccountable commotion in the kingdom of
darkness, which idea seems to be borrowed from the Mosaic chaos. In this
commotion darkness became mingled with light, and thus they account for
good and evil being so mixed together in the world. Having thus brought
_hyle_, or Satan, into being, they next found an empire and employment
for him. Every thing, therefore, which they conceived unworthy of the
fountain of goodness, they attributed to the evil being; particularly
the material world, the Mosaic dispensation, and the Scriptures on which
it was founded. This accounts for their rejecting the Old Testament. Dr.
Lardner contends, however, that they received generally the books of the
New Testament, though they objected to particular passages as corrupted,
which they could not reconcile to their system. On Rom. vii, Mani
founded the doctrine of two souls in man, two active principles; one,
the source and cause of vicious passions, deriving its origin from
matter; the other, the cause of the ideas of just and right, and of
inclinations to follow those ideas, deriving its origin from God.
Considering all sensual enjoyments to be in some degree criminal, they
were enemies to marriage; though, at the same time, knowing that all men
cannot receive this saying, they allowed it to the second class of their
disciples, called auditors; but by no means to the perfect or confirmed
believers. Another absurd consequence of believing the moral evil of
matter was, that they denied the real existence of Christ’s human
nature, and supposed him to suffer and die in appearance only. According
to them, he took the form only of man; a notion that was afterward
adopted by Mohammed, and which necessarily excludes all faith in the
atonement. Construing too literally the assertion that flesh and blood
could not inherit the kingdom of God, they denied the doctrine of the
resurrection. Christ came, they said, to save the souls of men, and not
the bodies. No part of matter, according to them, could be worthy of
salvation. In many leading principles they thus evidently agreed with
the Gnostics, of whom, indeed, they may be considered a branch.

MANNA, מן, Exod. xvi, 15, 33, 35; Num. xi, 6, 7, 9; Josh. v, 12; Neh.
ix, 20; Psa. lxxviii, 24; μάννα, John vi, 31, 49, 58; Heb. ix, 4; Rev.
ii, 17; the food which God gave the children of Israel during their
continuance in the deserts of Arabia, from the eighth encampment in the
wilderness of Sin. Moses describes it as white like hoar frost, round,
and of the bigness of coriander seed. It fell every morning upon the
dew; and when the dew was exhaled by the heat of the sun, the manna
appeared alone, lying upon the rocks or the sand. It fell every day
except on the Sabbath, and this only around the camp of the Israelites.
Every sixth day there fell a double quantity; and though it putrefied
and bred maggots when it was kept any other day, yet on the Sabbath
there was no such alteration. The same substance which was melted by the
heat of the sun when it was left abroad, was of so hard a consistence
when brought into the tent, that it was beaten in mortars, and would
even endure the fire, being made into cakes and baked in pans. It fell
in so great quantities during the whole forty years of their journey,
that it was sufficient to feed the whole multitude of above a million of
souls. Every man, that is, every male or head of a family, was to gather
each day the quantity of an omer, about three quarts English measure;
and it is observed that he that gathered much had nothing over, and he
that gathered little had no lack,” because his gathering was in
proportion to the number of persons for whom he had to provide. Or every
man gathered as much as he could; and then, when brought home and
measured by an omer, if he had a surplus, it went to supply the wants of
some other family that had not been able to collect a sufficiency, the
family being large, and the time in which the manna might be gathered,
before the heat of the day, not being sufficient to collect enough for
so numerous a household, several of whom might be so confined as not to
be able to collect for themselves. Thus there was an equality; and in
this light the words of St. Paul lead us to view the passage, 2 Cor.
viii, 15. To commemorate their living upon manna, the Israelites were
directed to put one omer of it into a golden vase; and it was preserved
for many generations by the side of the ark.

Our translators and others make a plain contradiction in the relation of
this account of the manna, by rendering it thus: And when the children
of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna; for they knew
not what it was;” whereas the Septuagint, and several authors, both
ancient and modern, have translated the text according to the original:
“The Israelites seeing this, said one to another, What is it? מן הוא;
for they knew not what it was,” and therefore they could not give it a
name. Moses immediately answers the question, and says, This is the
bread which the Lord hath given you to eat.” From Exod. xvi, 31, we
learn that this substance was afterward called מן, probably in
commemoration of the question they had asked on its first appearance.
What this substance was, we know not. It was nothing that was common in
the wilderness. It is evident that the Israelites never saw it before;
for Moses says, He fed thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither
did thy fathers know,” Deut. viii, 3, 16; and it is very likely that
nothing of the kind had ever been seen before; and by a pot of it being
laid up in the ark, it is as likely that nothing of the kind ever
appeared after the miraculous supply in the wilderness had ceased. The
author of the book of Wisdom, xvi, 20, 21, says, that the manna so
accommodated itself to every one’s taste that it proved palatable and
pleasing to all. It has been remarked that at this day, what is called
manna is found in several places; in Arabia, on Mount Libanus, Calabria,
and elsewhere. The most famous is that of Arabia, which is a kind of
condensed honey, which exudes from the leaves of trees, from whence it
is collected when it has become concreted. Salmasius thinks this of the
same kind which fed the children of Israel; and that the miracle lay,
not in creating any new substance, but in making it fall duly at a set
time every day throughout the whole year, and that in such plenty as to
suffice so great a multitude. But in order for this, the Israelites must
he supposed every day to have been in the neighbourhood of the trees on
which this substance is formed; which was not the case, neither do these
trees grow in those deserts. Beside, this kind of manna is purgative,
and the stomach could not endure it in such quantity as is implied by
its being eaten for food. The whole history of the giving the manna is
evidently miraculous; and the manna was truly bread from heaven,” as
sent by special interposition of God.

MANOAH, the father of Samson, was of the tribe of Dan, and a native of
the city of Zorah, Judges xiii, 6–23. See SAMSON.

MARAH, or MARA, a word which signifies _bitterness_. When the Israelites
came out of Egypt, and had arrived at the desert of Etham, they found
the water so bitter that neither themselves nor their cattle could drink
of it, Exod. xv, 23. On this account they gave the name of Marah to that
encampment. And here their murmurings began against Moses; for they
asked, What shall we drink?” Moses prayed to the Lord, who instructed
him to take a particular kind of wood, and cast it into the water, which
he did; and immediately the water became palatable. According to the
orientals, this wood was called Alnah.

MARANATHA. See ANATHEMA.

MARBLE, שיש, 1 Chron. xxix, 2; Esther i, 6; Canticles v, 15; a valuable
kind of stone, of a texture so hard and compact, and of a grain so fine,
as readily to take a beautiful polish. It is dug out of quarries in
large masses, and is much used in buildings, ornamental pillars, &c.
Marble is of different colours, black, white, &c; and is sometimes
elegantly clouded and variegated. The stone mentioned in the places
cited above is called the stone of _sis_ or _sish_: the LXX and Vulgate
render it Parian stone,” which was remarkable for its bright white
colour. Probably the cliff Ziz, 2 Chron. xx, 16, was so called from
being a marble crag: the place was afterward called Petra. The variety
of stones, בהט, שיש, דר, סחרת, mentioned in the pavement of Ahasuerus,
might be marble of different colours. The ancients sometimes made
pavements wherein were set very valuable stones.

MARK was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and he is
supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls
him his son, 1 Peter v, 13; but no circumstances of his conversion are
recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New
Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch,
with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with
those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of
the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different
countries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at
Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts xiii. Afterward, when
Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which
they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with
them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former
journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas,
which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to
Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that
island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St.
Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written
subsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which
he gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is
profitable to me for the ministry,” 2 Tim. iv, 11. No farther
circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is
believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his
journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with
him for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.
Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the
Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.

Dr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark’s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of
Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly
mentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine,
Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous
quotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted
by any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St.
Mark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the
question concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the
nephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was
the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the
work which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public
discourses and private conversation of that Apostle.

Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this
Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to
St. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark’s right
to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the
sanction of St. Peter’s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears
to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this
Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it
right to transcribe it: “The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of
Peter’s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare
hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they
earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant
upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions
which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist
till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the
writing of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they
say, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation
of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized
the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this
account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis, bears testimony to it.” Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote
a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of
the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and
published it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own
authority.

Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but
there being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was
written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any
ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.
D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.
D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians
at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre
of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all
peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons.
Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs,
are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as
might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is
first mentioned in this Gospel, the word _river_ is prefixed, Mark i, 5;
the oriental word _corban_ is said to mean a gift, Mark vii, 11; _the
preparation_ is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv, 42; and
defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mark vii, 2; and the
superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than
it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.

Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s
Gospels have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so
many instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St.
Matthew’s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to
warrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen
from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the
same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and
the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who
sought not after excellency of speech,” but whose minds retained the
remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them,
even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural
guidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark’s writing
from St. Matthew’s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by
Eusebius and Jerom as stated above.

MARK ON THE FOREHEAD. See FOREHEAD.

MARONITES, a sect of eastern Christians who follow the Syrian rite, and
are subject to the pope; their principal habitation being on Mount
Libanus, or between the Ansarians to the north and the Druses to the
south. Mosheim informs us, that the Monothelites, condemned and exploded
by the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the
Mardaites, signifying in Syriac _rebels_, a people who took possession
of Lebanon, A. D. 676, which became the asylum of vagabonds, slaves, and
all sorts of rabble; and about the conclusion of the seventh century
they were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop; a name which
they still retain. None, he says, of the ancient writers, give any
certain account of the first person who instructed these mountaineers in
the doctrine of the Monothelites; it is probable, however, from several
circumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they have adopted; and
that this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived
in the character of a monk, in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the
borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of
Mount Libanus. One thing is certain, from the testimony of Tyrius, and
other unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic
records, namely, that the Maronites retained the opinions of the
Monothelites until the twelfth century, when, abandoning and renouncing
the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were reädmitted into the
communion of the Roman church. The most learned of the modern Maronites
have left no method unemployed to defend their church against this
accusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies,
that their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, and in
their attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the
doctrine of the Monophysites or Monothelites. But all their efforts are
insufficient to prove the truth of these assertions, and the testimonies
they allege will appear absolutely fictitious and destitute of
authority.

The nation may be considered as divided into two classes, the common
people and the _shaiks_, by whom must be understood the most eminent of
the inhabitants, who, from the antiquity of their families, and the
opulence of their fortunes are superior to the ordinary class. They all
live dispersed in the mountains, in villages, hamlets, and even detached
houses; which is never the case in the plains. The whole nation consists
of cultivators. Every man improves the little domain he possesses, or
farms, with his own hands. Even the _shaiks_ live in the same manner,
and are only distinguished from the rest by a bad peliss, a horse, and a
few slight advantages in food and lodging; they all live frugally,
without many enjoyments, but also with few wants, as they are little
acquainted with the inventions of luxury. In general, the nation is
poor, but no one wants necessaries; and if beggars are sometimes seen,
they come rather from the sea coast than the country itself. Property is
as sacred among them as in Europe; nor do we see there those robberies
and extortions so frequent with the Turks. Travellers may journey there,
either by night or by day, with a security unknown in any other part of
the empire, and the stranger is received with hospitality, as among the
Arabs: it must be owned, however, that the Maronites are less generous,
and rather inclined to the vice of parsimony. Conformably to the
doctrines of Christianity, they have only one wife, whom they frequently
espouse without having seen, and always without having been much in her
company. Contrary to the precepts of that same religion, however, they
have admitted, or retained, the Arab custom of retaliation, and the
nearest relation of a murdered person is bound to avenge him. From a
habit founded on distrust, and the political state of the country, every
one, whether _shaik_ or peasant, walks continually armed with a musket
and poinards. This is, perhaps, an inconvenience; but this advantage
results from it, that they have no novices in the use of arms among
them, when it is necessary to employ them against the Turks. As the
country maintains no regular troops, every man is obliged to join the
army in time of war; and if this militia were well conducted, it would
be superior to many European armies. From accounts taken in late years,
the number of men fit to bear arms, amounts to thirty-five thousand.

In religious matters the Maronites are dependent on Rome. Though they
acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, their clergy continue, as
heretofore, to elect a head, with the title of _batrak_, or patriarch of
Antioch. Their priests marry, as in the first ages of the church; but
their wives must be maidens, and not widows; nor can they marry a second
time. They celebrate mass in Syriac, of which the greatest part of them
comprehend not a word. The Gospel, alone, is read aloud in Arabic, that
it may be understood by the people. The communion is administered in
both kinds. In the small country of the Maronites there are reckoned
upward of two hundred convents for men and women. These religious are of
the order of St. Anthony, whose rules they observe with an exactness
which reminds us of earlier times. The court of Rome, in affiliating the
Maronites, has granted them a _hospitium_ at Rome, to which they may
send several of their youth to receive a gratuitous education. It should
seem that this institution might introduce among them the ideas and arts
of Europe; but the pupils of this school, limited to an education purely
monastic, bring home nothing but the Italian language, which is of no
use, and a stock of theological learning, from which as little advantage
can be derived; they accordingly soon assimilate with the rest. Nor has
a greater change been operated by the three or four missionaries
maintained by the French capuchins at Gazir, Tripoli, and Bairout. Their
labours consist in preaching in their church, in instructing children in
the catechism, Thomas a Kempis, and the Psalms, and in teaching them to
read and write. Formerly, the Jesuits had two missionaries at their
house at Antoura, and the Lazarites have now succeeded them in their
mission. The most valuable advantage that has resulted from these
labours is, that the art of writing has become more common among the
Maronites, and rendered them, in this country, what the Copts are in
Egypt, that is, they are in possession of all the posts of writers,
intendants, and _kaiyas_ among the Turks, and especially of those among
their allies and neighbours, the Druses.

Mosheim observes, that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual
jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was agreed to with this express
condition, that neither the popes nor their emissaries should pretend to
change or abolish any thing that related to the ancient rites, moral
precepts, or religious opinions of this people; so that, in reality,
there is nothing to be found among the Maronites that savours of popery,
if we except their attachment to the Roman pontiff. It is also certain
that there are Maronites in Syria, who still behold the church of Rome
with the greatest aversion and abhorrence; nay, what is still more
remarkable, great numbers of that nation residing in Italy, even under
the eye of the pontiff, opposed his authority during the seventeenth
century, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of
these non-conforming Maronites retired into the valleys of Piedmont,
where they joined the Waldenses; another, above six hundred in number,
with a bishop, and several ecclesiastics at their head, flew into
Corsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa, against
the violence of the inquisitors.

MARRIAGE, a civil and religious contract, by which a man is joined and
united to a woman, for the ends of procreation. The essence of marriage
consists in the mutual consent of the parties. Marriage is a part of the
law of nations, and is in use among all people. The public use of
marriage institutions consists, according to Archdeacon Paley, in their
promoting the following beneficial effects: 1. The private comfort of
individuals. 2. The production of the greatest number of healthy
children, their better education, and the making of due provision for
their settlement in life. 3. The peace of human society, in cutting off
a principal source of contention, by assigning one or more women to one
man, and protecting his exclusive right by sanctions of morality and
law. 4. The better government of society, by distributing the community
into separate families, and appointing over each the authority of a
master of a family, which has more actual influence than all civil
authority put together. 5. The additional security which the state
receives for the good behaviour of its citizens, from the solicitude
they feel for the welfare of their children, and from their being
confined to permanent habitations. 6. The encouragement of industry.

Whether marriage be a civil or a religious contract, has been a subject
of dispute. The truth seems to be that it is both. It has its
engagements to men, and its vows to God. A Christian state recognizes
marriage as a branch of public morality, and a source of civil peace and
strength. It is connected with the peace of society by assigning one
woman to one man, and the state protects him, therefore, in her
exclusive possession. Christianity, by allowing divorce in the event of
adultery, supposes, also, that the crime must be proved by proper
evidence before the civil magistrate; and lest divorce should be the
result of unfounded suspicion, or be made a cover for license, the
decision of the case could safely be lodged no where else. Marriage,
too, as placing one human being more completely under the power of
another than any other relation, requires laws for the protection of
those who are thus so exposed to injury. The distribution of society
into families, also, can only be an instrument for promoting the order
of the community, by the cognizance which the law takes of the head of a
family, and by making him responsible, to a certain extent, for the
conduct of those under his influence. Questions of property are also
involved in marriage and its issue. The law must, therefore, for these
and many other weighty reasons, be cognizant of marriage; must prescribe
various regulations respecting it; require publicity of the contract;
and guard some of the great injunctions of religion in the matter by
penalties. In every well ordered society marriage must be placed under
the cognizance and control of the state. But then those who would have
the whole matter to lie between the parties themselves, and the civil
magistrate, appear wholly to forget that marriage is also a solemn
religious act, in which vows are made to God by both persons, who, when
the rite is properly understood, engage to abide by all those laws with
which he has guarded the institution; to love and cherish each other;
and to remain faithful to each other until death. For if, at least, they
profess belief in Christianity, whatever duties are laid upon husbands
and wives in Holy Scripture, they engage to obey, by the very act of
their contracting marriage. The question, then, is whether such vows to
God as are necessarily involved in marriage, are to be left between the
parties and God privately, or whether they ought to be publicly made
before his ministers and the church. On this the Scriptures are silent;
but though Michaëlis has shown that the priests under the law were not
appointed to celebrate marriage; yet in the practice of the modern Jews
it is a religious ceremony, the chief rabbi of the synagogue being
present, and prayers being appointed for the occasion. This renders it
probable that the character of the ceremony under the law, from the most
ancient times, was a religious one. The more direct connection of
marriage with religion in Christian states, by assigning its celebration
to the ministers of religion, appears to be a very beneficial custom,
and one which the state has a right to enjoin. For since the welfare and
morals of society are so much interested in the performance of the
mutual duties of the married state; and since those duties have a
religious as well as a civil character, it is most proper that some
provision should be made for explaining those duties; and for this a
standing form of marriage is best adapted. By acts of religion, also,
they are more solemnly impressed upon the parties. When this is
prescribed in any state, it becomes a Christian cheerfully, and even
thankfully, to comply with a custom of so important a tendency, as
matter of conscientious subjection to lawful authority, although no
Scriptural precept can be pleaded for it. That the ceremony should be
confined to the clergy of an established church, is a different
consideration. We think that the religious effect would be greater, were
the ministers of each religious body to be authorized by the state to
celebrate marriages among their own people, due provision being
previously made by the civil magistrate for the regular and secure
registry of them, and to prevent the laws respecting marriage from being
evaded; which is indeed his business. The offices of religion would then
come in by way of sanction and moral enforcement.

When this important contract is once made, then certain rights are
acquired by the parties mutually, who are also bound by reciprocal
duties, in the fulfilment of which the practical virtue of each
consists. And here the superior character of the morals of the New
Testament, as well as their higher authority, is illustrated. It may,
indeed, be within the scope of mere moralists to show that fidelity,and
affection, and all the courtesies necessary to maintain affection, are
rationally obligatory upon those who are connected by the nuptial bond;
but in Christianity nuptial fidelity is guarded by the express law, Thou
shalt not commit adultery;” and by our Lord’s exposition of the spirit
of that law which forbids the indulgence of loose thoughts and desires,
and places the purity of the heart under the guardianship of that
hallowed fear which his authority tends to inspire. Affection, too, is
made a matter of diligent cultivation upon considerations, and by a
standard, peculiar to our religion. Husbands are placed in a relation to
their wives, similar to that which Christ bears to his church, and his
example is thus made their rule. As Christ loved the church, so husbands
are to love their wives; as Christ gave himself,” his life, for the
church,” Eph. v, 25, so are they to hazard life for their wives; as
Christ saves his church, so is it the bounden duty of husbands to
endeavour, by every possible means, to promote the religious edification
and salvation of their wives. The connection is thus exalted into a
religious one; and when love which knows no abatement, protection at the
hazard of life, and a tender and constant solicitude for the salvation
of a wife, are thus enjoined, the greatest possible security is
established for the exercise of kindness and fidelity. The oneness of
this union is also more forcibly stated in Scripture than any where
beside. They twain shall be one flesh.” So ought men to love their wives
as their own bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man
ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as
the Lord the church.” Precept and illustration can go no higher than
this; and nothing evidently is wanting either of direction or authority
to raise the state of marriage into the highest, most endearing, and
sanctified relation in which two human beings can stand to each other.

2. We find but few laws in the books of Moses concerning the institution
of marriage. Though the Mosaic law no where obliges men to marry, the
Jews have always looked upon it as an indispensable duty implied in the
words, Increase and multiply,” Gen. i, 28; so that a man who did not
marry his daughter before she was twenty years of age, was looked upon
as accessary to any irregularities the young woman might be guilty of
for want of being timely married. Moses restrained the Israelites from
marrying within certain degrees of consanguinity; which had till then
been permitted, to prevent their taking wives from among the idolatrous
nations among whom they lived. Abraham gave this as a reason for
choosing a wife for Isaac from among his own kindred, Gen. xxxiv, 3, &c.
But when his descendants became so exceedingly multiplied, this reason
ceased; and the great lawgiver prohibited, under pain of death, certain
degrees of kindred as incestuous. Polygamy, though not expressly
allowed, is however tacitly implied in the laws of Moses, Gen. xxxi;
Exod. xxi, 10. This practice likewise was authorized by the example of
the patriarchs. Thus Jacob married both the daughters of Laban. In
respect to which custom, Moses enjoins that, upon the marriage of a
second wife, a man shall be bound to continue to the first her food,
raiment, and the duty of marriage. The Jews did not always content
themselves with the allowance of two wives, as may be seen in the
examples of David, Solomon, and many others. However, they made a
distinction between the wives of the first rank, and those of the
second. The first they called _nashim_, and the other _pilgashim_; which
last, though most versions render it by the words concubines,” harlots,”
and prostitutes,” yet it has no where in Scripture any such bad sense.
There is a particular law called the Levirate, which obliged a man,
whose brother died without issue, to marry his widow, and raise up seed
to his brother, Deut. xxv, 5, &c. But Moses in some measure left it to a
man’s choice, whether he would comply with this law or not; for in case
of a refusal, the widow could only summon him before the judges of the
place, when, if he persisted, she untied his shoe, and spit in his face,
and said, “Thus shall it be done unto the man who refuses to build up
his brother’s house.” A man was at liberty to marry not only in the
twelve tribes, but even out of them, provided it was among such nations
as used circumcision; such were the Midianites, Ishmaelites, Edomites,
Moabites, and Egyptians. Accordingly, we find Moses himself married to a
Midianite, and Boaz to a Moabite. Amasa was the son of Jether, an
Ishmaelite, by Abigail, David’s sister; and Solomon, in the beginning of
his reign, married Pharaoh’s daughter. Whenever we find him and other
kings blamed for marrying strange women, we must understand it of those
nations which were idolatrous and uncircumcised.

It appears almost impossible to Europeans, says Mr. Hartley, that a
deception like that of Laban’s could be practised. But the following
extract, from a journal which I kept at Smyrna, presents a parallel
case: “The Armenian brides are veiled during the marriage ceremony; and
hence deceptions have occurred, in regard to the person chosen for wife.
I am informed that, on one occasion, a young Armenian at Smyrna
solicited in marriage a younger daughter, whom he admired. The parents
of the girl consented to the request, and every previous arrangement was
made. When the time for solemnizing the marriage arrived, the elder
daughter, who was not so beautiful, was conducted by the parents to the
altar, and the young man was unconsciously married to her. And ‘it came
to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was the elder daughter.’ The
deceit was not discovered, till it could not be rectified; and the
manner in which the parents justified themselves was precisely that of
Laban: ‘It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger
before the first-born.’ It is really the rule among the Armenians, that
neither a younger son nor daughter be married, till their elder brother
or sister have preceded them.” I was once present at the solemnization
of matrimony among the Armenians; and some recollections of it may tend
to throw light on this and other passages of Scripture. The various
festivities attendant on these occasions continue for three days; and
during the last night the marriage is celebrated. I was conducted to the
house of the bride, where I found a very large assemblage of persons.
The company was dispersed through various rooms; reminding me of the
directions of our Saviour, in regard to the choice of the lowermost
rooms at feasts. On the ground floor I actually observed that the
persons convened were of an inferior order of the community, while in
the upper rooms were assembled those of higher rank. The large number of
young females who were present, naturally reminded me of the wise and
foolish virgins in our Saviour’s parable. These being friends of the
bride, the virgins, her companions, had come to meet the bridegroom,
Psalm xlv, 14. It is usual for the bridegroom to come at midnight; so
that, literally, at midnight the cry is made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh! go ye out to meet him,” Matt. xxv, 6. But, on this occasion the
bridegroom tarried: it was two o’clock before he arrived. The whole
party then proceeded to the Armenian church, where the bishop was
waiting to receive them; and there the ceremony was completed. See
DIVORCE and BRIDE.

MARTHA was sister of Lazarus and Mary, and mistress of the house where
our Saviour was entertained, in the village of Bethany. Martha is always
named before Mary, probably because she was the elder sister.

MARY, the mother of Jesus, and wife of Joseph. She is called by the Jews
the daughter of Eli; and by the early Christian writers, the daughter of
Joakim and Anna: but Joakim and Eliakim are sometimes interchanged, 2
Chron. xxxvi, 4; and Eli, or Heli, is therefore the abridgment of
Eliakim, Luke iii, 23. She was of the royal race of David, as was also
Joseph her husband; and she was also cousin to Elizabeth, the wife of
Zacharias the priest, Luke i, 5, 36. Mary being espoused to Joseph, the
Angel Gabriel appeared to her, to announce to her that she should be the
mother of the Messiah, Luke i, 26, 27, &c. To confirm his message, and
to show that nothing is impossible to God, he added that her cousin
Elizabeth, who was old, and had been hitherto barren, was then in the
sixth month of her pregnancy. Mary answered, Behold the handmaid of the
Lord, be it unto me according to thy word;” and presently she conceived.
She set out for Hebron, a city in the mountains of Judah, to visit her
cousin Elizabeth. As soon as Elizabeth heard the voice of Mary, her
child, John the Baptist, leaped in her womb; and she was filled with the
Holy Ghost, and spake with a loud voice, saying, Blessed art thou among
women,” &c. Then Mary praised God, saying, My soul doth magnify the
Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” &c. Mary continued
with Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her own house.
An edict of Cæsar Augustus having decreed, that all subjects of the
empire should go to their own cities, to register their names according
to their families, Joseph and Mary, who were both of the lineage of
David, went to Bethlehem, from whence sprung their family. But while
they were here, the time being fulfilled in which Mary was to be
delivered, she brought forth her first-born son. She wrapped him in
swaddling clothes, and laid him in the manger of the stable or cavern
whither they had retired, because there was no room in the inn. Angels
made this event known to shepherds, who were in the fields near
Bethlehem, and these came in the night to Joseph and Mary, and saw the
child lying in the manger, and paid him their adoration. The
presentation of Christ in the temple, the flight into Egypt, the
slaughter of the innocents, and other events connected with the birth
and infancy of our Lord, are plainly related in the Gospels.

Mary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem to the passover; and when
Jesus was twelve years of age, they took him with them. When they were
returning, the youth continued at Jerusalem, without their perceiving
it. Three days after, they found him in the temple, sitting among the
doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. Afterward, he returned
with them to Nazareth, and lived in filial submission to them. But his
mother laid up all these things in her heart, Luke ii, 51, &c. The
Gospel speaks nothing more of the Virgin Mary till the marriage at Cana
of Galilee, at which she was present with her son Jesus. She was at
Jerusalem at the last passover our Saviour celebrated there. There she
saw all that was transacted; followed him to Calvary; and stood at the
foot of his cross with an admirable constancy and courage. Jesus seeing
his mother, and his beloved disciple near, he said to his mother, Woman,
behold thy son; and to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that
hour the disciple took her home to his own house.” No farther
particulars of this favoured woman are mentioned, except that she was a
witness of Christ’s resurrection. A veil is drawn over her character and
history; as though with the design to reprove that wretched idolatry of
which she was made the subject when Christianity became corrupt and
paganized.

2. MARY, the mother of John Mark, a disciple of the Apostles. She had a
house in Jerusalem, whither, it is thought, the Apostles retired after
the ascension of our Lord, and where they received the Holy Ghost. After
the imprisonment of St. Peter, the faithful assembled in this house, and
were praying there when Peter, delivered by the ministry of an angel,
knocked at the door of the house, Acts xii, 12.

3. MARY, of Cleophas. St. Jerom says, she bore the name of Cleophas,
either because of her father, or for some other reason which cannot now
be known. Others believe, with greater probability, that she was wife of
Cleophas, as our version of the New Testament makes her, by supplying
the word _wife_, John xix, 25, and mother of James the less, and of
Simon, brethren of our Lord. These last mentioned authors take Mary
mother of James, and Mary wife of Cleophas, to be the same person,
Matthew xxvii, 56; Mark xv, 40, 41; Luke xxiv, 10; John xix, 25. St.
John gives her the name of Mary of Cleophas; and the other evangelists,
the name of Mary, mother of James. Cleophas and Alpheus are the same
person; as James, son of Mary, wife of Cleophas, is the same as James,
son of Alpheus. It is thought she was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and
that she was the mother of James the less, of Joses, of Simon, and of
Judas, who in the Gospel are named the brethren of Jesus Christ, Matt.
xiii, 55; xxvii, 56; Mark vi, 3; that is, his cousin-germans. She was an
early believer in Jesus Christ, and attended him on his journeys, to
minister to him. She was present at the last passover, and at the death
of our Saviour she followed him to Calvary; and during his passion she
was with the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. She was also
present at his burial; and on the Friday before had, in union with
others, prepared the perfumes to embalm him, Luke xxiii, 56. But going
to his tomb very early on the Sunday morning, with other women, they
there learned from the mouth of an angel, that he was risen; of which
they carried the news to the Apostles, Luke xxiv, 1–5; Matt. xxviii, 9.
By the way, Jesus appeared to them; and they embraced his feet,
worshipping him. This is all we know with certainty concerning Mary, the
wife of Cleophas.

4. MARY, sister of Lazarus, who has been preposterously confounded with
that female sinner spoken of, Luke vii, 37–39. She lived with her
brother and her sister Martha at Bethany; and Jesus Christ, having a
particular affection for this family, often retired to their house with
his disciples. Six days before the passover, after having raised Lazarus
from the dead, he came to Bethany with his disciples, and was invited to
sup with Simon the leper, John xii, 1, &c; Matthew xxvi, 6, &c; Mark
xiv, 3, &c. Martha attended at the table, and Lazarus was one of the
guests. Upon this occasion, Mary, taking a pound of spikenard, which is
the most precious perfume of its kind, poured it upon the head and feet
of Jesus. She wiped his feet with her hair, and the whole house was
filled with the odour of the perfume. Judas Iscariot murmured at this;
but Jesus justified Mary in what she had done, saying, that by this
action she had prevented his embalmment, and in a manner had declared
his death and burial, which were at hand. From this period the
Scriptures make no mention of either Mary or Martha.

5. MARY MAGDALENE, so called, it is probable, from Magdala, a town of
Galilee, of which she was a native, or where she had resided during the
early part of her life. Out of her, St. Luke tells us, Jesus had cast
seven devils, Luke viii, 2. He informs us, also, in the same place, that
Jesus, in company with his Apostles, preached the Gospel from city to
city; and that there were several women with them, whom he had delivered
from evil spirits, and healed of their infirmities; among whom was this
Mary, whom some, without a shadow of proof, have supposed to be the
sinful woman spoken of, Luke vii, 37–39; as others have as erroneously
imagined her to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Mary Magdalene is
mentioned by the evangelists as being one of those women that followed
our Saviour, to minister to him, according to the custom of the Jews.
She attended him in the last journey he made from Galilee to Jerusalem,
and was at the foot of the cross with the holy virgin, John xix, 25;
Mark xv, 47; after which she returned to Jerusalem, to buy and prepare
with others certain perfumes, that she might embalm him after the
Sabbath was over, which was then about to begin. All the Sabbath day she
remained in the city; and the next day, early in the morning, went to
the sepulchre along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, Mark
xvi, 1, 2; Luke xxiv, 1, 2. For other particulars respecting her, see
also Matt. xxviii, 1–5; John xx, 11–17. In Dr. Townley’s Essays, there
is one of considerable research on Mary Magdalene; and his conclusion
is, that it is probable that the woman mentioned by St. Luke, and called
in the English translation a sinner,” had formerly been a Heathen; but
whether subsequently a proselyte to Judaism or not, is uncertain; and
that, having been brought to the knowledge of Christian truth, and
having found mercy from the Redeemer, she pressed into Simon’s house,
and gave the strongest proofs of her gratitude and veneration by
anointing the Saviour’s feet, bedewing them with her tears, and wiping
them with the hairs of her head:--that by a wilful and malicious
misrepresentation, the Jews confounded Mary Magdalene with Mary the
mother of Jesus, and represented her as an infamous character:--and
that, from the blasphemous calumny of the Jews, a stigma of infamy has
been affixed to the name of Mary Magdalene, and caused her to be
regarded in the false light of a penitent prostitute. There is no doubt
but that Mary Magdalene, both in character and circumstances, was a
woman of good reputation.

MASCHIL, a title, or inscription, at the head of several psalms of David
and others, in the book of Psalms. Thus Psalm xxxii is inscribed, A
Psalm of David, Maschil;” and Psalm xlii, To the chief musician,
Maschil, for the sons of Korah.” The word _Maschil_, in the Hebrew,
signifies, he that instructs;” though some interpreters take it for the
name of a musical instrument. Some of the rabbins believe that, in
repeating the psalms which have this inscription, it was usual to add an
interpretation or explication to them. Others, on the contrary, think it
shows the clearness and perspicuity of such psalms, and that they needed
no particular explication. The most probable opinion is, that Maschil
means an instructive song.

MASS, MISSA, in the church of Rome, the office of prayers used at the
celebration of the eucharist; or, in other words, the consecrating the
bread and wine so that it is transubstantiated into the body and blood
of Christ, and offer them as an expiatory sacrifice for the quick and
the dead. Nicod, after Baronius, observes that the word comes from the
Hebrew _missach_, (_oblatum_,) or from the Latin _missa missorum_;
because in former times the catechumens and excommunicated were sent out
of the church, when the deacons said, _Ite, missa est_,” after sermon
and reading of the epistle and Gospel; they not being allowed to assist
at the consecration. Menage derives the word from _missio_, dismissing;”
others, from _missa_, sending;” because in the mass the prayers of men
on earth are sent up to heaven.

As the mass is in general believed to be a representation of the passion
of our blessed Saviour, so every action of the priest, and every
particular part of the service, are supposed to allude to the particular
circumstances of his passion and death. The general division of masses
is into high and low mass. The first is that sung by the choristers, and
celebrated with the assistance of a deacon and sub-deacon: low masses
are those in which the prayers are barely rehearsed without singing.
There are a great number of different or occasional masses in the Romish
church, many of which have nothing peculiar but the name. Such are the
masses of the saints: that of St. Mary of the Snow, celebrated on the
fifth of August; that of St. Margaret, patroness of lying-in women; that
at the feast of St. John the Baptist, at which are said three masses;
that of the Innocents, at which the _Gloria in excelsis_ and Hallelujah
are omitted; and, it being a day of mourning, the altar is of a violet
colour. As to ordinary masses, some are said for the dead, and, as is
supposed, contribute to extricate the soul out of purgatory. At these
masses the altar is put in mourning, and the only decorations are a
cross in the middle of six yellow wax lights; the dress of the
celebrant, and the very mass book, are black; many parts of the office
are omitted, and the people are dismissed without the benediction. If
the mass be said for a person distinguished by his rank or virtues, it
is followed with a funeral oration; they erect a _chapelle ardente_,
that is, a representation of the deceased, with branches and tapers of
yellow wax, either in the middle of the church, or near the deceased’s
tomb, where the priest pronounces a solemn absolution of the deceased.
There are likewise private masses said for stolen or strayed goods or
cattle, for health, for travellers, &c, which go under the name of
votive masses. There is still a farther distinction of masses,
denominated from the countries in which they were used: thus the Gothic
mass, or _missa mosarabum_, is that used among the Goths when they were
masters of Spain, and which is still observed at Toledo and Salamanca;
the Ambrosian mass is that composed by St. Ambrose, and used only at
Milan, of which city he was bishop; the Gallic mass, used by the ancient
Gauls; and the Roman mass, used by almost all the churches in the Roman
communion.

MATERIALISM, the doctrine which resolves the thinking principle in man,
or the immaterial and immortal soul with which God was pleased to endue
Adam at his creation, into mere matter, or into a faculty resulting from
its organization. Much has been written of late years against this
doctrine, and the different modifications which it has assumed; but in
substance nothing new has been said on either side; and the able and
condensed argument of Wollaston in his Religion of Nature Delineated,”
if well considered, will furnish every one with a most clear and
satisfactory refutation of this antiscriptural and irrational
error:--The soul cannot be mere matter: for if it is, then either all
matter must think; or the difference must arise from the different
modification, magnitude, figure, or motion of some parcels of matter in
respect of others; or a faculty of thinking must be superadded to some
systems of it, which is not superadded to others. But in the first
place, that position, which makes all matter to be cogitative, is
contrary to all the apprehensions and knowledge we have of the nature of
it; nor can it be true, unless our senses and faculties be contrived
only to deceive us. We perceive not the least symptom of cogitation or
sense in our tables, chairs, &c. Why doth the scene of thinking lie in
our heads, and all the ministers of sensation make their reports to
something there, if all matter be apprehensive and cogitative? For in
that case there would be as much thought and understanding in our heels,
and every where else, as in our heads. If all matter be cogitative, then
it must be so _quatenus_ [so far forth as] matter, and thinking must be
of the essence and definition of it; whereas by matter no more is meant
than a substance extended and impenetrable to other matter. And since,
for this reason, it cannot be necessary for matter to think, (because it
may be matter without this property,) it cannot think as matter only; if
it did, we should not only continue to think always, till the matter of
which we consist is annihilated, and so the asserter of this doctrine
would stumble upon immortality unawares; but we must also have thought
always in time past, ever since that matter was in being; nor could
there be any the least intermission of actual thinking; which does not
appear to be our case. If thinking, self-consciousness, &c, were
essential to matter, every part of it must have them; and then no system
could have them. For a system of material parts would be a system of
things conscious, every one by itself of its own existence and
individuality, and, consequently, thinking by itself; but there could be
no one act of self-consciousness or thought common to the whole.
Juxtaposition, in this case, could signify nothing; the distinction and
individuation of the several particles would be as much retained in
their vicinity, as if they were separated by miles.

In the next place, the faculties of thinking, &c, cannot arise from the
size, figure, texture, or motion of it; because bodies by the alteration
of these only become greater or less, round or square, &c, rare or
dense, translated from one place to another with this or that new
direction or velocity, or the like; all which ideas are quite different
from that of thinking; there can be no relation between them. These
modifications and affections of matter are so far from being principles
or causes of thinking and acting, that they are themselves but effects,
proceeding from the action of some other matter or thing upon it, and
are proofs of its passivity, deadness and utter incapacity of becoming
cogitative: this is evident to sense. They who place the essence of the
soul in a certain motion given to some matter, (if any such men there
really be,) should consider, among many other things, that to move the
body spontaneously, is one of the faculties of the soul; and that this,
which is the same with the power of beginning motion, cannot come from
motion already begun, and impressed _ab extra_. Let the materialist
examine well, whether he does not feel something within himself that
acts from an internal principle; whether he does not experience some
liberty, some power of governing himself, and choosing; whether he does
not enjoy a kind of invisible empire in which he commands his own
thoughts, sends them to this or that place, employs them about this or
that business, forms such and such designs and schemes; and whether
there is any thing like this in bare matter, however fashioned or
proportioned; which, if nothing should protrude or communicate motion to
it, would for ever remain fixed to the place where it happens to be, an
eternal monument of its own being dead. Can such an active being as the
soul is, the subject of so many powers, be itself nothing but an
accident? When I begin to move myself, I do it for some reason, and with
respect to some end, the means to effect which I have, if there be
occasion for it, concerted within myself; and this does not at all look
like motion merely material, or in which matter is only concerned, which
is all mechanical. Who can imagine matter to be moved by arguments, or
ever placed syllogisms and demonstrations among levers and pullies? We
not only move ourselves upon reasons which we find in ourselves, but
upon reasons imparted by words or writings from others, or perhaps
merely at their desire or bare suggestion: in which case, again, nobody
surely can imagine that the words spoken or written, the sound in the
air, or the strokes on the paper, can, by any natural or mechanical
efficience, cause the reader or hearer to move in any determinate
manner, or at all. The reason, request, or friendly admonition, which is
the true motive, can make no impression upon matter. It must be some
other kind of being that apprehends the force and sense of them. Do not
we see in conversation, how a pleasant thing said makes people break out
into laughter, a rude thing into passion, and so on? These affections
cannot be the physical effects of the words spoken; because then they
would have the same effect, whether they were understood or not. And
this is farther demonstrable from hence, that though the words do really
contain nothing which is either pleasant or rude, or perhaps words are
thought to be spoken which are not spoken; yet if they are apprehended
to do that, or the sound to be otherwise than it was, the effect will be
the same. It is therefore the sense of the words, which is an immaterial
thing, that by passing through the understanding, and causing that which
is the subject of the intellectual faculties to influence the body,
produces these motions in the spirits, blood, and muscles.

They who can fancy that matter may come to live, think, and act
spontaneously, by being reduced to a certain magnitude, or having its
parts placed after a certain manner, or being invested with such a
figure, or excited by such a particular motion; they, I say, would do
well to discover to us that degree of fineness, that alteration in the
situation of its parts, &c, at which matter may begin to find itself
alive and cogitative; and which is the critical minute, that introduces
these important properties. If they cannot do this, nor have their eye
upon any particular crisis, it is a sign that they have no good reason
for what they say. For if they have no reason to charge this change upon
any particular degree or difference, one more than another, they have no
reason to charge it upon any degree or difference at all; and then they
have no reason by which they can prove that such a change is made at
all. Beside all which, since magnitude, figure, and motion are but
accidents of matter, not matter, and only the substance is truly matter;
and since the substance of any one part of matter does not differ from
that of another, if any matter can be by nature cogitative, all must be
so: but this we have seen cannot be. So then, in conclusion, if there is
any such thing as matter that thinks, &c, this must be a particular
privilege granted to it; that is, a faculty of thinking must be
superadded to certain parts or parcels of it; which, by the way, must
infer the existence of some being able to confer this faculty; who, when
the ineptness of matter has been well considered, cannot appear to be
less than omnipotent, or God. But the truth is, matter seems not to be
capable of such improvement, of being made to think. For since it is not
the essence of matter, it cannot be made to be so without making matter
another kind of substance from what it is. Nor can it be made to arise
from any of the modifications or accidents of matter; and in respect of
what else can any matter be made to differ from other matter.

The accidents of matter are so far from being made by any power to
produce cogitation, that some even of them show it incapable of having a
faculty of thinking superadded. The very divisibility of it does this.
For that which is made to think must either be one part, or more parts
joined together. But we know no such thing as a part of matter purely
one, or indivisible. It may, indeed, have pleased the Author of nature,
that there should be atoms, whose parts are actually indiscerptible, and
which may be the principles of other bodies; but still they consist of
parts, though firmly adhering together. And if the seat of cogitation be
in more parts than one, whether they lie close together, or are loose,
or in a state of fluidity, it is the same thing, how can it be avoided,
but that either there must be so many several minds, or thinking
substances, as there are parts, and then the consequence which has been
mentioned would return upon us again; or else that there must be
something else superadded for them to centre in, to unite their acts,
and make their thoughts to be one? And then what can this be but some
other substance, which is purely one?

Matter by itself can never entertain abstracted and general ideas, such
as many in our minds are. For could it reflect upon what passes within
itself, it could possibly find there nothing but material and particular
impressions; abstractions and metaphysical ideas could not be printed
upon it. How could one abstract from matter who is himself nothing but
matter?

If the soul were mere matter, external visible objects could only be
perceived within us according to the impressions they make upon matter,
and not otherwise. For instance: the image of a cube in my mind, or my
idea of a cube, must be always under some particular prospect, and
conform to the rules of perspective; nor could I otherwise represent it
to myself; whereas now I can form an idea of it as it is in itself, and
almost view all its _hedræ_ at once, as it were encompassing it with my
mind. I can within myself correct the external appearances and
impressions of objects, and advance, upon the reports and hints received
by my senses, to form ideas of things that are not extant in matter. By
seeing a material circle I may learn to form the idea of a circle, or
figure generated by the revolution of a ray about its centre; but then,
recollecting what I know of matter upon other occasions, I can conclude
there is no exact material circle. So that I have an idea, which perhaps
was raised from the hints I received from without, but is not truly to
be found there. If I see a tower at a great distance, which, according
to the impressions made upon my material organs, seems little and round,
I do not therefore conclude it to be either; there is something within
that reasons upon the circumstances of the appearance, and as it were
commands my sense, and corrects the impression; and this must be
something superior to matter, since a material soul is no otherwise
impressible itself but as material organs are: instances of this kind
are endless. If we know any thing of matter, we know that by itself it
is a lifeless thing, inert and passive only; and acts necessarily, or
rather is acted, according to the laws of motion and gravitation. This
passiveness seems to be essential to it. And if we know any thing of
ourselves, we know that we are conscious of our own existence and acts,
that is, that we live; that we have a degree of freedom; that we can
move ourselves spontaneously; and, in short, that we can, in many
instances, take off the effect of gravitation, and impress new motions
upon our spirits, or give them new directions, only by a thought.
Therefore, to make mere matter do all this is to change the nature of
it; to change death into life, incapacity of thinking into cogitativity,
necessity into liberty. And to say that God may superadd a faculty of
thinking, moving itself, &c, to matter, if by this be meant, that he may
make matter to be the _suppositum_ of these faculties, that substance in
which they inhere, is the same in effect as to say, that God may
superadd a faculty of thinking to incogitativity, of acting freely to
necessity, and so on. What sense is there in this? And yet so it must
be, while matter continues to be matter.

That faculty of thinking, so much talked of by some as superadded to
certain systems of matter, fitly disposed, by virtue of God’s
omnipotence, though it be so called, must in reality amount to the same
thing as another substance with the faculty of thinking. For a faculty
of thinking alone will not make up the idea of a human soul, which is
endued with many faculties; apprehending, reflecting, comparing,
judging, making deductions and reasoning, willing, putting the body in
motion, continuing the animal functions by its presence, and giving
life; and therefore, whatever it is that is superadded, it must be
something which is endued with all those other faculties. And whether
that can be a faculty of thinking, and so these other faculties be only
faculties of a faculty, or whether they must not all be rather the
faculties of some substance, which, being by their own concession,
superadded to matter, must be different from it, we leave the
unprejudiced to determine. If men would but seriously look into
themselves, the soul would not appear to them as a faculty of the body,
or a kind of appurtenance to it, but rather as some substance, properly
placed in it, not only to use it as an instrument, and act by it, but
also to govern it, or the parts of it, as the tongue, hands, feet, &c,
according to its own reason. For I think it is plain enough, that the
mind, though it acts under great limitations, doth, however, in many
instances govern the body arbitrarily; and it is monstrous to suppose
this governor to be nothing but some fit disposition or accident,
superadded, of that matter which is governed. A ship, it is true, would
not be fit for navigation, if it was not built and provided in a proper
manner; but then, when it has its proper form, and is become a system of
materials fitly disposed, it is not this disposition that governs it: it
is the man, that other substance, who sits at the helm, and they who
manage the sails and tackle, that do this. So our vessels without a
proper organization and conformity of parts would not be capable of
being acted as they are; but still it is not the shape, or modification,
or any other accident, that can govern them. The capacity of being
governed or used can never be the governor, applying and using that
capacity. No, there must be at the helm something distinct, that
commands the body, and without which the vessel would run adrift or
rather sink.

For the foregoing reasons it is plain, that matter cannot think, cannot
be made to think. But if a faculty of thinking can be superadded to a
system of matter, without uniting an immaterial substance to it; yet a
human body is not such a system, being plainly void of thought, and
organized in such a manner as to transmit the impressions of sensible
objects up to the brain, where the percipient, and that which reflects
upon them, certainly resides; and therefore that which there apprehends,
thinks, and wills, must be that system of matter to which a faculty of
thinking is superadded. All the premises then well considered, judge
whether, instead of saying that this inhabitant of our heads (the soul)
is a system of matter to which a faculty of thinking is superadded, it
might not be more reasonable to say, it is a thinking substance
intimately united to some fine material vehicle, which has its residence
in the brain. Though I understand not perfectly the manner how a
cogitative and spiritual substance can be thus closely united to such a
material vehicle, yet I can understand this union as well as how it can
be united to the body in general, perhaps as how the particles of the
body itself cohere together, and much better than how a thinking faculty
can be superadded to matter; and beside, several phenomena may more
easily be solved by this hypothesis; which, in short, is this, that the
human soul is a cogitative substance united to a material vehicle; that
these act in conjunction, that which affects the one affecting the
other; that the soul is detained in the body till the habitation is
spoiled, and their mutual tendency interrupted, by some hurt or disease,
or by the decays and ruins of old age, or the like.

But many a man, says Mr. Rennell, has maintained, that the brain has the
power of thought, from the conclusions which his own experience, and,
perhaps, his extended knowledge of the human frame, have enabled him to
draw. He has observed the action of the brain, has watched the progress
of its diseases, and has seen the close connection which exists between
many of its afflictions, and the power of thought. But in this, as in
most other cases, partial knowledge leads him to a more mistaken view of
the matter than total ignorance. Satisfied with the correctness of his
observations, he hastily proceeds to form his opinion, forgetting that
it is not on the truth only, but on the whole truth, that he should rest
his decision. By an accidental blow, the scull is beaten in, the brain
is pressed upon, and the patient lies without sense or feeling. No
sooner is the pressure removed than the power of thought immediately
returns. It is known, again, that the phenomena of fainting arise from a
temporary deficiency of blood in the brain; the vessels collapse, and
the loss of sense immediately ensues. Restore the circulation, and the
sense is as instantly recovered. On the contrary, when the circulation
in the brain is too rapid, and inflammation of the organ succeeds, we
find that delirium, frenzy, and other disorders of the mind arise in
proportion to the inflammatory action, by which they are apparently
produced. It is observed, also, that when the stomach is disordered by
an excess of wine, or of ardent spirits, the brain is also affected
through the strong sympathies of the nervous system, the intellect is
disordered, and the man has no longer a rational command over himself or
his actions. From these, and other circumstances of a similar nature, it
is concluded, that thought is a quality or function of the brain, that
it is inseparable from the organ in which it resides, and as Mr.
Lawrence, after the French physiologists, represents it, that medullary
matter thinks.”

Now it must certainly be inferred from all these circumstances, that
there is a close connection between the power of thinking and the brain;
but it by no means follows, that they are, therefore, one and the same.
Allowing, however, for a moment, the justice of the inference, from the
premises which have been stated, we must remember, that we have not as
yet taken in all the circumstances of the case. We have watched the body
rather than the mind, and that only in a diseased state; and from this
partial and imperfect view of the subject, our conclusions have been
deduced. Let us take a healthy man in a sound sleep. He lies without
sense or feeling, yet no part of his frame is diseased, nor is a single
power of his life of vegetation suspended. All within his body is as
active as ever. The blood circulates as regularly, and, almost as
rapidly, in the sleeping as in the waking subject. Digestion, secretion,
nutrition, and all the functions of the life of vegetation proceed, and
yet the understanding is absent. Sleep, therefore, is an affection of
the mind, rather than of the body; and the refreshment which the latter
receives from it, is from the suspension of its active and agitating
principle. Now if thought was identified with the brain, when the former
was suspended, the latter would undergo a proportionate change. Memory,
imagination, perception, and all the stupendous powers of the human
intellect are absent; and yet the brain is precisely the same, the same
in every particle of matter, the same in every animal function. Of not a
single organ is the action suspended. When, again, the man awakens, and
his senses return, no change is produced by the recovery; the brain, the
organs of sense, and all the material parts of his frame remain
precisely in the same condition. Dreaming may perhaps be adduced as an
exception to this statement. But it is first to be remarked, that this
affection is by no means general. There are thousands who never dream at
all, and thousands who dream only occasionally. Dreaming therefore, even
though it were to be allowed as an exception, could not be admitted to
invalidate the rule. And if there be a circumstance, which to any
philosophic mind will clearly intimate the independency of thought upon
matter, it is the phenomenon of dreaming. Perception, that faculty of
the soul which unites it with the external world, is then suspended, and
the avenues of sense are closed. All communication with outward objects
being thus removed, the soul is transported, as it were, into a world of
its own creation. There appears to be an activity in the motions, and a
perfection in the faculties, of the mind, when disengaged from the body,
and disencumbered of its material organs. The slumber of its external
perception seems to be but the awakening of every other power. The
memory is far more keen, the fancy far more vivid, in the dreaming than
in the waking man. Ideas rise in rapid succession, and are varied in
endless combination; so that the judgment, which, next to the
perception, depends most upon external objects, is unable to follow the
imagination in all its wild and unwearied flights. A better notion of
the separate and independent existence of the soul cannot be formed,
than that which we derive from our observations on the phenomena of
dreaming. Again: when the mind is anxiously engaged in any train of
thought, whether in company or alone, it frequently neglects the
impressions made upon the external organs. When a man is deeply immersed
in meditation, or eagerly engaged in a discussion, he often neither
hears a third person when he speaks, nor observes what he does, nor even
when gently touched does he feel the pressure. Yet there is no defect
either in the ear, the eye, or the nervous system; the brain is not
disordered, for if his mind were not so fully occupied, he would
perceive every one of those impressions which he now neglects. In this
case, therefore, as in sleep, the independence of mind upon the external
organ is clearly shown.

But let us take the matter in another point of view. We have observed
the action of the brain upon thought, and have seen that when the former
is unnaturally compressed, the latter is immediately disordered or lost.
Let us now turn our attention to the action of thought upon the brain. A
letter is brought to a man containing some afflicting intelligence. He
casts his eye upon its contents, and drops down without sense or motion.
What is the cause of this sudden affection? It may be said that the
vessels have collapsed, that the brain is consequently disordered, and
that loss of sense is the natural consequence. But let us take one step
backward, and inquire what is the cause of the disorder itself, the
effects of which are thus visible. It is produced by a sheet of white
paper distinguished by a few black marks. But no one would be absurd
enough to suppose, that it was the effect of the paper alone, or of the
characters inscribed upon it, unless those characters conveyed some
meaning to the understanding. It is thought then which so suddenly
agitates and disturbs the brain, and makes its vessels to collapse. From
this circumstance alone we discover the amazing influence of thought
upon the external organ; of that thought which we can neither hear, nor
see, nor touch, which yet produces an affection of the brain fully equal
to a blow, a pressure, or any other sensible injury. Now this very
action of thought upon the brain clearly shows that the brain does not
produce it, while the mutual influence which they possess over each
other, as clearly shows that there is a strong connection between them.
But it is carefully to be remembered, that _connection_ is not
_identity_. While we acknowledge then, on the one side, the mutual
connection of the understanding and the brain, we must acknowledge, on
the other, their mutual independence. The phenomena which we daily
observe lead us of necessity to the recognition of these two important
principles. If then from the observations which we are enabled to make
on the phenomena of the understanding and of the brain, we are led to
infer mutual independence, we shall find our conclusions still farther
strengthened by a consideration of the substance and composition of the
latter. Not only is the brain a material substance, endowed with all
those properties of matter which we have before shown to be inconsistent
with thought, but it is a substance, which, in common with the rest of
our body, is undergoing a perpetual change. Indeed experiments and
observations give us abundant reason for concluding that the brain
undergoes within itself precisely the same change with the remainder of
the body. A man will fall down in a fit of apoplexy, and be recovered;
in a few years he will be attacked by another, which will prove fatal.
Upon dissection it will be found that there is a cavity formed by the
blood effused from the ruptured vessel, and that a certain action had
been going on, which gradually absorbed the coagulated blood. If then an
absorbent system exists in the brain, and the organ thereby undergoes,
in the course of a certain time, a total change, it is impossible that
this flux and variable substance can be endowed with consciousness or
thought. If the particles of the brain, either separately or in a mass,
were capable of consciousness, then after their removal the
consciousness which they produced must for ever cease. The consequence
of which would be, that personal identity must be destroyed, and that no
man could be the same individual being that he was ten years ago. But
our common sense informs us, that as far as our understanding and our
moral responsibility are involved, we are the same individual beings
that we ever were. If the body alone, or any substance subject to the
laws of body, were concerned, personal identity might reasonably be
doubted: but it is something beyond the brain that makes the man at
every period of his life the same: it is consciousness, that, amidst the
perpetual change of our material particles, unites every link of
successive being in one indissoluble chain. The body may be gradually
changed, and yet by the deposition of new particles, similar to those
which absorption has removed, it may preserve the appearance of
identity. But in consciousness there is real, not an apparent,
individuality, admitting of no change or substitution.

So inconsistent with reason is every attempt which has been made to
reduce our thoughts to a material origin, and to identify our
understanding with any part of our corporeal frame! The more carefully
we observe the operation, both of the mind and of the brain, the more
clearly we shall distinguish, and the more forcibly shall we feel, the
independence of the one upon the other. We know that the brain is the
organ or instrument by which the mind operates on matter, and we know
that the brain again is the chain of communication between the mind and
the material world. That certain disorders therefore in the chain should
either prevent or disturb this communication is reasonably to be
expected; but nothing more is proved from thence than we knew before,
namely, that the link is imperfect. And when that link is again
restored, the mind declares its identity, by its memory of things which
preceded the injury or the disease; and where the recovery is rapid, the
patient awakes as it were from a disturbed dream. How indeed the brain
and the thinking principle are connected, and in what manner they
mutually affect each other, is beyond the reach of our faculties to
discover. We must, for the present, be contented with our ignorance of
the cause, while from the effects we are persuaded both of their
connection on the one hand, and of their independence on the other.

MATTHEW, called also Levi, was the son of Alpheus, but probably not of
that Alpheus who was the father of the Apostle James the less. He was a
native of Galilee; but it is not known in what city of that country he
was born, or to what tribe of the people of Israel he belonged. Though a
Jew, he was a publican or tax-gatherer under the Romans; and his office
seems to have consisted in collecting the customs due upon commodities
which were carried, and from persons who passed, over the lake of
Gennesareth. Our Saviour commanded him, as he was sitting at the place
where he received these customs, to follow him. He immediately obeyed;
and from that time he became a constant attendant upon our Saviour, and
was appointed one of the twelve Apostles. St. Matthew, soon after his
call, made an entertainment at his house, at which were present Christ
and some of his disciples, and also several publicans. After the
ascension of our Saviour, he continued, with the other Apostles, to
preach the Gospel for some time in Judea; but as there is no farther
account of him in any writer of the first four centuries, we must
consider it as uncertain into what country he afterward went, and
likewise in what manner and at what time he died.

In the few writings which remain of the apostolical fathers, Barnabas,
Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, there are manifest
allusions to several passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel; but the Gospel
itself is not mentioned in any one of them. Papias, the companion of
Polycarp, is the earliest author on record who has expressly named St.
Matthew as the writer of a Gospel; and we are indebted to Eusebius for
transmitting to us this valuable testimony. The work itself of Papias is
lost; but the quotation in Eusebius is such as to convince us that in
the time of Papias no doubt was entertained of the genuineness of St.
Matthew’s Gospel. This Gospel is repeatedly quoted by Justin Martyr, but
without mentioning the name of St. Matthew. It is both frequently
quoted, and St. Matthew mentioned as its author, by Irenæus, Origen,
Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and a long train of
subsequent writers. It was, indeed, universally received by the
Christian church; and we do not find that its genuineness was
controverted by any early profane writer. We may therefore conclude,
upon the concurrent testimony of antiquity, that this Gospel is rightly
ascribed to St. Matthew. It is generally agreed, upon the most
satisfactory evidence, that St. Matthew’s Gospel was the first which was
written; but though this is asserted by many ancient authors, none of
them, except Irenæus and Eusebius, have said any thing concerning the
exact time at which it was written. The only passage in which the former
of these fathers mentions this subject, is so obscure, that no positive
conclusion can be drawn from it; Dr. Lardner, and Dr. Townson,
understand it in very different senses; and Eusebius, who lived a
hundred and fifty years after Irenæus, barely says, that Matthew wrote
his Gospel just before he left Judea to preach the religion of Christ in
other countries; but when that was, neither he nor any other ancient
author informs us with certainty. The impossibility of settling this
point upon ancient authority has given rise to a variety of opinions
among moderns. Of the several dates assigned to this Gospel, which
deserve any attention, the earliest is A.D. 38, and the latest, A.D. 64.

It appears very improbable that the Christians should be left any
considerable number of years without a written history of our Saviour’s
ministry. It is certain that the Apostles, immediately after the descent
of the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of
our Saviour into heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great
success; and surely it is reasonable to suppose, that an authentic
account of our Saviour’s doctrines and miracles would very soon be
committed to writing, for the confirmation of those who believed in his
divine mission, and for the conversion of others; and, more
particularly, to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the
birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their ancient prophecies
relative to the Messiah; and we may conceive that the Apostles would be
desirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles which
Jesus performed, and of the discourses which he delivered, because the
sooner such an account was published, the easier it would be to inquire
into its truth and accuracy; and, consequently, when these points were
satisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its weight and
authority. We must own that these arguments are so strong in favour of
an early publication of some history of our Saviour’s ministry, that we
cannot but accede to the opinion of Jones, Wetstein, and Dr. Owen, that
St. Matthew’s Gospel was written A.D. 38.

There has also of late been great difference of opinion concerning the
language in which this Gospel was originally written. Among the ancient
fathers, Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, Irenæus, Origen, Cyril,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerom, positively assert that it was written
by St. Matthew in Hebrew, that is, in the language then spoken in
Palestine; and indeed Dr. Campbell says, that this point was not
controverted by any author for fourteen hundred years. Erasmus was one
of the first who contended that the present Greek is the original; and
he has been followed by Le Clerc, Wetstein, Basnage, Whitby, Jortin,
Hug, and many other learned men. On the other hand, Grotius, Du Pin,
Simon, Walton, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Michaëlis, Owen, and Campbell have
supported the opinion of the ancients. In a question of this sort, which
is a question of fact, the concurrent voice of antiquity is decisive.
Though the fathers are unanimous in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew, yet they have not informed us by whom it was
translated into Greek. No writer of the first three centuries makes any
mention whatever of the translator; nor does Eusebius: and Jerom tells
us, that in his time it was not known who was the translator. It is,
however, universally allowed, that the Greek translation was made very
early, and that it was more used than the original. This last
circumstance is easily accounted for. After the destruction of
Jerusalem, the language of the Jews, and every thing which belonged to
them, fell into great contempt; and the early fathers, writing in Greek,
would naturally quote and refer to the Greek copy of St. Matthew’s
Gospel, in the same manner as they constantly used the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament. There being no longer any country in which
the language of St. Matthew’s original Gospel was commonly spoken, that
original would soon be forgotten; and the translation into Greek, the
language then generally understood, would be substituted in its room.
This early and exclusive use of the Greek translation is a strong proof
of its correctness, and leaves us but little reason to lament the loss
of the original.

As the sacred writers,” says Dr. Campbell, “especially the evangelists,
have many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of
them, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the
rest. That which principally distinguishes St. Matthew, is the
distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our
Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these, his sermon on the
mount, his charge to the Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of
his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also
wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his
Master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the
apostleship, he was an eye-witness and ear-witness of most of the things
which he relates; and though I do not think it was the scope of any of
these historians to adjust their narratives to the precise order of time
wherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline
me to think, that St. Matthew has approached at least as near that order
as any of them.” And this, we may observe, would naturally be the
distinguishing characteristic of a narrative, written very soon after
the events had taken place. The most remarkable things recorded in St.
Matthew’s Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the
visit of the eastern magi; our Saviour’s flight into Egypt; the
slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins;
the dream of Pilate’s wife; the resurrection of many saints at our
Saviour’s crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard appointed to
watch at the holy sepulchre by the chief priests and elders.

MATTHIAS the Apostle was first in the rank of our Saviour’s disciples,
and one of those who continued with him from his baptism to his
ascension, Acts i, 21, 22. It is very probable he was of the number of
the seventy, as Clemens Alexandrinus and other ancients inform us. We
have no particulars of his youth or education, for we may reckon as
nothing what is read in Abdias, or Obadiah, concerning this matter.
After the ascension of our Lord, the Apostles retiring to Jerusalem in
expectation of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, as had been promised,
Peter proposed to fill up the place of Judas: to this the disciples
agreed. They then presented two persons, Joseph Barsabas, surnamed
Justus, and Matthias. The lot falling on Matthias, he was from that time
associated with the eleven Apostles. The Greeks believe that Matthias
preached and died at Colchis.

MEASURE, that by which any thing is measured, or adjusted, or
proportioned, Prov. xx, 10; Micah vi, 10. Tables of Scripture measures
of length and capacity are found at the end of this volume.

MEATS. The Hebrews had several kinds of animals which they refused to
eat. Among domestic animals they only ate the cow, the sheep, and the
goat; the hen and pigeon, among domestic birds; beside several kinds of
wild animals. To eat the flesh with the blood was forbidden them, much
more to eat the blood without the flesh. We may form a judgment of their
taste by what the Scripture mentions of Solomon’s table, 1 Kings iv, 22,
23. Thirty measures of the finest wheat flour were provided for it every
day, and twice as much of the ordinary sort; twenty stall-fed oxen,
twenty pasture oxen, a hundred sheep, beside the venison of deer and
roebucks, and wild fowls. It does not appear that the ancient Hebrews
were very nice about the seasoning and dressing of their food. We find
among them roast meat, boiled meat, and ragouts. They roasted the
paschal lamb.

At the first settling of the Christian church, very great disputes arose
concerning the use of meats offered to idols. Some newly converted
Christians, convinced that an idol was nothing, and that the distinction
of clean and unclean creatures was abolished by our Saviour, ate
indifferently of whatever was served up to them, even among Pagans,
without inquiring whether these meats had been first offered to idols.
They took the same liberty in buying meat sold in the markets, not
regarding whether it was pure or impure according to the Jews, or
whether it was that which had been offered to idols. But other
Christians, weaker or less instructed, were offended at this liberty;
and thought to eat of meat that had been once offered to idols, was a
kind of partaking of that wicked and sacrilegious offering. This
diversity in opinion produced some scandal, to which St. Paul thought it
behoved him to provide a suitable remedy, Rom. xiv, 20; Titus i, 15. He
determined, therefore, that all things were clean to such as were clean,
and that an idol was nothing at all; that a man might safely eat of
whatever was sold in the shambles, and though it might be a part of what
had been previously offered in the temple, and there exposed to sale, he
need not scrupulously inquire whence it came; that if an unbeliever
should invite a believer to eat with him, the believer might eat of
whatever was set before him, &c, 1 Cor. x, 25–27. But at the same time
he enjoins, that the law of charity and prudence should be observed;
that men should be cautious of scandalizing or offending weak minds;
that though all things may be lawful, yet all things are not always
expedient; that no one ought to seek his own accommodation or
satisfaction, but that of his neighbour; that if any one should say to
us, This has been offered to idols,” we may not then eat of it, for the
sake of him who gives the information; not so much for fear of wounding
our own conscience, but his; in a word, that he who is weak, and thinks
he may not indifferently use all sorts of food, should forbear, and eat
herbs, rather than offend a brother, Rom. xiv, 1, 2. Yet it is certain,
that generally Christians abstained from eating meat that had been
offered to idols.

MEDIA. It has been commonly thought that Media was peopled by the
descendants of Madai, son of Japheth, Gen. x, 2. The Greeks maintain
that this country took its name from Medus, the son of Medea. If,
however, Madai and his immediate descendants did not people this
country, some of his posterity might have carried his name thither,
since we find it so often given to Media, from the times of the Prophets
Isaiah and Jeremiah, and from the transportation of the ten tribes, and
the destruction of Samaria under Salmaneser, A. M. 3283. Media Proper
was bounded by Armenia and Assyria Proper on the west, by Persia on the
east, by the Caspian provinces on the north, and by Susiana on the
south. It was an elevated and mountainous country, and formed a kind of
pass between the cultivated parts of eastern and western Asia. Hence,
from its geographical position, and from the temperature, verdure, and
fertility of its climate, Media was one of the most important and
interesting regions of Asia. Into this country the ten tribes who
composed the kingdom of Israel were transplanted, in the Assyrian
captivity, by Tiglath-pileser and Salmaneser. The former prince carried
away the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, on the east side of
Jordan, to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan. His
successor carried away the remaining seven tribes and a half, to the
same places, which are said to be cities of the Medes, by the river of
Gozan,” 1 Chron. v, 26; 2 Kings xvii, 6. The geographical position of
Media was wisely chosen for the distribution of the great body of the
captives; for, it was so remote, and so impeded and intersected with
great mountains and numerous and deep rivers, that it would be extremely
difficult for them to escape from this natural prison, and return to
their own country. They would also be opposed in their passage through
Kir, or Assyria Proper, not only by the native Assyrians, but also by
their enemies, the Syrians, transplanted thither before them. The
superior civilization of the Israelites, and their skill in agriculture
and in the arts, would tend to civilize and improve those wild and
barbarous regions.

MEDIATOR, one who stands in a middle office or capacity between two
differing parties, and has a power of transacting every thing between
them, and of reconciling them to each other. Hence a mediator between
God and man is one whose office properly is to mediate and transact
affairs between them relating to the favour of almighty God, and the
duty and happiness of man. No sooner had Adam transgressed the law of
God in paradise, and become a sinful creature, than the Almighty was
pleased in mercy to appoint a Mediator or Redeemer, who, in due time
should be born into the world, to make an atonement both for his
transgression, and for all the sins of men. This is what is justly
thought to be implied in the promise, that “the seed of the woman should
bruise the serpent’s head;” that is, that there should some time or
other be born, of the posterity of Eve, a Redeemer, who, by making
satisfaction for the sins of men, and reconciling them to the mercy of
almighty God, should by that means bruise the head of that old serpent,
the devil, who had beguiled our first parents into sin, and destroy his
empire and dominion among men. Thus it became a necessary part of Adam’s
religion after the fall, as well as that of his posterity after him, to
worship God through hope in this Mediator. To keep up the remembrance of
it God was pleased, at this time, to appoint sacrifices of expiation or
atonement for sin, to be observed through all succeeding generations,
till the Redeemer himself should come, who was to make the true and only
proper satisfaction and atonement.

The particular manner in which Christ interposed in the redemption of
the world, or his office as Mediator between God and man, is thus
represented to us in the Scripture. He is the light of the world, John
i; viii, 12; the revealer of the will of God in the most eminent sense.
He is a propitiatory sacrifice, Rom. iii, 25; v, 11; 1 Cor. v, 7; Eph.
v, 2; 1 John ii, 2; Matt. xxvi, 28; John i, 29, 36; and, as because of
his peculiar offering, of a merit transcending all others, he is styled
our High Priest. He was also described beforehand in the Old Testament,
under the same character of a priest, and an expiatory victim, Isa.
liii; Dan. ix, 24; Psa. cx, 4. And whereas it is objected, that all this
is merely by way of allusion to the sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the
Apostle on the contrary affirms, that the law was a shadow of good
things to come, and not the very image of the things,” Heb. x, 1; and
that the priests that offer gifts according to the law, serve unto the
example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God,
when he was about to make the tabernacle: for see, saith he, that thou
make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount,”
Heb. viii, 4, 5; that is, the Levitical priesthood was a shadow of the
priesthood of Christ; in like manner as the tabernacle made by Moses was
according to that showed him in the mount. The priesthood of Christ, and
the tabernacle in the mount, were the originals; of the former of which,
the Levitical priesthood was a type; and of the latter, the tabernacle
made by Moses was a copy. The doctrine of this epistle, then, plainly
is, that the legal sacrifices were allusions to the great atonement to
be made by the blood of Christ; and not that it was an allusion to
those. Nor can any thing be more express or determinate than the
following passage: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sin. Wherefore when he [Christ] cometh into the
world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering,” that is, of bulls and of
goats, thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Lo, I come
to do thy will, O God! By which will we are sanctified, through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” Heb. x, 4, 5, 7, 9,
10. And to add one passage more of the like kind: Christ was once
offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall
he appear the second time, without sin;” that is, without bearing sin,
as he did at his first coming, by being an offering for it; without
having our iniquities again laid upon him; without being any more a
sin-offering:--“And unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation,” Heb. ix, 28. Nor do the
inspired writers at all confine themselves to this manner of speaking
concerning the satisfaction of Christ; but declare that there was an
efficacy in what he did and suffered for us, additional to and beyond
mere instruction and example. This they declare with great variety of
expression: that he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,” 1 Peter
iii, 18; that he gave his life a ransom,” Matt. xx, 28; Mark x, 45; 1
Tim. ii, 6; that we are bought with a price,” 2 Pet. ii, 1; Rev. xiv, 4;
1 Cor. vi, 20; that he redeemed us with his blood,” redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” 1 Peter i, 19; Rev. v, 9;
Gal. iii, 13; that he is our advocate, intercessor, and propitiation,”
Heb. vii, 25; 1 John ii, 1, 2; that he was made perfect, through
sufferings; and being thus made perfect, he became the author of
salvation,” Heb. ii, 10; v, 9; that God was in Christ, reconciling the
world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” 2 Cor. v,
19; Rom. v, 10; Eph. ii, 16; and that through death he destroyed him
that had the power of death,” Heb. ii, 14. Christ, then, having thus
humbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the
cross; God, also, hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name;” hath commanded us to pray in his name; constituted
him man’s advocate and intercessor; distributes his grace only through
him, and in honour of his death; hath given all things into his hands;
and hath committed all judgment unto him; that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow,” and that all men should honour the Son even as
they honour the Father,” Phil. ii, 8–10; John iii, 35; v, 22, 23.

All the offices of Christ, therefore, arise out of his gracious
appointment, and voluntary undertaking, to be the Mediator between God
and man;” between God offended, and man offending; and therefore under
the penalty of God’s violated law, which denounces death against every
transgressor. He is the _Prophet_ who came to teach us the extent and
danger of our offences, and the means which God had appointed for their
remission. He is the great _High Priest_ of our profession,” who, having
offered himself without spot to God,” has entered the holiest to make
intercession for us, and to present our prayers and services to God,
securing to them acceptance by virtue of his own merits. He is _King_,
ruling over the whole earth, for the maintenance and establishment and
enlargement of his church, and for the punishment of those who reject
his authority; and he is the final _Judge_ of the quick and the dead, to
whom is given the power of distributing the rewards and penalties of
eternity. See ATONEMENT and JESUS CHRIST.

There is an essential connection between the mediation of our Lord and
the covenant of grace. (See _Covenant_.) He is therefore called the
Mediator of a better covenant,” and of a new covenant.” The word μεσίτης
literally means a person in the middle,” between two parties; and the
fitness of there being a Mediator of the covenant of grace arises from
this, that the nature of the covenant implies that the two parties were
at variance. Those who hold the Socinian principles understand a
mediator to mean nothing more than a messenger sent from God to give
assurance of forgiveness to his offending creatures. Those who hold the
doctrine of the atonement understand, that Jesus is called the Mediator
of the new covenant, because he reconciles the two parties, by having
appeased the wrath of God which man had deserved, and by subduing that
enmity to God by which their hearts were alienated from him. It is plain
that this is being a mediator in the strict and proper sense of the
word; and there seems to be no reason for resting in a meaning less
proper and emphatical. This sense of the term _mediator_ coincides with
the meaning of another phrase applied to him, Heb. vii, 22, where he is
called κρείττονος διαθήκης ἔγγυος. If he is a Mediator in the last
sense, then he is also ἔγγυος, the _sponsor_, the _surety_, of the
covenant. He undertook, on the part of the supreme Lawgiver, that the
sins of those who repent shall be forgiven; and he fulfilled this
undertaking by offering, in their stead, a satisfaction to divine
justice. He undertook, on their part, that they should keep the terms of
the covenant; and he fulfils this undertaking by the influence of his
Spirit upon their hearts.

If a mediator be essential to the covenant of grace, and if all who have
been saved from the time of the first transgression were saved by that
covenant, it follows that the Mediator of the new covenant acted in that
character before he was manifested in the flesh. Hence the importance of
that doctrine respecting the person of Christ; that all the
communications which the Almighty condescended to hold with the human
race were carried on from the beginning by this person; that it is he
who spake to the patriarchs, who gave the law by Moses, and who is
called in the Old Testament, the angel of the covenant.” These views
open to us the full importance of a doctrine which manifestly unites in
one faith all who obtain deliverance from that condition; for, according
to this doctrine, not only did the virtue of the blood which he shed as
a priest extend to the ages past before his manifestation, but all the
intimations of the new covenant established in his blood were given by
him as the great Prophet, and the blessings of the covenant were applied
in every age by the Spirit, which he, as the King of his people, sends
forth. The Socinians, who consider Jesus as a mere man, having no
existence till he was born of Mary, necessarily reject the doctrine now
stated: and the church of Rome, although they admit the divinity of our
Saviour, yet, by the system which they hold with regard to the mediation
of Christ, agree with the Socinians in throwing out of the dispensations
of the grace of God that beautiful and complete unity which arises from
their having been conducted by one person. The church of Rome considers
Christ as Mediator only in respect of his human nature. As that nature
did not exist till he was born of Mary, they do not think it possible
that he could exercise the office of Mediator under the Old Testament;
and as they admit that a mediator is essential to the covenant of grace,
they believe that those who lived under the Old Testament, not enjoying
the benefit of his mediation, did not obtain complete remission of sins.
They suppose, therefore, that persons in former times who believed in a
Saviour that was to come, and who obtained justification with God by
this faith, were detained after death in a place of the infernal
regions, which received the name of _limbus patrum_; a kind of prison
where they did not endure punishment, but remained without partaking of
the joys of heaven, in earnest expectation of the coming of Christ, who,
after suffering on the cross, descended to hell that he might set them
free. This fanciful system has no other foundation than the slender
support which it appears to receive from some obscure passages of
Scripture that admit of another interpretation. But if Christ acted as
the Mediator of the covenant of grace from the time of the first
transgression, this system becomes wholly unnecessary; and we may
believe, according to the general strain of Scripture, and what we
account the analogy of faith, that all who died in faith,” since the
world began, entered immediately after death into that heavenly country
which they desired.”

Although the members of the church of Rome adopt the language of
Scripture, in which Jesus is styled the Mediator of the new covenant,
they differ from all Protestants in acknowledging other mediators; and
the use which they make of the doctrine that Christ is Mediator only in
his human nature is to justify their admitting those who had no other
nature to share that office with him. Saints, martyrs, and especially
the Virgin Mary, are called _mediatores secundarii_, because it is
conceived that they hold this character under Christ, and that, by
virtue of his mediation, the superfluity of their merits may be applied
to procure acceptance with God for our imperfect services. Under this
character, supplications and solemn addresses are presented to them; and
the _mediatores secundarii_ receive in the church of Rome, not only the
honour due to eminent virtue, but a worship and homage which that church
wishes to vindicate from the charge of idolatry, by calling it the same
kind of inferior and secondary worship which is offered to the man
Christ Jesus, who in his human nature acted as Mediator. In opposition
to all this, we hold that Jesus Christ was qualified to act as Mediator
by the union between his divine and his human nature; that his divine
nature gave an infinite value to all that he did, rendering it effectual
for the purpose of reconciling us to God, while the condescension by
which he approached to man, in taking part of flesh and blood, fulfilled
the gracious intention for which a Mediator was appointed; that the
introducing any other mediator is unnecessary, derives no warrant from
Scripture, and is derogatory to the honour of him who is there called
the one Mediator between God and men;” and that as the union of the
divine to the human nature is the foundation of that worship which in
Scripture is often paid to the Mediator of the new covenant, this
worship does not afford the smallest countenance to the idolatry and
will worship of those who ascribe divine honours to any mortal.

MEGIDDO, a city of the tribe of Manasseh, famous for the battle fought
there between Pharaoh-Necho and King Josiah, in which the latter was
defeated and mortally wounded, Josh. xvii, 11; Judges i, 27; 2 Kings
xxiii, 29.

MELCHIZEDEK. When Abram returned from the slaughter of the Assyrians, in
his way to Hebron, he was met at Shaveh, or King’s Dale, afterward the
valley of Jehoshaphat, between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet, by
Melchizedek, king of Salem, the most ancient quarter of Jerusalem, a
priest of the most high God, who gave him bread and wine, and blessed
him in the name of the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth;” to
whom Abram in return piously gave tithes, or the tenth part of all the
spoils as an offering to God, Heb. vii, 2. This Canaanitish prince was
early considered as a type of Christ in the Jewish church: Thou art a
priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” Psalm cx, 4. He
resembled Christ in the following particulars: 1. In his name,
_Melchizedek_, King of Righteousness;” 2. In his city, _Salem_, Peace;”
3. In his offices of king and priest of the most high God; and 4. In the
omission of the names of his parents and genealogy, the time of his
birth and length of his life, exhibiting an indefinite reign and
priesthood, according to the Apostle’s exposition, Heb. vii, 5. The
import of this is, that he came not to his office by right of
primogeniture, (which implies a genealogy,) or by the way of succession,
but was raised up and immediately called of God to it. In that respect
Christ is said to be a priest after his order.” Then, again, that he had
no successor, nor could have; for there was no law to constitute an
order of succession, so that he was a priest only upon an extraordinary
call. In this respect our Lord’s priesthood answers to his, because it
is wholly in himself, who has no successor. An infinite number of absurd
opinions have been at different times held respecting this mystic
personage, as that he was Shem, or Ham; or, among those who think he was
more than human, that he was the Holy Ghost, or the Son of God himself;
absurdities which are too obsolete to need refutation.

MELITA, now called Malta, an island in the African or Mediterranean Sea,
between Africa and Sicily, twenty miles in length and twelve in breadth,
formerly reckoned a part of Africa, but now belonging to Europe. St.
Paul suffered shipwreck upon the coast of Malta, Acts xviii, 1–3. In the
opinion of Dr. Hales, the island where this happened was not Malta, but
Meleda. His words are: “That this island was Meleda, near the Illyrian
coast, not Malta, on the southern coast of Sicily, may appear from the
following considerations: 1. It lies confessedly in the Adriatic Sea,
but Malta a considerable distance from it. 2. It lies nearer the mouth
of the Adriatic than any other island of that sea; and would of course,
be more likely to receive the wreck of any vessel driven by tempests
toward that quarter. And it lies north-west by north of the south-west
promontory of Crete; and came nearly in the direction of a storm from
the south-east quarter. 3. An obscure island called Melite, whose
inhabitants were ‘barbarous,’ was not applicable to the celebrity of
Malta at that time, which Cicero represents as abounding in curiosities
and riches, and possessing a remarkable manufacture of the finest linen;
and Diodorus Siculus more fully: ‘Malta is furnished with many and very
good harbours, and the inhabitants are very rich; for it is full of all
sorts of artificers, among whom there are excellent weavers of fine
linen. Their houses are very stately and beautiful, adorned with
graceful eaves, and pargetted with white plaster. The inhabitants are a
colony of Phenicians, who, trading as merchants, as far as the western
ocean, resorted to this place on account of its commodious ports and
convenient situation for maritime commerce; and by the advantage of this
place, the inhabitants frequently became famous both for their wealth
and their merchandise.’ 4. The circumstance of the viper, or venomous
snake, which fastened on St. Paul’s hand, agrees with the damp and woody
island of Meleda, affording shelter and proper nourishment for such, but
not with the dry and rocky island of Malta, in which there are no
serpents now, and none in the time of Pliny. 5. The disease with which
the father of Publius was affected, dysentery combined with fever,
probably intermittent, might well suit a country woody and damp, and
probably, for want of draining, exposed to the putrid effluvia of
confined moisture; but was not likely to affect a dry, rocky, and
remarkably healthy island like Malta.”

MELON, אבטחים, Numbers xi, 5, a luscious fruit so well known that a
description of it would be superfluous. It grows to great perfection,
and is highly esteemed in Egypt, especially by the lower class of
people, during the hot months. The juice is peculiarly cooling and
agreeable in that sultry climate, where it is justly pronounced one of
the most delicious refreshments that nature, amidst her constant
attention to the wants of man, affords in the season of violent heat.
There are varieties of this fruit; but that more particularly referred
to in the text must be the water melon. It is cultivated, says
Hasselquist, on the banks of the Nile, in the rich clayey earth, which
subsides during the inundation. This serves the Egyptians for meat,
drink, and physic. It is eaten in abundance during the season, even by
the richer sort of people; but the common people, on whom Providence has
bestowed nothing but poverty and patience, scarcely eat any thing but
these, and account this the best time of the year, as they are obliged
to put up with worse fare at other seasons. This fruit sometimes serves
them for drink, the juice refreshing these poor creatures, and they have
less occasion for water than if they were to live on more substantial
food in this burning climate. This well explains the regret expressed by
the Israelites for the loss of this fruit, whose pleasant liquor had so
often quenched their thirst, and relieved their weariness in their
servitude, and which would have been exceedingly grateful in a dry
scorching desert.

MEMPHIS. See NOPH.

MENNONITES, a society of Baptists in Holland, so called from Menno Simon
of Friesland, who lived in the sixteenth century. He was originally a
Romish priest, but joined a party of the Anabaptists, and, becoming
their leader, cured them of many extravagancies, and reduced the system
to consistency and moderation. The Mennonites maintain that practical
piety is the essence of religion, and that the surest mark of the true
church is the sanctity of its members. They plead for universal
toleration in religion, and debar none from their societies who lead
pious lives, and own the Scriptures for the word of God. They teach that
infants are not the proper subjects of baptism; that ministers of the
Gospel ought to receive no salary. They also object to the terms
_person_ and _trinity_, as not consistent with the simplicity of the
Scriptures. They are, like the Society of Friends, utterly averse to
oaths and war, and to capital punishments, as contrary to the spirit of
the Christian dispensation. In their private meetings every one has the
liberty to speak, to expound the Scriptures, and to pray. They assemble,
or used to do so, twice every year from all parts of Holland, at
Rynsbourg, a village two leagues from Leyden, at which time they receive
the communion, sitting at a table in the manner of the Independents; but
in their form of discipline they are said more to resemble the
Presbyterians. The ancient Mennonites professed a contempt of erudition
and science, and excluded all from their communion who deviated in the
least from the most rigorous rules of simplicity and gravity: but this
primitive austerity is greatly diminished in their most considerable
societies. Those who adhere to their ancient discipline are called
Flemings or Flandrians. The whole sect were formerly called
Waterlandians, from the district in which they lived. The Mennonites in
Pennsylvania do not baptize by immersion, though they administer the
ordinance to none but adult persons. Their common method is this: The
person to be baptized kneels, the minister holds his hands over him,
into which the deacon pours water, so that it runs on the head of the
baptized; after which follow imposition of hands and prayer.

Divine worship is conducted among the Mennonites much as among the
churches of the reformed, or among the Dissenters in England, only with
this peculiarity, that collections are made every Sabbath day, sometimes
in the middle of the sermon, in two bags, one for the poor, and the
other for the expenses of public worship. They have a Mennonite college
at Amsterdam, and the ministers are chosen in some places by the
congregation, and in others by the elders only. As they reject infant
baptism, they refuse to commune at the Lord’s table with any who
administer the ordinance to children, unless resprinkled. They train up
catechumens under their ministers, and, about the age of sixteen,
baptize them, taking from the candidate, before the minister and elders,
an account of his repentance and faith. In some parts of North Holland,
young people are baptized on the day of their marriage. They baptize by
pouring or sprinkling thrice.

With respect to their confession of faith, as it is stated by one of
their ministers, Mr. Gan, of Ryswick, they believe that in the fall man
lost his innocence, and that all his posterity are born with a natural
propensity to evil, and with fleshly inclinations, and are exposed to
sickness and death. The posterity of Adam derive no moral guilt from his
fall: sin is personal, and the desert of punishment cannot be inherited.
The incarnate Son of God is set forth to us as inferior to the Father,
not only in his state of humiliation, but in that of his exaltation, and
as subject to the Father: he is nevertheless an object of religious
trust and confidence in like manner as the Father. With respect to the
number of Mennonites in Holland, they are calculated at only thirty
thousand, including children, and form about a hundred and thirty
churches. In the United States of America, it appears, there are more
than two hundred Mennonite churches, some of which contain as many as
three hundred members in each. They are mostly the descendants of the
Mennonites who emigrated in great numbers from Paltz.

MERCY SEAT, ἱλαϛήριον, _propitiatory_. This word is properly an
adjective, agreeing with ἐπίθεμα, _a lid_, understood, which is
expressed by the LXX, Exod. xxv, 17. In that version, ἱλαϛήριον
generally answers to the Hebrew כפרת, from the verb כפר, _to cover_,
_expiate_, and was the _lid_ or _covering_ of the ark of the covenant,
made of pure gold, on and before which the high priest was to sprinkle
the blood of the expiatory sacrifices on the great day of atonement, and
where God promised to meet his people, Exod. xxv, 17, 22; xxix, 42; xxx,
36; Lev. xvi, 2, 14. St. Paul, by applying this name to Christ, Rom.
iii, 25, assures us that he is the true mercy seat, the reality of what
the כפרת represented to the ancient believers; by him our sins are
covered or expiated, and through him God communes with us in mercy. The
mercy seat also represents our approach to God through Christ; we come
to the throne of grace;” which is only a variation of the term mercy
seat.”

MEROM, WATERS OF, or _lacus Samechonitis_: the most northern and the
smallest of the three lakes which are supplied by the waters of the
Jordan. Indeed the numerous branches of this river, descending from the
mountains, unite in this small piece of water; out of which issues the
single stream which may be considered as the Jordan Proper. It is at
present called the lake of Houle; and is situated in a hollow or valley,
about twelve miles wide, called the Ard Houle, formed by the Djebel
Heish on the west, and Djebel Safat on the east, the two branches into
which the mountains of Hasbeya, or Djebel Esheikh, the ancient Hermon,
divides itself about fifteen miles to the north.

MEROZ, a place in the neighbourhood of the brook Kishon, whose
inhabitants, refusing to come to the assistance of their brethren, when
they fought with Sisera, were put under an anathema, Judges v, 23.

MESHECH, COUNTRY OF. Meshech was the sixth son of Japheth, and is
generally mentioned in conjunction with his brother Tubal; and both were
first seated in the northeastern angle of Asia Minor, from the shores of
the Euxine, along to the south of Caucasus; where were the Montes
Moschisi, and where, in after times, were the Iberi, Tibareni, and
Moschi; near to whom also, or mingled with them, were the Chalybes, who,
it is probable, derived their Grecian appellation from the general
occupation of the families of Tubal and Meshech, as workers in brass and
iron, as the inhabitants of the same countries have been in all ages,
for the supply of Tyre, Persia, Greece, and Armenia. There appears also
to have been in the same neighbourhood, namely, in Armenia, a river and
country termed Rosh: for so, Bochart says, the river Araxes is called by
the Arabs; and that there was a people in the adjoining country called
Rhossi. That passage in Ezekiel, xxxviii, also, which in our Bibles is
rendered the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,” is, in the Septuagint,
the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.” These Rossi and Moschi, who
were neighbours in Asia, dispersed their colonies jointly over the vast
empire of Russia; and preserve their names still in those of Russians
and Muscovites.

MESOPOTAMIA, an extensive province of Asia, the Greek name of which
denotes between the rivers,” and on this account Strabo says, ὅτι κεῖται
μεταξὺ τοῦ Εὐφράτου καὶ τοῦ Τίγρος, that it was situated between the
Euphrates and the Tigris.” In Scripture this country is called Aram, and
Aramea. But as Aram also signifies Syria, it is denominated Aram
Naharaim, or the Syria of the rivers. This province, which inclines from
the south-east to the north-west, commenced at 33° 20´ N. lat., and
terminated near 37° 30´ N. lat. Toward the south it extended as far as
the bend formed by the Jordan at Cunaxa, and to the wall of Semiramis
which separated it from Messene. Toward the north, it comprehended part
of Taurus and the Mesius, which lay between the Euphrates and the
Tigris. The modern name, given by the Arabs to this part, is of the same
import with the ancient appellation; they call it isle,” or, in their
language, _Al-Dgezera_. In this northern part is found Osrhoene, which
seems to have been the same place with Anthemusir. The northern part of
Mesopotamia is occupied by chains of mountains passing from north-west
to south-east, in the situation of the rivers. The central parts of
these mountains were called Singaræ Montes. The principal rivers were
Chaboras, (Al Kabour,) which commenced at Charræ, (Harran,) east of the
mountains, and discharged itself into the Euphrates at Circesium
(Kirkisieh;) the Mygdonius, (Hanali,) the source of which was near
Nisibis, and its termination in the Chaboras. The principal towns in the
eastern part along the Tigris and near it, are Nisibis, (Nisibin,)
Bezabde, (Zabda,) Singora, (Sindja,) Labbana on the Tigris, (Mosul,)
Hatru, (Harder,) and Apamea-Mesenes. At some distance to the south, upon
the Tigris and on the borders of Mesopotamia, was the town of Antiochia,
near which commenced the wall that passed from the Tigris to the
Euphrates, under the name of _Murus Mediæ_, or Semiramidis. In the
western part were Edessa, called also Callin-Rhæ, (Orfa,) Charræ,
(Harran,) Nicephorium, (Racca,) Circesium at the mouth of the Chaboras,
Anatho, (Anah,) Neharda, (Hadith Unnour,) upon the right of the
Euphrates. There are several other towns of less importance. According
to Strabo, this country was fertile in vines, and afforded abundance of
good wine. According to Ptolemy, Mesopotamia had on the north a part of
Armenia, on the west the Euphrates on the side of Syria, on the east the
Tigris on the borders of Assyria, and on the south the Euphrates which
joined the Tigris. Mesopotamia was a satrapy under the kings of Syria.

In the earliest accounts we have of this country, subsequent to the time
of Abraham, it was subject to a king, called Cushan-Rishathaim, then
perhaps the most powerful potentate of the east, and the first by whom
the Israelites were made captive, which happened soon after the death of
Joshua, and about B. C. 1400, Judges iii, 8. The name of this king
bespeaks him a descendant of Nimrod; and it was probably of the Lower
Mesopotamia only, or Babylonia, of which he was sovereign; the northern
parts being in the possession of the Arameans. This is implied in the
history of Abraham; who, when ordered to depart from his country,
namely, Chaldea, in the southern part of Mesopotamia, removed to
Charran, still in Mesopotamia, but beyond the boundary of the Chaldees,
and in the territory of Aram. About four hundred years after
Cushan-Rishathaim, we find the northern parts of Mesopotamia in the
hands of the Syrians of Zobah; as we are told, in 2 Sam. x, that
Hadarezer, king of Zobah, after his defeat by Joab, sent and brought out
the Syrians that were beyond the river” Euphrates. The whole country was
afterward seized by the Assyrians; to whom it pertained till the
dissolution of their empire, when it was divided between the Medes and
the Babylonians. It subsequently formed a part of the Medo-Persian,
second Syrian or Macedonian, and Parthian empires, as it does at the
present day of the modern Persian. The southern part of Mesopotamia
answers nearly to the country anciently called the land of Shinar; to
which the Prophet Daniel, i, 2, refers, and Zechariah v, 11.

On the fifth or sixth day after leaving Aleppo,” says Campbell in his
_Overland Journey to India_, “we arrived at the city of Diarbeker, the
capital of the province of that name; having passed over an extent of
country of between three and four hundred miles, most of it blessed with
the greatest fertility, and abounding with as rich pastures as I ever
beheld, covered with numerous herds and flocks. The air was charmingly
temperate in the day time, but, to my feeling, extremely cold at night.
Yet notwithstanding the extreme fertility of this country, the bad
administration of government, conspiring with the indolence of the
inhabitants, leaves it unpeopled and uncultivated. Diarbeker Proper,
called also Mesopotamia from its lying between two famous rivers, and by
Moses called PADANARAM, that is, ‘_the fruitful Syria_,’ abounds with
corn, wine, oil, fruits, and all the necessaries of life. It is supposed
to have been the seat of the earthly paradise; and all geographers agree
that here the descendants of Noah settled immediately after the flood.
To be treading that ground which Abraham trod, where Nahor the father of
Rebecca lived, where holy Job breathed the pure air of piety and
simplicity, and where Laban the father-in-law of Jacob resided, was to
me a circumstance productive of delightful sensations. As I rode along,
I have often mused upon the contemptible stratagems to which I was
reduced, in order to get through this country, for no other reason than
because I was a Christian; and I could not avoid reflecting with sorrow
on the melancholy effects of superstition, and regretting that this fine
tract of country, which ought to be considered above all others as the
universal inheritance of mankind, should now be cut off from all except
a horde of senseless bigots, barbarous fanatics, and inflexible
tyrants.”

MESSIAH. The Greek word Χριϛὸς, from whence comes _Christ_ and
_Christian_, exactly answers to the Hebrew _Messiah_, which signifies
him that hath received unction, a prophet, a king, or a priest. See
JESUS CHRIST.

Our Lord warned his disciples that false messiahs should arise, Matt.
xxiv, 24; and the event has verified the prediction. No less than
twenty-four false Christs have arisen in different places and at
different times: Caziba was the first of any note who made a noise in
the world. Being dissatisfied with the state of things under Adrian, he
set himself up as the head of the Jewish nation, and proclaimed himself
their long expected messiah. He was one of those banditti that infested
Judea, and committed all kinds of violence against the Romans; and had
become so powerful that he was chosen king of the Jews, and by them
acknowledged their messiah. However, to facilitate the success of this
bold enterprise, he changed his name from Caziba, which it was at first,
to that of Barchocheba, alluding to the star foretold by Balaam; for he
pretended to be the star sent from heaven to restore his nation to its
ancient liberty and glory. He chose a forerunner, raised an army, was
anointed king, coined money inscribed with his own name, and proclaimed
himself messiah and prince of the Jewish nation. Adrian raised an army,
and sent it against him; he retired into a town called Bither, where he
was besieged. Barchocheba was killed in the siege, the city was taken,
and a dreadful havoc succeeded. The Jews themselves allow, that, during
this short war against the Romans in defence of this false messiah, they
lost five or six hundred thousand souls. This was in the former part of
the second century. In the reign of Theodosius the younger, A. D. 434,
another impostor arose, called Moses Cretensis. He pretended to be a
second Moses, sent to deliver the Jews who dwelt in Crete, and promised
to divide the sea, and give them a safe passage through it. Their
delusion proved so strong and universal, that they neglected their
lands, houses, and other concerns, and took only so much with them as
they could conveniently carry. And on the day appointed, this false
Moses, having led them to the top of a rock, men, women, and children
threw themselves headlong down into the sea, without the least
hesitation or reluctance, till so great a number of them were drowned as
opened the eyes of the rest, and made them sensible of the cheat. They
then began to look for their pretended leader; but he had disappeared,
and escaped out of their hands. In the reign of Justin, about A. D. 520,
another impostor appeared, who called himself the son of Moses. His name
was Dunaan. He entered into a city of Arabia Felix, and there he greatly
oppressed the Christians; but he was taken prisoner, and put to death by
Elesban, an Ethiopian general. The Jews and Samaritans rebelled against
the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 529, and set up one Julian for their king,
and accounted him the messiah. The emperor sent an army against them,
killed great numbers of them, took their pretended messiah prisoner, and
immediately put him to death. In the time of Leo Isaurus, about A. D.
721, arose another false messiah in Spain; his name was Serenus. He drew
great numbers after him, to their no small loss and disappointment; but
all his pretensions came to nothing. The twelfth century was fruitful in
messiahs. About A. D. 1137, there appeared one in France, who was put to
death, and numbers of those who followed him. In A. D. 1138, the
Persians were disturbed with a Jew, who called himself the messiah. He
collected a vast army; but he too was put to death, and his followers
treated with great inhumanity. A false messiah stirred up the Jews at
Corduba in Spain, A. D. 1157. The wiser and better sort looked upon him
as a madman, but the great body of the Jews in the nation believed in
him. On this occasion nearly all the Jews in Spain were destroyed.
Another false messiah arose in the kingdom of Fez, A. D. 1167, which
brought great troubles and persecutions upon the Jews that were
scattered throughout that country. In the same year, an Arabian
professed to be the messiah, and pretended to work miracles. When search
was made for him, his followers fled, and he was brought before the
Arabian king. Being questioned by him, he replied, that he was a prophet
sent from God. The king then asked him what sign he could show to
confirm his mission. Cut off my head,” said he, and I will return to
life again.” The king took him at his word, promising to believe him if
his prediction was accomplished. The poor wretch, however, never came to
life again, and the cheat was sufficiently discovered. Those who had
been deluded by him were grievously punished, and the nation condemned
to a very heavy fine. Not long after this, a Jew who dwelt beyond the
Euphrates, called himself the messiah, and drew vast multitudes of
people after him. He gave this for a sign of it, that he had been
leprous, and had been cured in the course of one night. He, like the
rest, perished, and brought great persecution on his countrymen. A
magician and false christ arose in Persia, A. D. 1174, who seduced many
of the common people, and brought the Jews into great tribulation.
Another of these impostors arose, A. D. 1176, in Moravia, who was called
David Almusser. He pretended he could make himself invisible; but he was
soon taken and put to death, and a heavy fine laid upon the Jews. A
famous cheat and rebel exerted himself in Persia, A. D. 1199, called
David el David. He was a man of learning, a great magician, and
pretended to be the messiah. He raised an army against the king, but was
taken and imprisoned; and, having made his escape, was afterward retaken
and beheaded. Vast numbers of the Jews were butchered for taking part
with this impostor. Rabbi Lemlem, a German Jew of Austria, declared
himself a forerunner of the messiah, A. D. 1500, and pulled down his own
oven, promising his brethren that they should bake their bread in the
holy land next year. A false christ arose in the East Indies, A. D.
1615, and was greatly followed by the Portuguese Jews who are scattered
over that country. Another in the Low Countries declared himself to be
the messiah of the family of David, and of the line of Nathan, A. D.
1624. He promised to destroy Rome, and to overthrow the kingdom of
antichrist, and the Turkish empire. In A. D. 1666, appeared the false
messiah Sabatai Tzevi, who made a great noise, and gained a great number
of proselytes. He was born at Aleppo, and imposed on the Jews for a
considerable time; but afterward, with a view of saving his life, he
turned Mohammedan, and was at last beheaded. The last false christ that
made any considerable number of converts was one rabbi Mordecai, a Jew
of Germany: he appeared, A. D. 1682. It was not long before he was found
out to be an impostor, and was obliged to flee from Italy to Poland to
save his life: what became of him afterward does not seem to be
recorded.

METEMPSYCHOSIS, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls into other
bodies. This tenet has been attributed to the sect of the Pharisees.
Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, gives this account of their
doctrine in these points: Every soul is immortal; those of the good only
enter into another body, but those of the bad are tormented with
everlasting punishment.” From whence it has been pretty generally
concluded, that the resurrection they held was only a Pythagorean one,
namely, the transmigration of the soul into another body; from which
they excluded all that were notoriously wicked, who were doomed at once
to eternal punishment; but their opinion was, that those who were guilty
only of lesser crimes were punished for them in the bodies into which
their souls were next sent. It is also supposed, that it was upon this
notion the disciples asked our Lord, Did this man sin, or his parents,
that he was born blind?” John ix, 2; and that some said, Christ was John
the Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets,” Matt.
xvi, 14. The transmigration of souls into other bodies was undoubtedly
the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and was embraced by some
among the Jews; as by the author of the Book of Wisdom, who says, that
being good, he came into a body undefiled,” viii, 20. Nevertheless, it
is questioned by some persons, whether the words of Josephus, before
quoted, are a sufficient evidence of this doctrine of the metempsychosis
being received by the whole sect of the Pharisees; for passing into
another or different body,” may only denote its receiving a body at the
resurrection; which will be another, not in substance, but in quality;
as it is said of Christ at his transfiguration, το ειδος του προσωπου
αυτου ἑτερον, the fashion of his countenance was” another, or, as we
render it, was altered,” Luke ix, 29. As to the opinion which some
entertained concerning our Saviour, that he was either John the Baptist,
or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Matt. xvi, 14, it is not
ascribed to the Pharisees in particular, and if it were, one cannot see
how it could be founded on the doctrine of the metempsychosis; since the
soul of Elias, now inhabiting the body of Jesus, would no more make him
to be Elias, than several others had been, in whose bodies the soul of
Elias, according to this doctrine, is supposed to have dwelt since the
death of that ancient prophet, near a thousand years before. Beside, how
was it possible any person that saw Christ, who did not appear to be
less than thirty years old, should, according to the notion of the
metempsychosis, conceive him to be John the Baptist, who had been so
lately beheaded? Surely this apprehension must be grounded on the
supposition of a proper resurrection. It was probably, therefore, upon
the same account, that others took him to be Elias, and others Jeremias.
Accordingly, St. Luke expresses it thus: Others say, that one of the old
prophets is risen from the dead,” Luke ix, 19. It may farther be
observed, that the doctrine of the resurrection, which St. Paul
preached, was not a present metempsychosis, but a real future
resurrection, which he calls the hope and resurrection of the dead,”
Acts xxiii, 6. This he professed as a Pharisee, and for this profession
the partisans of that sect vindicated him against the Sadducees, Acts
xxiii, 7–9. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears most reasonable to
adopt the opinion of Reland, though in opposition to the sentiments of
many other learned men, that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the
resurrection in a proper sense.

METHODISTS, a name given in derision at different times to religious
persons and parties which have appeared in this country; but which now
principally designates the followers of the Rev. John Wesley. The
societies raised up by the instrumentality of the Rev. George Whitefield
were also called Methodists, and in Wales especially are still known by
that appellation. For distinction’s sake, therefore, and also because a
number of smaller sects have broken off from the Methodist societies
since Mr. Wesley’s death, the religious body which he raised up and left
organized under his rules, have of late been generally denominated the
WESLEYAN METHODISTS. In the year 1729, Mr. John Wesley, being then
fellow of Lincoln College, began to spend some evenings in reading the
Greek Testament with Charles Wesley, student, and Mr. Morgan, commoner
of Christ Church, and Mr. Kirkham, of Merton College. Not long after,
two or three of the pupils of Mr. John Wesley, and one pupil of Mr.
Charles Wesley, obtained leave to attend these meetings. They then began
to visit the sick in different parts of the town, and the prisoners
also, who were confined in the castle. Two years after, they were joined
by Mr. Ingham, of Queen’s College, Mr. Broughton, and Mr. Hervey; and in
1735, by the celebrated Mr. George Whitefield, then in his eighteenth
year. At this time their number in Oxford amounted to about fourteen.
They obtained the name of Methodists, from the exact regularity of their
lives, and the manner of spending their time. In October, 1735, John and
Charles Wesley, Mr. Ingham, and Mr. Delamotte, son of a merchant in
London, embarked for Georgia, having been engaged by the trustees of
that colony as chaplains; but their ultimate design was to preach the
Gospel to the Indians. No favourable opportunity offering itself for
this pious work, and the strict and faithful preaching of the Wesleys
having involved them in much persecution, and many disputes with the
colonists, they returned to England, Mr. Charles Wesley in 1737, Mr.
John Wesley in 1738. On the passage to America, and while in Georgia,
Mr. John had met with several pious Moravians; whose doctrines of
justification by faith alone, conscious pardon of sin, and peace with
God, confirmed by their own calmness in danger and freedom from the fear
of death, greatly impressed him. On his return to England, he was more
fully instructed in these views by Bohler, a Moravian minister; and
having proved their truth in his own experience, he began to preach in
the churches of the metropolis, and other places, and then in rooms,
fields, and streets, the doctrine of salvation by faith. In this his
brother Charles was his zealous coadjutor; and the effect was the
awakening of great multitudes to a religious concern, and the
commencement of a great revival of religion throughout the land, which
has in its effects extended itself to the most distant parts of the
world. At the time of Mr. Wesley’s death, the societies in connection
with him in Europe, America, and the West Indies, amounted to eighty
thousand members; they are now [1831] upward of three hundred thousand,
beside about half a million in the United States of America, who since
the acquisition of independence by that country have formed a separate
church. The rules of this religious society were drawn up by Messrs.
John and Charles Wesley in 1743, and continue to be in force. They state
the nature and design of a Methodist society in the following words:
“Such a society is no other than a company of men, having the form and
seeking the power of godliness: united, in order to pray together, to
receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love,
that they may help each other to work out their own salvation. That it
may the more easily be discerned whether they are indeed working out
their own salvation, each society is divided into smaller companies,
called classes, according to their respective places of abode. There are
about twelve persons, sometimes fifteen, twenty, or even more, in each
class; one of whom is styled the leader. It is his business, 1. To see
each person in his class once a week, at least, in order to inquire how
their souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort, as occasion
may require; to receive what they are willing to give to the poor, or
toward the support of the Gospel. 2. To meet the minister and the
stewards of the society once a week, to inform the minister of any that
are sick, or of any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved; to
pay to the stewards what they have received of their several classes in
the week preceding; and to show their account of what each person has
contributed. There is only one condition previously required of those
who desire admission into these societies, namely, a desire to flee from
the wrath to come; to be saved from their sins: but wherever this is
really fixed in the soul, it will be shown by its fruits. It is
therefore expected of all who continue therein, that they should
continue to evidence their desire of salvation, 1. By doing no harm; by
avoiding evil in every kind, especially that which is most generally
practised, such as taking the name of God in vain; profaning the day of
the Lord, either by doing ordinary work thereon, or by buying or
selling; drunkenness; buying and selling spirituous liquors, or drinking
them, unless in cases of extreme necessity; fighting, quarrelling,
brawling; brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or
railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling; the
buying or selling uncustomed goods; the giving or taking things on
usury, that is, unlawful interest; uncharitable or unprofitable
conversation, particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers;
doing to others as we would not they should do unto us; doing what we
know is not for the glory of God, as the putting on of gold or costly
apparel; the taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the
Lord Jesus; singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not
tend to the knowledge or love of God; softness, or needless
self-indulgence; laying up treasure upon earth; borrowing without a
probability of paying; or taking up goods, without a probability of
paying for them. It is expected of all who continue in these societies,
that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, 2. By
doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power, as they
have opportunity; doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as
possible, to all men; to their bodies, of the ability which God giveth,
by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or
helping them that are sick or in prison; to their souls, by instructing,
reproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling
under foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils,--that we are not to do
good unless our hearts be free to it: by doing good, especially to them
that are of the household of faith, or groaning so to be; employing them
preferably to others; buying one of another; helping each other in
business, and so much the more as the world will love its own, and them
only; by all possible diligence and frugality, that the Gospel be not
blamed; by running with patience the race set before them, denying
themselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the
reproach of Christ; to be as the filth and off-scouring of the world,
and looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely for
the Lord’s sake. It is expected of all who continue in these societies,
that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, 3. By
attending on all the ordinances of God: such are, the public worship of
God; the ministry of the word either read or expounded; the supper of
the Lord; family and private prayer; searching the Scriptures, and
fasting and abstinence. These are the general rules of our societies,
all which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, the
only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice; and
all these we know his Spirit writes on every truly awakened heart. If
there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually breaks any of
them, let it be made known to them who watch over that soul, as they
that must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his
ways; we will bear with him for a season; but then, if he repent not, he
hath no more place among us: we have delivered our own souls.”

The effect produced by the preaching of the two brothers in various
parts of the kingdom, and those frequently the most populous and rude,
rendered it necessary to call out preachers to their assistance, and
especially since the clergy generally remained negligent, and rather
opposed and persecuted, than encouraged, the Wesleys in their endeavours
to effect a national reformation. The association of preachers with
themselves in the work led to an annual meeting of the ministers, then
and since called the conference. The first conference was held in June
1744, at which Mr. Wesley met his brother, two or three other clergymen,
and a few of the preachers, whom he had appointed to come from various
parts, to confer with them on the affairs of the societies. Monday, June
25,” observes Mr. Wesley, and the five following days, we spent in
conference with our preachers, seriously considering by what means we
might the most effectually save our own souls, and them that heard us;
and the result of our consultations we set down to be the rule of our
future practice.” Since that time a conference has been annually held;
Mr. Wesley himself having presided at forty-seven. The subjects of their
deliberations were proposed in the form of questions, which were amply
discussed; and the questions, with the answers agreed upon, were
afterward printed under the title of Minutes of several Conversations
between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others,” commonly called Minutes of
Conference.

As the kingdom had been divided into circuits, to each of which several
preachers were appointed for one or two years, a part of the work of
every conference was to arrange these appointments and changes. In the
early conferences various points of doctrine were discussed with
reference to the agreement of all in a common standard; and when this
was settled, and the doctrinal discussions discontinued, new regulations
continued to be adopted, as the state of the societies, and the
enlarging opportunities of doing good, required. The character of all
those who were engaged in the ministry was also annually examined; and
those who had passed the appointed term of probation, were solemnly
received into the ministry. All the preachers were itinerants, and,
animated by the example of Mr. Wesley, went through great labours, and
endured many privations and persecutions, but with such success that
societies and congregations were in a few years raised up in almost
every part of England, and in a very considerable number of places in
Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. The doctrines held by the Methodists, Mr.
Wesley declared repeatedly in his writings to be those contained in the
Articles of the church of England; for he understood the article on
predestination, as many others have done, in a sense not contrary to the
doctrine of the redemption and the possible salvation of the whole human
race. It will, therefore, be merely necessary to state those views of
certain doctrines which it has been thought the Wesleyan Methodists hold
in a somewhat peculiar way, or on which they have been most liable to
misrepresentation.

They maintain the total fall of man in Adam, and his utter inability to
recover himself, or take one step toward his recovery, without the grace
of God preventing him, that he may have a good will, and working with
him when he has that good will.” They assert that Christ, by the grace
of God, tasted death for every man.” This grace they call free, as
extending itself freely to all. They say that Christ is the Saviour of
all men, especially of them that believe;” and that, consequently, they
are authorized to offer salvation to all, and to preach the Gospel to
every creature.” They hold justification by faith. Justification,” says
Mr. Wesley, “sometimes means our acquittal at the last day, Matt. xii,
37: but this is altogether out of the present question; for that
justification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak, signifies present
forgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently acceptance with God, who
therein declares his righteousness, or justice, and mercy, by or for the
remission of sins that are past, Romans iii, 25, saying, ‘I will be
merciful to thy unrighteousness, and thine iniquities I will remember no
more.’ I believe the condition of this is faith, Rom. iv, 5, &c; I mean,
not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also that as
soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified. Faith,
in general, is a divine supernatural evidence, or conviction, of things
not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past,
future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine
evidence, or conviction, that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself,’ but a full reliance on the merits of his death, a sure
confidence that Christ died for my sins; that he loved me, and gave
himself for me: and the moment a penitent sinner believes this, God
pardons and absolves him.” This faith, Mr. Wesley affirms, “is the gift
of God. No man is able to work it in himself. It is a work of
Omnipotence. It requires no less power thus to quicken a dead soul, than
to raise a body that lies in the grave. It is a new creation; and none
can create a soul anew but He who at first created the heavens and the
earth. It is the free gift of God, which he bestows not on those who are
_worthy_ of his favour, not on such as are _previously holy_, and so
_fit_ to be crowned with all the blessings of his goodness; but on the
ungodly and unholy, on those who till that hour were fit only for
everlasting destruction; those in whom is no good thing, and whose only
plea was, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner!’ No merit, no goodness, in
man, precedes the forgiving love of God. His pardoning mercy supposes
nothing in us but a sense of mere sin and misery; and to all who see and
feel and own their wants, and their utter inability to remove them, God
freely gives faith, for the sake of Him in whom he is always well
pleased. Good works follow this faith, Luke vi, 43, but cannot go before
it; much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of
good works springing from holiness of heart.” As to repentance he
insisted that it is conviction of sin, and that repentance, and works
meet for repentance, go before justifying faith; but he held, with the
church of England, that all works, before justification, had the nature
of sin;” and that, as they had no root in the love of God, which can
only arise from a persuasion of his being reconciled to us, they could
not constitute a moral worthiness preparatory to pardon. That true
repentance springs from the grace of God, is most certain; but, whatever
fruits it may bring forth, it changes not man’s _relation_ to God. He is
a sinner, and is justified _as such_; for it is not a saint, but a
sinner, that is forgiven, and under the notion of a sinner.” God
justifieth the ungodly, not the godly. Repentance, according to his
statement, is necessary to true faith; but faith alone is the direct and
immediate instrument of pardon. They hold also the direct internal
testimony of the Holy Spirit to the believer’s adoption; for an
exposition of which see HOLY SPIRIT.

They maintain also that, by virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ, and the
operations of the Holy Spirit, it is their privilege to arrive at that
maturity in grace, and participation of the divine nature, which
excludes sin from the heart, and fills it with perfect love to God and
man. This they denominate Christian perfection. On this doctrine Mr.
Wesley observes, “Christian perfection does not imply an exemption from
ignorance or mistake, infirmities or temptations; but it implies the
being so crucified with Christ, as to be able to testify, ‘I live not,
but Christ liveth in me,’ Gal. ii, 23, and ‘hath purified their hearts
by faith,’ Acts xv, 9.” Again: To explain myself a little farther on
this head: 1. Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary
transgression of a known law; but sin, improperly so called, that is, an
involuntary transgression of a divine law known or unknown, needs the
atoning blood. 2. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as
excludes these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be
naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from
mortality. 3. Therefore, sinless perfection is a phrase I never use,
lest I should seem to contradict myself. 4. I believe a person filled
with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary
transgressions. 5. Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please;
I do not, for the reasons above mentioned.”

The rules of the Methodist societies have been already given; but, in
order to have a general view of their ecclesiastical economy, it must be
remarked, that a number of these societies united together form what is
called a circuit. A circuit generally includes a large market town, and
the circumjacent villages to the extent of ten or fifteen miles. To one
circuit two or three, and sometimes four, preachers are appointed, one
of whom is styled the superintendent; and this is the sphere of their
labour for at least one year, or not more than three years. Once a
quarter the preachers meet all the classes, and speak personally to each
member. Those who have walked orderly the preceding quarter then receive
a ticket. These tickets are in some respects analogous to the _tesseræ_
of the ancients, and answer all the purposes of the commendatory letters
spoken of by the Apostle. Their chief use is to prevent imposture. After
the visitation of the classes a meeting is held, consisting of all the
preachers, leaders, and stewards in the circuit. At this meeting the
stewards deliver their collections to a circuit steward, and every thing
relating to temporal matters is publicly settled. At this meeting the
candidates for the ministry are proposed, and the stewards, after
officiating a definite period, are changed. A number of circuits, from
five to ten, more or fewer, according to their extent, form a district,
the preachers of which meet annually. Every district has a chairman, who
fixes the time of meeting. These assemblies have authority, 1. To
examine candidates for the ministry, and probationers, and to try and
suspend preachers who are found immoral, erroneous in doctrine, or
deficient in abilities. 2. To decide concerning the building of chapels.
3. To examine the demands from the poorer circuits respecting the
support of the preachers and of their families, from the public funds.
4. To elect a representative to attend and form a committee to sit
previously to the meeting of the conference, in order to prepare a
draught of the stations of all the preachers for the ensuing year. The
judgment of this meeting is conclusive until conference, to which an
appeal is allowed in all cases.

The conference, strictly speaking, consists only of a hundred of the
senior preachers, according to the arrangements prescribed in a deed of
declaration, executed by Mr. Wesley, and enrolled in chancery. But the
preachers elected at the preceding district meetings as representatives,
the superintendents of the circuits, and such preachers as the districts
allow to attend, sit and vote usually as one body. At the conference,
every preacher’s character undergoes the strictest scrutiny; and if any
charge be proved against him, he is dealt with accordingly. The
preachers are also stationed, the proceedings of the subordinate
meetings reviewed, and the state of the connection at large is
considered. The conference is commonly held in London, Leeds, Bristol,
Manchester, Liverpool, and Sheffield, in rotation, at the latter end of
July.

By the minutes of the last conference, 1831, it appears that this
religious body had three hundred and sixty-three circuits in England,
Wales, and Scotland; forty-five in Ireland; and a hundred and fifty-six
mission stations, most of them being also circuits, in Sweden, France,
the Mediterranean, Continental India, Ceylon, the South Seas, Africa,
the West Indies, and British America. The number of members in the
societies were, in Great Britain, two hundred and forty-nine thousand
one hundred and nineteen; in Ireland, twenty-two thousand four hundred
and seventy; in the foreign stations, forty-two thousand seven hundred
and forty-three. Their regular preachers were eight hundred and
forty-six in Great Britain; in Ireland, a hundred and forty-six; in
foreign stations, exclusive of catechists, a hundred and eighty-seven.

[The preceding account, so far as it respects the original history, the
doctrines, and the moral discipline of Wesleyan Methodists, is equally
applicable to those in America and in Europe. The Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, however, which became a distinct and
independent church in the year 1784, differs considerably in its
organization, and in the details of its ecclesiastical economy, from the
British Wesleyan connection. The circuits, into which the whole field of
labour occupied by the itinerant ministry is divided, are in general
much larger, nor is any preacher allowed to remain on them more than two
years successively. Of these circuits, from five or six to fifteen or
more, according to circumstances, constitute a district. Of the
districts, from four or five to six or eight, usually, comprise the
tract of country embraced within the boundaries of an annual conference;
and of annual conferences, the whole of the United States and
Territories, agreeably to the minutes of the last year, (1831,) were
divided into nineteen. From all these annual conferences, delegates, in
a certain prescribed ratio, are sent once in four years to constitute a
general conference, the highest ecclesiastical assemblage among American
Wesleyan Methodists. The minister or preacher first named of those
appointed to each circuit or station, is thereby invested with the
pastoral charge thereof, and is usually denominated the preacher in
charge. Each district is committed to the care of an elder, denominated
the presiding elder, who is appointed annually, and may remain four
years successively on a district, but not longer; and all the districts
comprising the whole extent of the church, are under the general
superintendence of the bishops. These at present, (April, 1832,) are
four in number, and like all others of our stated ministry, are required
to be itinerant. If they cease to travel at large, without the consent
of the general conference, they forfeit the exercise of their episcopal
functions. Their visitations are annual and alternate, on a preconcerted
plan, through the bounds of the entire work. They preside in the annual
and general conferences, station the preachers, with (by established
usage) the counsel of the presiding elders, and are jointly and
severally responsible to the general conference for their administration
and conduct. (See also the articles EPISCOPALIANS,” and IMPOSITION OF
HANDS.”)

For a more minute detail of the ecclesiastical economy, spiritual and
temporal, of American Wesleyan Methodists, (which would lead us too far
for a work of this sort,) reference may be had to the small volume
published at the Conference Office, entitled ‘_The Doctrines and
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church_.’

By the minutes of the annual conferences for the last year, (1831,)
there were in the communion of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States, five hundred and thirteen thousand one hundred and
twenty-four members; of whom four hundred and thirty-seven thousand and
twenty-four were whites, seventy-one thousand five hundred and
eighty-nine coloured, and four thousand five hundred and one Indians.
The number of itinerant ministers was two thousand and ten, of whom one
hundred and thirty four were superannuated, or worn out. In addition to
these, there are also several thousand local ministers and preachers,
many of whom were once itinerant; and who, though not statedly devoted
to the work of the ministerial office, as the itinerant ministers are,
yet, by their valuable services on the Sabbath, or at other times
occasionally in their respective vicinities, constitute an important
auxiliary branch of the system, and contribute much to its compactness
and efficiency.

Beside the above, there are in the United States several smaller
associations of persons bearing the name of Methodists, who hold and
teach, in general, the doctrines of Wesleyan Methodists, but are not in
connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, and differ from it in
various points of ecclesiastical economy and discipline.

The Wesleyan Methodists in Upper Canada, who were formerly in connection
with the church in the United States, have recently, with the consent of
the general conference of the latter body, been constituted a distinct
church, under an episcopal form. Its organization, however, has not yet
been completed by the consecration of a bishop, though we understand
that a reverend individual has been selected, who will probably shortly
be set apart for that holy office. This branch of the American Wesleyan
Methodists, agreeably to their minutes for the year 1831, consisted of
sixty-five itinerant ministers, and twelve thousand five hundred and
sixty-three members; of whom one thousand two hundred and thirty-three
were Indians.]

METHUSELAH, the son of Enoch, and father of Lamech, Gen. v, 21. He was
born A. M. 687, and died A. M. 1656, being the very year of the deluge,
at the age of nine hundred and sixty-nine, the greatest age to which any
mortal man ever attained.

MICAH, the seventh in order of the twelve lesser prophets, is supposed
to have prophesied about B. C. 750. He was commissioned to denounce the
judgments of God against both the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, for
their idolatry and wickedness. The principal predictions contained in
this book are, the invasions of Shalmanezer and Sennecharib; the
destruction of Samaria and of Jerusalem, mixed with consolatory promises
of the deliverance of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, and of the
downfall of the power of their Assyrian and Babylonian oppressors; the
cessation of prophecy in consequence of their continued deceitfulness
and hypocrisy; and a desolation in a then distant period, still greater
than that which was declared to be impending. The birth of the Messiah
at Bethlehem is also expressly foretold; and the Jews are directed to
look to the establishment and extent of his kingdom, as an unfailing
source of comfort amidst general distress. The style of Micah is
nervous, concise, and elegant, often elevated, and poetical, but
sometimes obscure from sudden transitions of subject; and the contrast
of the neglected duties of justice, mercy, humility, and piety, with the
punctilious observance of the ceremonial sacrifices, affords a beautiful
example of the harmony which subsists between the Mosaic and Christian
dispensations, and shows that the law partook of that spiritual nature
which more immediately characterizes the religion of Jesus.

The prophecy of Micah, contained in the fifth chapter, is, perhaps the
most important single prophecy in all the Old Testament, and the most
comprehensive respecting the personal character of the Messiah, and his
successive manifestations to the world. It crowns the whole chain of
predictions respecting the several limitations of the promised seed: to
the line of Shem; to the family of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; to
the tribe of Judah; and to the royal house of David, terminating in his
birth at Bethlehem, the city of David.” It carefully distinguishes his
human nativity from his divine nature and eternal existence; foretels
the casting off of the Israelites and Jews for a season; their ultimate
restoration; and the universal peace which should prevail in the kingdom
and under the government of the Messiah. This prophecy, therefore, forms
the basis of the New Testament revelation which commences with the birth
of the Messiah at Bethlehem, the miraculous circumstances of which are
recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke in the introduction to their
respective histories; the eternal subsistence of Christ as the Word,” in
the sublime introduction to St. John’s Gospel; his prophetic character
and second coming, illustrated in the four Gospels and in the apostolic
epistles.

MICHAEL. See ARCHANGEL.

MIDIAN, LAND OF, a country of the Midianites, derived its name and its
inhabitants from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah. This country
extended from the east of the land of Moab, on the east of the Dead Sea,
southward, along the Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea, stretching some way
into Arabia. It farther passed to the south of the land of Edom, into
the peninsula of Mount Sinai, where Moses met with the daughter of
Jethro, the priest of Midian, whom he married. The Midianites, together
with their neighbours, the Ishmaelites, were early engaged in the trade
between the east and the west, as we find the party to whom Joseph was
sold, carrying spices, the produce of the east, into Egypt; and, taking
Gilead in their way, to add the celebrated and highly prized balm of
that country to their merchandise. It appears that, at the time of the
passage of the Israelites through the country of the Amorites, the
Midianites had been subdued by that people, as the chiefs or kings of
their five principal tribes are called dukes of Sihon, and dwelt in his
country, Joshua xiii, 21. It was at this time that the Midianites,
alarmed at the numbers and the progress of the Israelites, united with
the Moabites in sending into Syria for Balaam, the soothsayer; thinking
to do that by incantation which they despaired of effecting by force.
The result of this measure, the constraint imposed on Balaam to bless
instead of to curse, and the subsequent defeat and slaughter of the
Midianites, forms one of the most interesting narratives in the early
history of the Jews, Num. xxii-xxv, xxxi. About two hundred years after
this, the Midianites, having recovered their numbers and their strength,
were permitted by God to distress the Israelites for the space of seven
years, as a punishment for their relapse into idolatry. But at length
their armies, like grasshoppers for multitude, with camels out of number
as sand by the sea side for multitude,” which had encamped in the valley
of Jezreel, were miraculously defeated by Gideon, Judges vi-viii. The
Midianites appear not to have survived this second discomfiture as a
nation; but their remains became gradually incorporated with the
Moabites and Arabians.

MIGDOL. Moses writes, that when the Israelites came out of Egypt, the
Lord commanded them to encamp over against Pihahiroth, between Migdol
and the sea, over against Baal-Zephon, Exod. xiv, 2. It is not known
whether this Migdol was a city, or only a fortress: probably the latter,
in which a garrison was stationed.

MILE, a measure of length, containing a thousand paces. Eight _stadia_
or furlongs make a mile. The Romans commonly measured by miles, and the
Greeks by furlongs. The furlong was a hundred and twenty-five paces; the
pace was five feet. The ancient Hebrews had neither miles, furlongs, nor
feet, but only the cubit, the reed, and the line. The rabbins make a
mile to consist of two thousand cubits, and four miles make a parasang.

MILETUS, a city on the continent of Asia Minor, and in the province of
Caria, memorable for being the birthplace of Thales, one of the seven
wise men of Greece, of Anaximander and Anaximines, the philosophers, and
of Timotheus, the musician. It was about thirty-six miles south of
Ephesus, and the capital of both Caria and Ionia. The Milesians were
subdued by the Persians, and the country passed successively into the
power of the Greeks and Romans. At present the Turks call it Molas, and
it is not far distant from the true Meander, which encircles all the
plain with many mazes, and innumerable windings. It was to this place
that St. Paul called the elders of the church of Ephesus, to deliver his
last charge to them, Acts xx, 15, &c. There was another Miletus in
Crete, mentioned 2 Tim. iv, 20.

MILL. In the first ages they parched or roasted their grain; a practice
which the people of Israel, as we learn from the Scriptures, long
continued: afterward they pounded it in a mortar, to which Solomon thus
alludes: Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with
a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him,” Prov. xxvii,
22. This was succeeded by mills, similar to the hand mills formerly used
in this country, of which there were two sorts: the first were large,
and turned by the strength of horses or asses; the second were smaller,
and wrought by men, commonly by slaves condemned to this hard labour, as
a punishment for their crimes. Chardin remarks, in his manuscript, that
the persons employed are generally female slaves, who are least
regarded, or are least fitted for any thing else; for the work is
extremely laborious, and esteemed the lowest employment about the house.
Most of their corn is ground by these little mills, although they
sometimes make use of large mills, wrought by oxen or camels. Near
Ispahan, and some of the other great cities of Persia, he saw water
mills; but he did not meet with a single wind mill in the east. Almost
every family grind their wheat and barley at home, having two portable
mill stones for that purpose; of which the uppermost is turned round by
a small handle of wood or iron that is placed in the rim. When this
stone is large, or expedition is required, a second person is called in
to assist; and as it is usual for the women only to be concerned in this
employment, who seat themselves over against each other, with the mill
stone between them, we may see the propriety of the expression in the
declaration of Moses: And all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall
die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne even
unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill,” Exod.
xi, 5. The manner in which the hand mills are worked is well described
by Dr. E. D. Clarke, in his Travels: “Scarcely had we reached the
apartment prepared for our reception, when, looking from the window into
the court yard belonging to the house, we beheld two women grinding at
the mill, in a manner most forcibly illustrating the saying of our
Saviour: ‘Two women shall be grinding at the mill, the one shall be
taken and the other left.’ They were preparing flour to make our bread,
as it is always customary in the country when strangers arrive. The two
women, seated upon the ground opposite to each other, held between them
two round flat stones, such as are seen in Lapland, and such as in
Scotland are called querns. In the centre of the upper stone was a
cavity for pouring in the corn, and by the side of this an upright
wooden handle for moving the stone. As this operation began, one of the
women opposite received it from her companion, who pushed it toward her,
who again sent it to her companion; thus communicating a rotatory motion
to the upper stone, their left hands being all the while employed in
supplying fresh corn, as fast as the bran and flour escaped from the
sides of the machine.” When they are not impelled, as in this instance,
to premature exertions by the arrival of strangers, they grind their
corn in the morning at break of day: the noise of the mill is then to be
heard every where, and is often so great as to rouse the inhabitants of
the cities from their slumbers; for it is well known they bake their
bread every day, and commonly grind their corn as it is wanted. The
noise of the mill stone is therefore, with great propriety, selected by
the prophet as one of the tokens of a populous and thriving country:
Moreover, I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the
sound of mill stones and the light of a candle, and their whole land
shall be a desolation,” Jer. xxv, 10. The morning shall no more be
cheered with the joyful sound of the mill, nor the shadows of evening by
the light of a candle; the morning shall be silent, and the evening dark
and melancholy, where desolation reigns. At the earliest dawn of the
morning,” says Mr. Forbes, in all the Hindoo towns and villages, the
hand mills are at work, when the menials and widows grind meal for the
daily consumption of the family: this work is always performed by women,
who resume their task every morning, especially the forlorn Hindoo
widows, divested of every ornament, and with their heads shaved,
degraded to almost a state of servitude.” How affecting, then, is the
call to the daughter of Babylon!--“Come down, and sit in the dust, O
daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter
of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.
Take the mill stones, and grind meal; uncover thy locks, make bare the
leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers,” Isaiah xlvii, 1, 2.

The custom of daily grinding their corn for the family, shows the
propriety of the law: “No man shall take the nether or the upper mill
stone to pledge, for he taketh a man’s life to pledge;” because if he
take either the upper or the nether mill stone, he deprives him of his
daily provision, which cannot be prepared without them. That complete
and perpetual desolation which, by the just allotment of Heaven, is ere
long to overtake the mystical Babylon, is clearly signified by the same
precept: The sound of the mill stone shall be heard no more at all in
thee,” Rev. xviii, 22. The means of subsistence being entirely
destroyed, no human creature shall ever occupy the ruined habitations
more. In the book of Judges, the sacred historian alludes, with
characteristic accuracy, to several circumstances implied in that
custom, where he describes the fall of Abimelech. A woman of Thebez,
driven to desperation by his furious attack on the tower, started up
from the mill at which she was grinding, seized the upper mill stone,
פלח רכב, and, rushing to the top of the gate, cast it on his head, and
fractured his skull. This was the feat of a woman, for the mill is
worked only by females; it was not a piece of a mill stone, but the
rider, the distinguishing name of the upper mill stone, which literally
rides upon the other, and is a piece or division of the mill: it was a
stone of two feet broad, and therefore fully sufficient, when thrown
from such a height, to produce the effect mentioned in the narrative. It
displays, also, the vindictive contempt which suggested the punishment
of Samson, the captive ruler of Israel, that the Philistines, with
barbarous contumely, compelled him to perform the meanest service of a
female slave; they sent him to grind in the prison, Judges xvi, 21, but
not for himself alone; this, although extremely mortifying to the hero,
had been more tolerable; they made him grinder for the prison, perhaps
while the vilest malefactor was permitted to look on, and join in the
mockery. Samson, the ruler and avenger of Israel, labours, as Isaiah
foretold the virgin daughter of Babylon should labour: Come down, and
sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon: there is no throne,” no
seat for thee, O daughter of the Chaldeans. Take the mill stones and
grind meal,” but not with the wonted song; Sit thou silent, and get thee
into darkness,” there to conceal thy vexation and disgrace, Isaiah
xlvii, 1, 2, 5. The females engaged in this operation, endeavoured to
beguile the lingering hours of toilsome exertion with a song. We learn
from an expression of Aristophanes, preserved by Athenæus, that the
Grecian maidens accompanied the sound of the mill stones with their
voices. This circumstance imparts force to the description of the
prophet, the light of a candle was no more to be seen in the evening;
the sound of the mill stones, the indication of plenty, and the song of
the grinders, the natural expression of joy and happiness, were no more
to be heard at the dawn. The grinding of corn at so early an hour throws
light on a passage of considerable obscurity: And the sons of Rimmon the
Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day
to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon; and they came
thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched
wheat, and they smote him under the fifth rib; and Rechab and Baanah his
brother escaped,” 2 Sam. iv, 5–7. It is still a custom in the east,
according to Dr. Perry, to allow their soldiers a certain quantity of
corn, with other articles of provisions, together with some pay; and as
it was the custom, also, to carry their corn to the mill at break of
day, these two captains very naturally went to the palace the day before
to fetch wheat, in order to distribute it to the soldiers, that it might
be sent to the mill at the accustomed hour in the morning. The princes
of the east in those days, as the history of David shows, lounged in
their divan, or reposed on their couch, till the cool of the evening
began to advance. Rechab and Baanah, therefore, came in the heat of the
day, when they knew that Ishbosheth, their master, would be resting on
his bed; and as it was necessary, for the reason just given, to have the
corn the day before it was needed, their coming at that time, though it
might be a little earlier than usual, created no suspicion, and
attracted no notice.

MILLENARIANS are those who believe, according to an ancient tradition in
the church, grounded on some doubtful texts in the book of Revelation
and other scriptures, that our Saviour shall reign a thousand years with
the faithful upon earth after the first resurrection, before the full
completion of final happiness; and their name, taken from the Latin word
_mille_, a thousand,” has a direct allusion to the duration of this
spiritual empire, which is styled the millennium. A millennium, or a
future paradisaical state of the earth, is viewed by some as a doctrine
not of Christian, but of Jewish, origin. The tradition which fixes the
duration of the world, in its present imperfect state, to six thousand
years, and announces the approach of a Sabbath of one thousand years of
universal peace and plenty, to be ushered in by the glorious advent of
the Messiah, has been traced up to Elias, a rabbinical writer, who
flourished about two centuries before the birth of Christ. It certainly
obtained among the Chaldeans from the earliest times; and it is
countenanced by Barnabas, Irenæus, and other primitive writers, and also
by the Jews at the present day. But though the theory may not be very
improbable, yet, as it has not the sanction of Scripture to support it,
we are not bound to respect it any farther than as a doubtful tradition.
The Jews understood several passages of the prophets, as Zechariah xiv,
16, &c, of the millennium; in which, according to their carnal
apprehensions, the Messiah is to reign on earth, and to bring all
nations within the pale, and under subjection to the ordinances, of the
Jewish church.

Justin Martyr, the most ancient of the fathers, was a great supporter of
the doctrine of the millennium, or that our Saviour shall reign with the
faithful upon earth, after the resurrection, for a thousand years; which
he declares was the belief of all orthodox Christians. But this opinion
is not generally followed; for, though there has been, perhaps, no age
of the church in which this doctrine was not admitted by one or more
divines of the first eminence, it yet appears, from the writings of
Eusebius, Irenæus, and others among the ancients, as well as from the
histories of Dupin, Mosheim, and other moderns, that it was never
adopted by the whole church, nor formed an article of the established
creed in any nation. Origen, the most learned of the fathers, and
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, usually, for his immense erudition,
surnamed the Great, both opposed the doctrine that prevailed on the
subject in their day; and Dr. Whitby, in his learned treatise on the
subject, proves, first, that the millennium was never generally received
in the church of Christ; and, secondly, that there is no just ground to
think it was derived from the Apostles.

On the other hand, Dr. T. Burnet and others maintain that it was very
generally admitted till the Nicene council, in 325, or till the fourth
century. The doctor supposes Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote against
Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, before the middle of the third century, to
have been the first that attacked this doctrine; but Origen had
previously assailed it in many of his fictitious additions. The truth
seems to be, as one well remarks, that a spiritual reign of Christ was
believed by all who carefully examined the Scriptures, though the
popular notions of the millennium were often rejected; and ancient as
well as modern writers assailed the extravagant superstructure, not the
Scriptural foundation of the doctrine.” During the interregnum in
England, in the time of Cromwell, there arose a set of enthusiasts
sometimes called Millenarians, but more frequently Fifth Monarchy Men,
who expected the sudden appearance of Christ, to establish on earth a
new monarchy or kingdom. In consequence of this, some of them aimed at
the subversion of all human government. In ancient history we read of
four great monarchies; the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and the Roman;
and these men, believing that this new spiritual kingdom of Christ was
to be the fifth, obtained the name by which they were called. They
claimed to be the saints of God, and to have the dominion of saints,
Dan. vii, 27; expecting that, when Christ was come into this kingdom, to
begin his reign on earth, they, as his deputies, were to govern all
things under him. They went so far as to give up their own Christian
names, and assume others from Scripture, like the Manicheans of old.

The opinions of the moderns on this subject may be reduced to two: 1.
Some believe that Christ will reign personally on the earth, and that
the prophecies of the millennium point to a resurrection of martyrs and
other just men, to reign with him a thousand years in a visible kingdom.
2. Others are inclined to believe that, by the reign of Christ and the
saints for a thousand years on earth, nothing more is meant than that,
before the general judgment, the Jews shall be converted, genuine
Christianity be diffused through all nations, and mankind enjoy that
peace and happiness which the faith and precepts of the Gospel are
calculated to confer on all by whom they are sincerely embraced.” The
state of the Christian church, say they, will be, for a thousand years
before the general judgment, so pure and so widely extended, that, when
compared with the state of the world in the ages preceding, it may, in
the language of Scripture, be called a resurrection from the dead. In
support of this interpretation, they quote two passages from St. Paul,
in which a conversion from Paganism to Christianity, and a reformation
of life is called a resurrection from the dead,” Rom. vi, 13; Ephesians
v, 14. There is, indeed, an order in the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 24;
but we no where observe mention made of a first and second resurrection
at the distance of a thousand years from each other: yet, were the
millenarian hypothesis well founded, the words should rather have run
thus: Christ, the first-fruits, then the martyrs at his coming, and a
thousand years afterward the residue of mankind,--then cometh the end,”
&c.

Mr. Joseph Mede, Dr. Gill, Bishop Newton, Mr. Winchester, Mr. Eyre, Mr.
Kett, and a host of writers recently, are advocates for the first of
these opinions, and contend for the personal reign of Christ on earth.
When these great events shall come to pass,” says Bishop Newton, “of
which we collect from the prophecies this to be the proper order,--the
Protestant witnesses shall be greatly exalted, and the twelve hundred
and sixty years of their prophesying in sackcloth, and of the tyranny of
the beast, shall end together; the conversion and restoration of the
Jews succeed; then follows the ruin of the Ottoman empire; and then the
total destruction of Rome and of antichrist. When these great events, I
say, shall come to pass, then shall the kingdom of Christ commence, or
the reign of saints upon earth. So Daniel expressly informs us that the
kingdom of Christ and the saints will be raised upon the ruins of the
kingdom of antichrist, Daniel vii, 26, 27. So likewise St. John saith,
that, upon the final destruction of the beast and of the false prophet,
‘Satan is bound,’ &c, Rev. xx, 2–6. It is, I conceive, to these great
events, the fall of antichrist, the reëstablishment of the Jews, and the
beginning of the glorious millennium, that the three different dates in
Daniel, of twelve hundred and sixty years, twelve hundred and ninety
years, and thirteen hundred and thirty-five years, are to be referred.
And, as Daniel saith, ‘Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the
thirteen hundred and thirty-five years,’ Daniel xii, 12: so St. John
saith, ‘Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
resurrection,’ Rev. xx, 6. Blessed and happy, indeed, will be this
period; and it is very observable, that the martyrs and confessors of
Jesus, in papist as well as Pagan times, will be raised to partake of
this felicity. Then shall all those gracious promises in the Old
Testament be fulfilled, of the amplitude and extent of the peace and
prosperity, of the glory and happiness, of the church in the latter
days. Then, in the full sense of the words, ‘shall the kingdoms of this
world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall
reign for ever and ever,’ Rev. xi, 15. According to tradition, these
thousand years of the reign of Christ and the saints will be the seventh
millenary of the world; for, as God created the world in six days, and
rested on the seventh, so the world, it is argued, will continue six
thousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the great sabbatism, or
holy rest of the people of God; ‘one day being with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,’ 2 Pet. iii, 8.
According to tradition, too, these thousand years of the reign of Christ
and the saints are the great day of judgment, in the morning or
beginning whereof shall be the coming of Christ in flaming fire, and the
particular judgment of antichrist, and the first resurrection; and in
the evening or conclusion whereof shall be the general resurrection of
the dead, small and great; ‘and they shall be judged every man according
to his works.’”

Such is the representation of the millennium, as given by those who
embrace the opinion of Christ’s reigning personally on earth during the
period of one thousand years. But Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lowman, &c, contend
against the literal interpretation of the millennium, both as to its
nature and duration. Mr. Faber observes that, “respecting the yet future
and mysterious millennium, the less that is said upon the subject the
better. Unable myself to form the slightest conception of its specific
nature, I shall weary neither my own nor my reader’s patience with
premature remarks upon it. That it will be a season of great
blessedness, is certain; farther than this we know nothing definitely.”
The millenarians do not form a sect distinct from others; but their
distinguishing tenet, in one view or other, prevails, in a greater or
less degree, among most denominations into which the Christian world is
divided.

The following observations from Jones’s Biblical Cyclopædia are worthy
great attention for their sobriety:--Some have supposed that the
passage, Rev. xx, 4, is to be taken literally, as importing that at that
time Jesus Christ will come, in his human nature, from heaven to earth,
and set his kingdom up here, reigning visibly and personally, with
distinguished glory on earth; that the bodies of the martyrs, and of
other eminent Christians will then be raised from the dead, in which
they shall live and reign with Christ here on earth a thousand years.
And some suppose, that all the saints, the true friends to God and
Christ, who have lived before that time, will then be raised from the
dead, and live on earth perfectly holy, during this thousand years. And
this they suppose is meant by the first resurrection. Those who agree in
general in this notion of the millennium differ with respect to many
circumstances, which it is needless to mention here. Others have
understood this paragraph of Scripture in a figurative sense: that by
this reign of Christ on earth, is not meant his coming from heaven to
earth in his human visible nature; but his taking to himself his power,
and utterly overthrowing the kingdom of Satan, and setting up his own
kingdom throughout the world which, before this, had been confined to
very narrow bounds; subduing all hearts to a willing subjection, and
thus reigning generally over the men who shall then be in the world, and
live in that thousand years. And by the souls of them which were
beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands,” living again and
reigning with Christ a thousand years; they suppose, is not meant a
literal resurrection, or the resurrection of their bodies, which is not
asserted here, as there is nothing said of their bodies, or of their
being raised to life; but that they shall live again, and reign with
Christ, in the revival, prosperity, reign, and triumph of that cause and
interest in which they lived, and for the promotion of which they died;
and in whose death the cause seemed to languish and become extinct. Thus
they shall live again in their successors, who shall arise and stand up
with the same spirit, and in the same cause, in which they lived and
died, agreeable to ancient prophecies. The meek shall inherit the
earth.” And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of
the Most High; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all
dominions shall serve him.” And they suppose that this revival of the
cause of Christ, by the numerous inhabitants of the earth rising up to a
new and holy life, is that which is here called the first resurrection,
in distinction from the second, which will consist in the resurrection
of the body; whereas this is a spiritual resurrection; a resurrection of
the cause of Christ, which had been, in a great degree, dead and lost; a
resurrection of the souls of men, by the renovation of the Holy Spirit.
That this important passage of Scripture is to be understood in the
figurative sense, last mentioned, is probable, and the following
considerations are thought sufficient to support it:--

1. Most if not all the prophecies in this book are delivered in
figurative language, referring to types and events recorded in the Old
Testament; and in imitation of the language of the ancient prophets. And
this was proper, and even necessary, in the best manner to answer the
ends of prophecy, as might easily be shown were it necessary. The first
part of this passage, all must allow, is figurative. Satan cannot be
bound with a literal, material chain. The key, the great chain, and the
seal, cannot be understood literally. The whole is a figure, and can
mean no more than, that, when the time of the millennium arrives, or
rather previous to it, Jesus Christ will lay effectual restraints on
Satan, so that his powerful and prevailing influence, by which he had
before deceived and destroyed a great part of mankind, shall be wholly
taken from him for a thousand years. And it is most natural to
understand the other part of the description of this remarkable event to
be represented in the same figurative language, as the whole is a
representation of one scene; especially, since no reason can be given
why it should not be so understood.

2. To suppose that Christ shall come in his human nature to this earth,
and live here in his whole person visible a thousand years before the
day of judgment, appears to be contrary to several passages of
Scripture. The coming of Christ, and his appearing at the day of
judgment in his human nature, is said to be his second appearance,
answering to his first appearance, in his human nature on earth, from
his birth to his ascension into heaven, which was past. And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them who look for
him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation,” Heb.
ix, 27, 28. The appearance here spoken of is the appearance of Christ at
the day of judgment, to complete the salvation of his church. This could
not be his appearing the second time, were he thus to appear, and to be
bodily present in his human nature on earth, in the time of the
millennium, which is to take place before the day of judgment. The
coming of Christ does not always intend his coming visibly in his human
nature; but he is said to come, when he destroyed the temple and nation
of the Jews, and appeared in favour of his church. So his destruction of
Heathen Rome, and delivering his church from that persecuting power, was
an instance of his coming. And he will, in the same way, come to destroy
antichrist, and the kingdom of Satan in the world, and introduce the
millennium; and in these instances, and others, he may be said to
appear. But his coming to judgment, and appearing to complete the final
destruction of all his enemies, and to perfect the salvation of his
church, is his last coming and appearance. But if he were here on earth,
visible in his human nature, and reigning in his glorified body, during
the millennium, he would be already here to attend the last judgment,
and he could not be properly said to come from heaven, and to be
revealed from heaven, because this was done a thousand years before.
Beside, that Christ should come from heaven, and appear and reign in his
human nature and presence before the day of judgment, seems to be
contrary to the following scriptures: For the Lord himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” When the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God,” &c. When he shall
come to be glorified in his saints,” 1 Thess. iv, 16; 2 Thess. i, 7, 8,
10. This is evidently his appearing the second time, for the salvation
of all them that look for him; but were he on earth before this, in the
human nature, during the time of the millennium, how could he be said to
be revealed, to descend and come from heaven to judge the world?

3. There is nothing expressly said of the resurrection of the body in
this passage. The Apostle John saw the souls of them which were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, &c, and they lived and reigned with Christ.
The resurrection of the body is no where expressed in Scripture by the
soul’s living. And as there is nothing said of the body, and he only saw
their souls to live: this does not appear to be a proper expression to
denote the resurrection of the body, and their living in that. As this,
therefore, does not seem to be the natural meaning of the words, and
certainly is not the necessary meaning, we are warranted to look for
another meaning, and to acquiesce in it, if one can be found which is
more easy and natural, and more agreeable to the whole passage and to
the Scripture in general. Therefore,

4. The most easy and probable meaning is, that the souls of the martyrs,
and all the faithful followers of Christ, who have lived in the world,
and have died before the millennium shall commence, shall revive and
live again in their successors, who shall rise up in the same spirit,
and in the same character, in which they lived and died; and in the
revival and flourishing of that cause which they espoused, and spent
their lives in promoting. This is therefore a spiritual resurrection,
denoting that all Christ’s people shall appear in the spirit and power
of those martyrs and holy men, who had before lived in the world, and
who shall live again in these their successors, and in the revival of
their cause, or in the resurrection of the church, from the very low
state in which it had been before the millennium, to a state of great
prosperity and glory. This is agreeable to the way of representing
things in Scripture in other instances. John the Baptist was Elijah,
because he rose in the spirit of Elijah, and promoted the same cause in
which Elijah lived and died; and Elijah revived and lived in John the
Baptist, because he went before Christ, in the spirit and power of
Elijah, Luke i, 17. Therefore Christ says of John, This is Elijah who
was to come,” Matt. xi, 14.

With regard to the nature of the millennial state, or the blessings
which shall be more particularly enjoyed during that period, the
following things seem to be marked out in prophecy:--

1. It is expressly said of those who shall partake of this first
resurrection, that they shall be blessed and holy;” by which the
inspired writer seems to denote that it will be a time of eminent
holiness. This will constitute the peculiar glory and the source of the
happiness of the millennium state, Zech. xiv, 20, 21. And that such will
be the case, we may infer, also, from the consideration, that,

2. There is reason to expect a remarkable effusion of the Spirit, about
the commencement of this happy period, even as there was at the first
setting up of Christ’s kingdom in the world. Beside the promises of the
Spirit which were accomplished in the apostolic age, there are others
which from the connection appear to refer to the time we are now
speaking of. Thus Isaiah, after having described Christ’s kingdom which
was set up at his first coming, and then the succeeding desolate state
of the Jews, represents this as continuing until the Spirit be poured
upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the
fruitful field be counted for a forest,” Isa. xxxii, 15–19. The Apostle
Paul, speaking of the conversion of the Jews at this period, refers to a
passage in Isaiah where a promise of the Spirit is made to them: “As for
me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My Spirit which is
upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” Isa.
lix, 20, 21; Rom. xi, 26, 27. The Lord having mentioned the forlorn
dispersed state of Israel throughout the nations, among whom they had
profaned his name, promises to gather them, cleanse them, and give them
a new heart and spirit, and adds, And I will put my Spirit within you,
and cause you to walk in my statutes; and ye shall keep my judgments and
do them,” Ezek. xxxvi, 27; xxxix, 28, 29. The promise of pouring upon
them the spirit of grace and supplication has also a view to this
period, Zech. xii, 10. Though we are not to expect the miraculous gifts
of the apostolic age, yet the work of the Spirit will abundantly appear
in qualifying men for propagating the Gospel throughout the world,
filling them with light, zeal, courage, and activity, in that work; in
giving success and effect to the Gospel by converting multitudes to the
faith, quickening the dead in trespasses and sins, and translating them
into the kingdom of Christ; and in enlightening, quickening, purifying,
and comforting the children of God, stirring them up to greater
liveliness, love, zeal, activity, and fruitfulness in his service.

3. A universal spread of the Gospel, diffusing the knowledge of the Lord
throughout the world in a more extensive and effectual manner than ever
it was before. This is repeatedly promised: The earth shall be full of
the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;” and this shall
take place in that day when the Gentiles shall seek to the branch of the
root of Jesse, whose rest shall be glorious, and when the Lord shall set
his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, and
shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts
of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from the four
corners of the earth,” Isaiah xi, 9–12. The same promise of the
universal knowledge of the glory of the Lord is repeated in the prophecy
of Habakkuk, ii, 14. This will be attended with corresponding effects:
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and all
the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him,” Psalm xxii, 27;
yea, all kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him,”
Psalm lxxii, 11. And though we may not imagine that all the inhabitants
of the globe will have the true and saving knowledge of the Lord; yet we
may expect such a universal spread of light and religious knowledge as
shall root up Pagan, Mohammedan, and antichristian delusions, and
produce many good effects upon those who are not really regenerated, by
awing their minds, taming their ferocity, improving their morals, and
making them peaceable and humane.

4. The Jews will then be converted to the faith of the Messiah, and
partake with the Gentiles of the blessings of his kingdom. The Apostle
Paul, in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, treats of
this at large, and confirms it from the prophecies of the Old Testament.
He is speaking of Israel in a literal sense, the natural posterity of
Abraham; for he distinguishes them both from the believing Gentiles and
the Jewish converts of his time, and describes them as the rest who were
blinded, had stumbled and fallen, and so had not obtained, but were
broken off and cast away, Rom. xi, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17. Yet he denies that
they have stumbled that they should fall, that is, irrecoverably, so as
in no future period to be restored; but shows that God’s design in
permitting this was, that through their fall salvation might come unto
the Gentiles, and that this again might provoke them to jealousy or
emulation, verse 11. He argues that if their fall and diminishing was
the riches of the Gentiles, and the casting away of them was the
reconciling of the world, their fulness will be much more so, and the
receiving of them be life from the dead, verses 12, 15. He farther
argues, that if the Gentiles were grafted contrary to nature into a good
olive tree, how much more shall these which be the natural branches be
grafted into their own olive tree?” verse 24. Nor did he consider this
event as merely probable, but as absolutely certain; for he shows that
the present blindness and future conversion of that people is the
mystery or hidden sense of prophecies concerning them; and he cites two
of these prophecies where the context foretels both their rejection and
recovery, Isaiah lix, 20, 21; xxvii, 9.

5. The purity of visible church communion, worship, and discipline, will
then be restored according to the primitive apostolic pattern. During
the reign of antichrist a corrupted form of Christianity was drawn over
the nations, and established in the political constitutions of the
kingdoms which were subject to that monstrous power. By this means the
children of God were either mixed in visible religious communion with
the profane world, in direct opposition to the word of God, or
persecuted for their nonconformity. In reference to this state of
things, the angel commands St. John to leave out the court which is
without the temple, and not to measure it, for this reason, because it
is given to the Gentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot
forty and two months,” Rev. xi, 2; that is, they shall pollute and
profane the worship and communion of the church during the one thousand
two hundred and sixty years of antichrist’s reign, so that it cannot be
measured by the rule of God’s word. But when the period we are speaking
of shall arrive, the sanctuary shall be cleansed, Dan. viii, 14; the
visible communion, worship, order, and discipline of the house of God
will then be restored to their primitive purity, and accord with the
rule of the New Testament. So it is promised to Zion, Henceforth there
shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean,” Isaiah
lii, 1. Thy people shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land
for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be
glorified,” Isaiah lx, 21. And in that day there shall be no more the
Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts,” Zech. xiv, 21.

6. The Lord’s special presence and residence will then be in the midst
of his people. Christ hath promised to be with his people in every
period of the church, even unto the end of the world, Matt. xxviii, 20,
and that he will be in the midst even of two or three of them when
gathered together in his name, Matt. xviii, 20. He also calls them to
purity of communion and personal holiness, and promiseth to dwell in
them and walk in them, 2 Cor. vi, 16, 17; but this will be fulfilled in
an eminent and remarkable manner during the millennial period. The Lord,
having promised to raise Israel out of their graves, to gather them from
among the Heathen, and bring them into the church and kingdom of Christ,
as one fold having one shepherd, adds, And I will set my sanctuary in
the midst of them for evermore; my tabernacle also shall be with them;
yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” Ezek. xxxvii,
11–27. This alludes to his dwelling among Israel in the tabernacle and
sanctuary of old, Lev. xxvi, 11, 12; and imports his manifesting himself
unto them, admitting them into the most intimate correspondence and
communion with himself in his ordinances, communicating light, life, and
consolation to them by his Spirit; and also his protection and care of
them as his peculiar people. It is intimated that there will be such
visible tokens of the divine presence and residence among them as will
fall under the notice of the world, and produce conviction and awe, as
was in some measure the case in the first churches, Acts ii, 47; v, 11,
13; 1 Cor. xiv, 24, 25; for it is added, And the Heathen shall know that
I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst
of them for evermore,” Ezek. xxxvii, 28. Indeed, this is that very
promise which is represented to St. John as accomplished: And I heard a
great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with
men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
himself shall be with them, and be their God,” Rev. xxi, 3.

7. This will be a time of universal peace, tranquillity and safety.
Persons naturally of the most savage, ferocious, and cruel disposition,
will then be tame and harmless; so it is promised, Isaiah xi, 6–10.
Whether we consider the persons represented by these hurtful animals to
be converted or not, it is certain they will then be effectually
restrained from doing harm, or persecuting the saints. There shall be no
war nor bloodshed among the nations during this happy period; for we are
told, that, in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted
above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it; the Lord shall
judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall
beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war any more,” Isaiah ii, 4. The same promise is repeated word for
word in the prophecies of Micah, iv, 3. Much to the same purpose is that
promise in Hosea ii, 18. Though war has hitherto deluged the world with
human blood, and been a source of complicated calamities to mankind,
yet, when Satan is bound, his influence upon wicked men restrained, and
the saints bear rule, it must necessarily cease.

8. The civil rulers and judges shall then be all maintainers of peace
and righteousness. Though Christ will put down all that rule, power, and
authority which opposeth the peace and prosperity of his kingdom; yet as
rulers are the ordinance of God, and his ministers for good; as some
form of government seems absolutely necessary to the order and happiness
of society in this world; it is thought that when the kingdoms of this
world are become our Lord’s and his Christ’s, the promise will be
accomplished, I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors
righteousness;” and in consequence of this, violence shall no more be
heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou
shalt call thy walls salvation, and thy gates praise,” Isaiah lx, 17,
18. Peace and righteousness are the two great ends of government: Christ
himself is king of righteousness, and king of peace, and the civil
rulers during that happy period will resemble him in their character and
administration; for then shall that promise be fulfilled: In
righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from
oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for it shall not
come near thee,” Isaiah liv, 14.

9. The saints shall then have the dominion, and the wicked shall be in
subjection. This is clear from the united voice of prophecy: The kingdom
and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven,
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High,” Dan. vii,
27. The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the
kingdom for ever,” Dan. vii, 18. The meek shall inherit the earth,”
Matt. v, 5; shall reign on the earth,” Rev. v, 10; shall reign with
Christ a thousand years,” Rev. xx, 4; they shall be priests of God, and
of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years,” Rev. xx, 6. The
saints are at present made kings and priests unto God, a kingly
priesthood, 1 Peter ii, 9; but then they shall be more eminently so,
when, by the holiness of their lives, the purity of their faith and
worship, and their diligence in promoting pure and undefiled religion,
the earth shall he filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Then shall
that promise be fully accomplished, Ye shall be named the priests of the
Lord; men shall call you the ministers of our God,” Isaiah lxi, 6. With
regard to the nature of their reign, it will undoubtedly correspond in
all respects with the spiritual and heavenly nature of Christ’s kingdom,
to the promotion of which all their power will be subservient. Those who
cannot conceive of any reign upon earth, but such as consists in lordly
and oppressive dominion, maintained by policy and force, and made
subservient to the purposes of pride, ambition, avarice, and other
worldly lusts, can have no idea at all of this reign of the saints with
Christ, which is a reign of peace on earth and good will to men; a reign
of truth and righteousness, of true godliness and universal humanity. In
short, it is the prevalence and triumph of the cause of Christ in this
world over that of Satan and all his instruments. How delightful then
the prospects which open upon the eye of faith in the prophetic vision!
Christianity prevails universally, and the consequences are most
blissful. Our race assumes the appearance of one vast virtuous and
peaceful family. Our world becomes the seat of one grand triumphant
adoring assembly. At length the scene mingles with the heavens, and,
rising in brightness, is blended with the glories on high. The mysteries
of God on earth are finished, the times of the regeneration are
fulfilled. The Son of God descends. The scene closes with divine
grandeur: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as
the voice of many waters, and as the voice of many thunderings, saying,
Alleluia; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. The kingdoms of this
world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ. And I saw a
new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I saw the holy city,
New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven. And I heard a great
voice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

MILLET, דחן, Ezek. iv, 9, a kind of plant so called from its thrusting
forth such a quantity of grains. Thus in Latin it is called _millium_,
as if one stalk bore a thousand seeds. It has been supposed that the
_dochan_ means what is now called in the east _durra_; which, according
to Niebuhr, is a sort of millet, and when made into bad bread with
camel’s milk, oil, butter, or grease, is almost the only food which is
eaten by the common people in Arabia Felix. I found it so disagreeable,”
says he, that I should willingly have preferred plain barley bread to
it.” This illustrates the appointment of it to the Prophet Ezekiel as a
part of his hard fare. _Durra_ is also used in Palestine and Syria, and
it is generally agreed that it yields much more than any other kind of
grain. Hiller and Celsius insist that the _dochan_ is the _panic_; but
Forskal has expressly mentioned the _dokn_, _holcus dochna_, as a kind
of maize, of considerable use in food; and Brown, in his Travels,
describes the mode of cultivating it.

MILLO, a part or suburb of Jerusalem. David built round about from Millo
and inward,” 2 Sam. v, 9; that is, he built round about from the place
where Millo was afterward erected by Solomon, or where more probably the
senate house, or Millo of the Jebusites, had stood, which was pulled
down to make room for the more sumptuous edifice of Solomon, to his own
house; so that David built from Mount Zion, quite round to the opposite
point. Hence, the residence of David, even in the reign of that renowned
monarch, began to assume the size and splendour of a city.

MINISTER, one who attends or waits on another; so we find Elisha was the
minister of Elijah, and did him services of various kinds, 2 Kings iii,
11. So Joshua was the servant of Moses, Exod. xxiv, 13; xxxiii, 11. And
these persons did not by any means feel themselves degraded by their
stations, but in due time they succeeded to the offices of their
masters. In like manner John Mark was minister to Paul and Barnabas,
Acts xiii, 5. Christ is called a minister of the true, that is, the
heavenly, sanctuary. The minister of the synagogue was appointed to keep
the book of the law, to observe that those who read it, read it
correctly, &c, Luke iv, 20. The rabbins say he was the same as the angel
of the church, or overseer. Lightfoot says, Baal Aruch expounds the
_chazan_, or minister of the congregation, by _sheliach hatzibbor_, or
angel of the congregation; and from this common platform and
constitution of the synagogue, we may observe the Apostle’s expression
of some elders ruling and labouring in word and doctrine, others in the
general affairs of the synagogue. Ministers were servants, yet servants
not menial, but honourable; those who explain the word, and conduct the
service of God; those who dispense the laws and promote the welfare of
the community; the holy angels who in obedience to the divine commands
protect, preserve, succour, and benefit the godly, are all ministers,
beneficial ministers, to those who are under their charge, Heb. viii, 2;
Exod. xxx, 10; Lev. xvi, 15; 1 Cor. iv, 1; Romans xiii, 6; Psalm civ, 4.

MINT, Matt. xxiii, 23; Luke xi, 42; a garden herb well known. The law
did not oblige the Jews to give the tithe of this sort of herbs; it only
required it of those things which could be comprehended under the name
of income or revenue. But the Pharisees, desirous of distinguishing
themselves by a more scrupulous and literal observance of the law than
others, gave the tithes of mint, anise, and cummin,” Matt. xxiii, 23.
Christ reproved them because that, while they were so precise in these
lesser matters, they neglected the more essential commandments of the
law, and substituted observances, frivolous and insignificant, in the
place of justice, mercy, and truth.

MIRACLES. A miracle, in the popular sense, is a prodigy, or an
extraordinary event, which surprises us by its novelty. In a more
accurate and philosophic sense, a miracle is an effect which does not
follow from any of the regular laws of nature, or which is inconsistent
with some known law of it, or contrary to the settled constitution and
course of things. Accordingly, all miracles presuppose an established
system of nature, within the limits of which they operate, and with the
order of which they disagree. Of a miracle in the theological sense many
definitions have been given. That of Dr. Samuel Clarke is: A miracle is
a work effected in a manner unusual, or different from the common and
regular method of providence, by the interposition of God himself, or of
some intelligent agent superior to man, for the proof or evidence of
some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some
particular person.” Mr. Hume has insidiously or erroneously maintained
that a miracle is contrary to experience; but in reality it is only
different from experience. Experience informs us that one event has
happened often; testimony informs us that another event has happened
once or more. That diseases should be generally cured by the application
of external causes, and sometimes at the mere word of a prophet, and
without the visible application of causes, are facts not inconsistent
with each other in the nature of things themselves, nor irreconcilable
according to our ideas. Each fact may arise from its own proper cause;
each may exist independently of the other; and each is known by its own
proper proof, whether of sense or testimony. As secret causes often
produce events contrary to those we do expect from experience, it is
equally conceivable that events should sometimes be produced which we do
not expect. To pronounce, therefore, a miracle to be false, because it
is different from experience is only to conclude against its general
existence from the very circumstance which constitutes its particular
nature; for if it were not different from experience, where would be its
singularity? or what particular proof could be drawn from it, if it
happened according to the ordinary train of human events, or was
included in the operation of the general laws of nature? We grant that
it does differ from experience; but we do not presume to make our
experience the standard of the divine conduct. He that acknowledges a
God must, at least, admit the possibility of a miracle. The atheist,
that makes him inseparable from what is called nature, and binds him to
its laws by an insurmountable necessity; that deprives him of will, and
wisdom, and power, as a distinct and independent Being; may deny even
the very possibility of a miraculous interposition, which can in any
instance suspend or counteract those general laws by which the world is
governed. But he who allows of a First Cause in itself perfect and
intelligent, abstractedly from those effects which his wisdom and power
have produced, must at the same time allow that this cause can be under
no such restraints as to be debarred the liberty of controlling its laws
as often as it sees fit. Surely, the Being that made the world can
govern it, or any part of it, in such a manner as he pleases; and he
that constituted the very laws by which it is in general conducted, may
suspend the operation of those laws in any given instance, or impress
new powers on matter, in order to produce new and extraordinary effects.

In judging of miracles there are certain criteria, peculiar to the
subject, sufficient to conduct our inquiries, and warrant our
determination. Assuredly they do not appeal to our ignorance, for they
presuppose not only the existence of a general order of things, but our
actual knowledge of the appearance which that order exhibits, and of the
secondary material causes from which it, in most cases, proceeds. If a
miraculous event were effected by the immediate hand of God, and yet
bore no mark of distinction from the ordinary effects of his agency, it
would impress no conviction, and probably awaken no attention. Our
knowledge of the ordinary course of things, though limited, is real; and
therefore it is essential to a miracle, both that it differ from that
course, and be accompanied with peculiar and unequivocal signs of such
difference. We have been told that the course of nature is fixed and
unalterable, and therefore it is not consistent with the immutability of
God to perform miracles. But, surely, they who reason in this manner beg
the point in question. We have no right to assume that the Deity has
ordained such general laws as will exclude his interposition; and we
cannot suppose that he would forbear to interfere where any important
end could be answered. This interposition, though it controls, in
particular cases, the energy, does not diminish the utility, of those
laws. It leaves them to fulfil their own proper purposes, and effects
only a distinct purpose, for which they were not calculated. If the
course of nature implies the general laws of matter and motion, into
which the most opposite phenomena may be resolved, it is certain that we
do not yet know them in their full extent; and, therefore, that events,
which are related by judicious and disinterested persons, and at the
same time imply no gross contradiction, are possible in themselves, and
capable of a certain degree of proof. If the course of nature implies
the whole order of events which God has ordained for the government of
the world, it includes both his ordinary and extraordinary
dispensations, and among them miracles may have their place, as a part
of the universal plan. It is, indeed, consistent with sound philosophy,
and not inconsistent with pure religion, to acknowledge that they might
be disposed by the supreme Being at the same time with the more ordinary
effects of his power; that their causes and occasions might be arranged
with the same regularity; and that, in reference chiefly to their
concomitant circumstances of persons and times, to the specific ends for
which they were employed, and to our idea of the immediate necessity
there is for a divine agent, miracles would differ from common events,
in which the hand of God acts as efficaciously, though less visibly. On
this consideration of the subject, miracles, instead of contradicting
nature, might form a part of it. But what our limited reason and scanty
experience may comprehend should never be represented as a full and
exact view of the possible or actual varieties which exist in the works
of God.

2. If we be asked whether miracles are credible, we reply, that,
abstractedly considered, they are not incredible; that they are capable
of indirect proof from analogy, and of direct, from testimony; that in
the common and daily course of worldly affairs, events, the
improbability of which, antecedently to all testimony, was very great,
are proved to have happened, by the authority of competent and honest
witnesses; that the Christian miracles were objects of real and proper
experience to those who saw them; and that whatsoever the senses of
mankind can perceive, their report may substantiate. Should it be asked
whether miracles were necessary, and whether the end proposed to be
effected by them could warrant so immediate and extraordinary an
interference of the Almighty, as such extraordinary operations suppose;
to this we might answer, that, if the fact be established, all
reasonings _à priori_ concerning their necessity must be frivolous, and
may be false. We are not capable of deciding on a question which,
however simple in appearance, is yet too complex in its parts, and too
extensive in its object, to be fully comprehended by the human
understanding. Whether God could or could not have effected all the ends
designed to be promoted by the Gospel, without deviating from the common
course of his providence, and interfering with its general laws, is a
speculation that a modest inquirer would carefully avoid; for it carries
on the very face of it a degree of presumption totally unbecoming the
state of a mortal being. Infinitely safer is it for us to acquiesce in
what the Almighty has done, than to embarrass our minds with
speculations about what he might have done. Inquiries of this kind are
generally inconclusive, and always useless. They rest on no solid
principles, are conducted by no fixed rules, and lead to no clear
conviction. They begin from curiosity or vanity, they are prosecuted
amidst ignorance and error, and they frequently terminate in impious
presumption or universal skepticism. God is the best and indeed the only
judge how far miracles are proper to promote any particular design of
his providence, and how far that design would have been left
unaccomplished, if common and ordinary methods only had been pursued.
So, from the absence of miracles, we may conclude, in any supposed case,
that they were not necessary; from their existence, supported by fair
testimony, in any given case, we may infer with confidence that they are
proper. A view of the state of the world in general, and of the Jewish
nation in particular, and an examination of the nature and tendency of
the Christian religion, will point out very clearly the great expediency
of a miraculous interposition; and when we reflect on the gracious and
important ends that were to be effected by it, we shall be convinced
that it was not an idle and useless display of divine power; but that
while the means effected and confirmed the end, the end fully justified
and illustrated the means. If we reflect on the almost irresistible
force of prejudice, and the strong opposition it universally made to the
establishment of a new religion on the demolition of rites and
ceremonies, which authority had made sacred, and custom had
familiarized; if we reflect on the extent and importance, as well as the
singularity, of the Christian plan; what was its avowed purpose to
effect, and what difficulties it was necessarily called to struggle with
before that purpose could be effected; how much it was opposed by the
opinions and the practice of the generality of mankind, by philosophy,
by superstition, by corrupt passions and inveterate habits, by pride and
sensuality, in short, by every engine of human influence, whether formed
by craft, or aided by power;--if we seriously reflect on these things,
and give them their due force, (and experience shows us that we can
scarcely give them too much,) we shall be induced to admit even the
necessity of a miraculous interposition, at a time when common means
must inevitably, in our apprehensions, have failed of success.

The revelation of the divine will by inspired persons is, as such,
miraculous; and therefore, before the adversaries of the Gospel can
employ with propriety their objections to the particular miracles on
which its credibility is based, they should show the impossibility of
any revelation. In whatever age the revelation is given, succeeding ages
can know it only from testimony; and, if they admit, on the report of
their fellow creatures, that God had inspired any being with the
preternatural knowledge of his will, why should they deny that he had
enabled the same being to heal the sick, or to cleanse the leprous? How,
may it be asked, should the divine Teacher give a more direct and
consistent proof of his preternatural commission, than by displaying
those signs and wonders which mark the finger of God? That the Apostles
could not be deceived, and that they had no temptation to deceive, has
been repeatedly demonstrated. So powerful, indeed, is the proof adduced
in support of their testimony, that the infidels of these later days
have been obliged to abandon the ground on which their predecessors
stood; to disclaim all moral evidences arising from the character and
relation of eye-witnesses; and to maintain, upon metaphysical, rather
than historical, principles, that miracles are utterly incapable, in
their own nature, of existing in any circumstances, or of being
supported by any evidence.

Miracles may be classed under two heads: those which consist in a train
or combination of events, which distinguish themselves from the ordinary
arrangements of Providence; and those particular operations which are
performed by instruments and agents incompetent to effect them without a
preternatural power. In the conduct of Providence respecting the Jewish
people, from the earliest periods of their existence, as a distinct
class of society, to the present time, we behold a singularity of
circumstance and procedure which we cannot account for on common
principles. Comparing their condition and situation with that of other
nations, we can meet with nothing similar to it in the history of
mankind. So remarkable a difference, conspicuous in every revolution of
their history, could not have subsisted through mere accident. There
must have been a cause adequate to so extraordinary an effect. Now, what
should this cause be, but an interposition of Providence in a manner
different from the course of its general government? For the phenomenon
cannot be explained by an application of those general causes and
effects that operate in other cases. The original propagation of
Christianity was likewise an event which clearly discovered a miraculous
interposition. The circumstances which attended it were such as cannot
rationally be accounted for on any other postulatum. (See the article
_Christianity_.) It may now be observed, that the institutions of the
law and the Gospel may not only appeal for their confirmation to a train
of events which, taken in a general and combined view, point out an
extraordinary designation, and vindicate their claim to a divine
authority; but also to a number of particular operations which,
considered distinctly, or in a separate and detached light, evidently
display a supernatural power, immediately exerted on the occasion.

Since Christ himself constantly appealed to these works as the evidences
of his divine mission and character, we may briefly examine how far they
justified and confirmed his pretensions. That our Lord laid the greatest
stress on the evidence they afforded; nay, that he considered that
evidence as sufficient to authenticate his claims to the office of the
Messiah with all reasonable and well disposed inquirers, is manifest not
only from his own words, John x, 25, but also from a great variety of
other passages in the evangelists. Thus, when the disciples of John were
sent to Christ, to receive from his own lips the most satisfactory
proofs of his divine mission, he referred them to his miracles. Go,”
said he, and show to John again those things which ye hear and see: the
blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the
deaf hear, and the dead are raised up,” Matt. xi, 4, 5. Again: If I do
not the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, though ye
believe not me, believe the works,” John x, 37. This appeal to miracles
was founded on the following just and obvious grounds:--

First: That they are visible proofs of divine approbation, as well as of
divine power: for it would have been quite inconclusive to rest an
appeal on the testimony of the latter, if it had not at the same time
included an evidence of the former; and it was, indeed a natural
inference, that working of miracles, in defence of a particular cause,
was the seal of Heaven to the truth of that cause. To suppose the
contrary, would be to suppose that God not only permitted his creatures
to be deceived, but that he deviated from the ordinary course of his
providence, purposely with a view to deceive them. The conclusion which
the man whom our Saviour restored to sight drew from this miracle was
exceedingly just, and founded on the common sentiments and impressions
of the human heart. We know,” says he, that God heareth not sinners: but
if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of
one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do
nothing,” John ix, 31–33. If the cause which our Saviour was engaged in
had not been approved of by God, it would not have been honoured with
the seal of miracles: for the divine power can never be supposed to
counteract the divine will. This would be to set his nature at variance
with itself; and, by destroying his simplicity, would destroy his
happiness, and terminate in confusion and misery. Hence we may justly
reject, as incredible, those miracles which have been ascribed to the
interposition of wicked spirits. The possibility of their interference
is a mere hypothesis, depending upon gratuitous assumption, and leading
to very dangerous consequences; and the particular instances in which
credulous superstition, or perverted philosophy, has supposed them to
interfere, are, as facts, destitute of any clear and solid evidence; or,
as effects, often resolvable into natural causes.

Secondly: When our Lord appealed to his miracles, as proofs of his
divine mission, it presupposed that those miracles were of such a nature
as would bear the strictest examination; that they had all those
criteria which could possibly distinguish them from the delusions of
enthusiasm, and the artifices of imposture; else the appeal would have
been fallacious and equivocal. He appealed to them with all the
confidence of an upright mind, totally possessed with a consciousness of
their truth and reality. This appeal was not drawn out into any laboured
argument, nor adorned by any of the embellishments of language. It was
short, simple, and decisive. He neither reasoned nor declaimed on their
nature or their design: he barely pointed to them as plain and
indubitable facts, such as spoke their own meaning, and carried with
them their own authority. The miracles which our Lord performed were too
public to be suspected of imposture; and, being objects of sense, they
were secured against the charge of enthusiasm. An impostor would not
have acted so absurdly as to have risked his credit on the performance
of what, he must have known, it was not in his power to effect; and
though an enthusiast, from the warmth of imagination, might have
flattered himself with a full persuasion of his being able to perform
some miraculous work; yet, when the trial was referred to an object of
sense, the event must soon have exposed the delusion. The impostor would
not have dared to say to the blind, Receive thy sight; to the deaf,
Hear; to the dumb, Speak; to the dead, Arise; to the raging of the sea,
Be still; lest he should injure the credit of his cause, by undertaking
more than he could perform; and though the enthusiast, under the
delusion of his passions, might have confidently commanded disease to
fly, and the powers of nature to be subject to his control; yet their
obedience would not have followed his command.

The miracles of Christ then were such as an impostor would not have
attempted, and such as an enthusiast could not have effected. They had
no disguise; and were in a variety of instances of such a nature as to
preclude the very possibility of collusion. They were performed in the
midst of his bitterest enemies; and were so palpable and certain, as to
extort the following acknowledgment even from persons who were most
eager to oppose his doctrines, and to discredit his pretensions: This
man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe
on him,” John xi, 47, 48. The miracles Christ performed were indeed
sufficient to alarm the fears of those whose downfall was involved in
his success. And it was impossible for them to deny the facts, which so
many thousands were ready to attest on evidence too certain to admit
even the possibility of mistake, delusion, or imposture. But his
enemies, who admitted their reality and yet resisted their design, by
not acknowledging the person who wrought them to be the Messiah, had
recourse to the most impious and most absurd suppositions, in order to
evade their evidence. The Heathen imputed them to some occult power of
magic: and thus applied what has no existence in nature, in order to
account for a phenomenon that existed out of its common course. The
stories of the Jews, who confessed the miracles, but denied what they
were intended to establish, are too ridiculous to be mentioned. We must
not, however, omit to take notice of the wicked and blasphemous cavil of
the Pharisees, and the noble reply which our Lord made to it. They could
not deny the fact, but they imputed it to the agency of an infernal
spirit: This fellow,” said they, doth not cast out devils, but by
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and
said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to
desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not
stand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how
shall then his kingdom stand?” Matt. xii, 24–26. The purity of the
doctrine which was taught by our blessed Lord was totally adverse to the
kingdom of darkness. It tended to overthrow it, by the introduction of
principles far different from those which Satan would inspire, and by
prosecuting objects totally opposite to those which that wicked and
malignant spirit would tempt us to pursue: so that in proportion to the
prevalence of the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of Satan would of
course be diminished. Now, supposing miracles to be in the power of an
infernal spirit, can it be imagined that he would communicate an ability
of performing them to persons who were counteracting his designs? Would
he by them give credit to a cause that tended to bring his own into
disgrace? Thus, as our Saviour appealed to miracles as proofs of his
power; so he appealed to the inherent worth and purity of the doctrines
they were intended to bear witness to, as a proof that the power was of
God. In this manner do the external and internal evidences give and
receive mutual confirmation and mutual lustre.

The truth of the Christian religion does not, however, wholly depend on
the miracles wrought by its divine Founder, though sufficient in
themselves to establish his claims: but, in order to give the evidence
of miracles the strongest force they could possibly acquire, that
evidence was extended still farther; and the same power that our Lord
possessed was communicated to his disciples, and their more immediate
successors. While yet on earth he imparted to them this extraordinary
gift, as the seal of their commission, when he sent them to preach the
Gospel: and after his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven,
they were endowed with powers yet more stupendous. Sensible of the
validity of this kind of evidence, the Apostles of our Lord, with the
same artless simplicity, and the same boldness of conscious integrity,
which distinguished their great Master, constantly insisted upon the
miracles they wrought, as strong and undeniable proofs of the truth of
their doctrines. Thus the miracles of our blessed Lord may be justly
considered as the evidence of his divine mission and character. If we
consider their nature, their greatness, and their number; and if to this
consideration we add that which respects their end and design, we must
acknowledge that no one could have performed them, unless God was with
him. They were too public to be the artifices of imposture; too
substantial and too numerous to afford the slightest suspicion of
undesigned and fortuitous coincidence. In a word, supposing that the
Most High should in any instance so far counteract the common laws of
nature, as to produce a miracle; and should design that miracle as a
monument to future times of the truth of any peculiar doctrine, we
cannot conceive any mode of communicating it more effectual than that
which he has chosen. Stronger proofs could not be afforded, consistently
with the design of the Gospel, which is not to overpower our
understandings by an irresistible and compulsory light, but to afford us
such rational evidence as is sufficient to satisfy moral inquirers, who
are endowed with faculties to perceive the truth; but at the same time
who also have power totally to resist it, and finally to forfeit all its
blessings. These miracles were of a nature too palpable to be mistaken.
They were the objects of sense, and not the precarious speculations of
reason concerning what God might do; or the chimerical suggestions of
fancy concerning what he did. The facts were recorded by those who must
have known whether they were true or false. The persons who recorded
them were under no possible temptations to deceive the world. We can
only account for their conduct on the supposition of their most perfect
conviction and disinterested zeal. That they should assert what they
knew to be false; that they should publish it with so much ardour; that
they should risk every thing dear to humanity, in order to maintain it;
and at last submit to death, in order to attest their persuasion of its
truth in those moments when imposture usually drops its mask, and
enthusiasm loses its confidence; that they should act thus in opposition
to every dictate of common sense, and every principle of common honesty,
every restraint of shame, and every impulse of selfishness, is a
phenomenon not less irreconcilable to the moral state of things than
miracles are to the natural constitution of the world. Falsehood
naturally entangles men in contradiction, and confounds them with
dismay: but the love of truth invigorates the mind; the consciousness of
integrity anticipates the approbation of God; and conscience creates a
fortitude, to which mere unsupported nature is often a stranger.

3. How long miracles were continued in the church, has been a matter of
keen dispute, and has been investigated with as much anxiety as if the
truth of the Gospel depended upon the manner in which it was decided.
Assuming, as we are here warranted to do, that real miraculous power was
conveyed in the way detailed by the inspired writers, it is plain, that
it may have been exercised in different countries, and may have
remained, without any new communication of it, throughout the first, and
a considerable part of the second century. The Apostles, wherever they
went to execute their commission, would avail themselves of the
stupendous gift which had been imparted to them; and it is clear, not
only that they were permitted and enabled to convey it to others, but
that spiritual gifts, including the power of working miracles, were
actually conferred on many of the primitive disciples. Allusions to this
we find in the epistles of St. Paul; such allusions, too, as it is
utterly inconceivable that any man of a sound judgment could have made,
had he not known that he was referring to an obvious fact, about which
there could be no hesitation. Of the time at which several of the
Apostles died, we have no certain knowledge. St. Peter and St. Paul
suffered at Rome about A. D. 66, or 67; and it is fully established,
that the life of John was much longer protracted, he having died a
natural death, A. D. 100, or 101. Supposing that the two former of these
Apostles imparted spiritual gifts till the time of their suffering
martyrdom, the persons to whom they were imparted might, in the course
of nature, have lived through the earlier part of the second century;
and if John did the same till the end of his life, such gifts as were
derived from him might have remained till more than the half of that
century had elapsed. That such was the fact, is asserted by ancient
ecclesiastical writers. Whether, after the generation immediately
succeeding the Apostles had passed away, the power of working miracles
was anew communicated, is a question, the solution of which cannot be
nearly so satisfactory. The probability is, that there was no such
renewal; and this opinion rests upon the ground that natural causes were
now sufficient to accomplish the end for which miracles were originally
designed; and it does not appear to have been any part of the scheme of
the blessed Author of our religion, that, solely for the purpose of
hastening that conversion of the nations which might gradually be
accomplished, miracles should be wrought, when these could be of no use
in establishing after ages in the faith.

MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. By this is meant, that the human nature of Jesus
Christ was formed, not in the ordinary method of generation, but out of
the substance of the Virgin Mary, by the immediate operation of the Holy
Ghost. The evidence upon which this article of the Christian faith rests
is found in Matt. i, 18–23, and in the more particular narration which
St. Luke has given in the first chapter of his Gospel. If we admit this
evidence of the fact, we can discern the emphatical meaning of the
appellation given to our Saviour when he is called the seed of the
woman,” Gen. iii, 15; we can perceive the meaning of a phrase which St.
Luke has introduced into the genealogy of Jesus, Luke iii, 23, and of
which, otherwise, it is not possible to give a good account, ων, ὡς
ενομιζετο, ὑιος Ιωσηφ; [being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph;] and
we can discover a peculiar significancy in an expression of the Apostle
Paul, Gal. iv, 4, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.” The
conception of Jesus is the point from which we date the union between
his divine and human nature; and, this conception being miraculous, the
existence of the person in whom they are united, was not physically
derived from Adam. But, as Dr. Horsley speaks in his sermon on the
incarnation, the union with the uncreated Word is the very principle of
personality and individual existence in the son of Mary. According to
this view of the matter, the miraculous conception gives a completeness
and consistency to the revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Not only is
he the Son of God, but, as the Son of man, he is exalted above his
brethren, while he is made like them. He is preserved from the
contamination adhering to the race whose nature he assumed; and when the
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, was made flesh,
the intercourse which, as man, he had with God, is distinguished, not in
degree only, but in kind, from that which any prophet ever enjoyed, and
it is infinitely more intimate, because it did not consist in
communications occasionally made to him, but arose from the manner in
which his human nature had its existence.

MIRIAM, sister of Moses and Aaron, and daughter of Amram and Jochebed,
was born about A. M. 2424. She might be ten or twelve years old when her
brother Moses was exposed on the banks of the Nile, since Miriam was
watching there, and offered herself to Pharaoh’s daughter to fetch her a
nurse. The princess accepting the offer, Miriam fetched her own mother,
to whom the young Moses was given to nurse, Exod. ii, 4, 5, &c. It is
thought that Miriam married Hur, of the tribe of Judah; but it does not
appear that she had any children by him, Exod. xvii, 10, 11. Miriam had
the gift of prophecy, as she intimates, Num. xii, 2: Hath the Lord
indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” After the
passage of the Red Sea, Miriam led the choirs and dances of the women,
and sung with them the canticle, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath
triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the
sea:” while Moses led the choir of men, Exod. xv, 21. When Zipporah, the
wife of Moses, arrived in the camp of Israel, Miriam and Aaron disputed
with her, speaking against Moses on her account, Num. xii. This conduct
the Lord punished by visiting Miriam with a leprosy. Aaron interceded
with Moses for her recovery, and besought the Lord, who ordered her to
be shut out of the camp seven days. We are acquainted with no subsequent
particulars of the life of Miriam. Her death happened in the first month
of the fortieth year after the exodus, at the encampment of Kadesh in
the wilderness of Zin, Num. xx, 1. The people mourned for her, and she
was there buried.

MIRRORS, usually, but improperly, rendered _looking glasses_. The
eastern mirrors were made of polished metal, and for the most part
convex. So Callimachus describes Venus as taking the shining brass,”
that is, to adjust her hair. If they were thus made in the country of
Elihu, the image made use of by him will appear very lively: Hast thou
with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking
glass?” Job xxxvii, 18. Shaw informs us that “in the Levant, looking
glasses are a part of female dress. The Moorish women in Barbary are so
fond of their ornaments, and particularly of their looking glasses,
which they bang upon their breasts, that they will not lay them aside,
even when, after the drudgery of the day, they are obliged to go two or
three miles with a pitcher or a goat’s skin, to fetch water.” The
Israelitish women used to carry their mirrors with them, even to their
most solemn place of worship. The word _mirror_ should be used in the
passages here referred to. To speak of looking glasses made of steel,”
and glasses molten,” is palpably absurd; whereas the term _mirror_
obviates every difficulty, and expresses the true meaning of the
original.

MISHNA, or MISNA, משנה, signifies _repetition_, and is properly the code
of the Jewish civil law. The Mishna contains the text; and the Gemara,
which is the second part of the Talmud, contains the commentaries: so
that the Gemara is, as it were, a glossary on the Mishna. The Mishna
consists of various traditions of the Jews, and of explanations of
several passages of Scripture. These traditions, serving as an
explication of the written law, and supplementary to it, are said to
have been delivered to Moses during the time of his abode upon the
mount; which he afterward communicated to Aaron, Eleazar, and his
servant Joshua. By these they were transmitted to the seventy elders; by
them to the prophets, who communicated them to the men of the great
sanhedrim, from whom the wise men of Jerusalem and Babylon received
them. According to Dr. Prideaux, they passed from Jeremiah to Baruch,
from him to Ezra, and from Ezra to the men of the great synagogue, the
last of whom was Simon the Just, who delivered them to Antigonus of
Socho. From him they came down in regular succession to Simeon, who took
our Saviour in his arms; to Gamaliel, at whose feet St. Paul was brought
up; and last of all to rabbi Judah the holy, who committed them to
writing in the Mishna. Dr. Prideaux, rejecting this Jewish fiction,
observes, that after the death of Simon the Just, about B. C. 299, arose
the Tannaim or Mishnical doctors, who by their comments and conclusions,
added to the number of those traditions which had been received and
allowed by Ezra and the men of the great synagogue. Hence toward the
middle of the second century after Christ, under the reign of the Roman
Emperor Antoninus Pius, it was found necessary to commit these
traditions to writing. This was requisite, because the traditions had
been so much increased that they could no longer be preserved by the
memory of man; and also because their country had suffered considerably
in the reign of the Emperor Adrian, and many of their schools being
dissolved, and their learned men cut off, the usual method of preserving
their traditions had failed. Lest, therefore, the traditions should be
forgotten and lost, it was resolved that they should be collected and
committed to writing. Rabbi Judah, who was at that time rector of the
school at Tiberias in Galilee, and president of the sanhedrim at that
place, undertook the work. He compiled it in six books, each consisting
of several tracts, which altogether form the number of sixty-three. Dr.
Prideaux computes, that the Mishna was composed about A. D. 150. Dr.
Lightfoot, however, says, that rabbi Judah compiled the Mishna about A.
D. 190, in the latter end of the reign of Commodus; or, as some compute,
A. D. 220. Dr. Lardner is of opinion, that this work could not have been
finished before A. D. 190, or later. Thus the book called the Mishna was
formed; a book which was received by the Jews with great veneration, and
which has been always held in high esteem among them. Their opinion of
it is, that all the particulars which it contains were dictated by God
himself to Moses upon Mount Sinai, as well as the written word itself;
and, consequently, that it must be of the same divine authority, and
ought to be as religiously observed. See CABBALA, GEMARA, JEWS.

MITE. See MONEY.

MITYLENE, the capital of the island of Lesbos, through which St. Paul
passed as he went from Corinth to Jerusalem, Acts xx, 14.

MIZPAH, or MIZPEH, a city of the tribe of Benjamin, situated in a plain,
about eighteen miles west of Jerusalem. Here Samuel dwelt; and here he
called Israel together, to observe a solemn fast for their sins, and to
supplicate God for his assistance against the Philistines; after which
they sallied out on their enemies, already discomfited by the thunders
of heaven, and gave them a total defeat, 1 Sam. vii. Here, also, Saul
was anointed king, 1 Sam. x, 17–25. It appears that between this and the
time of Asa, king of Judah, Mizpah had suffered probably in some of the
intervening wars, as we are told that Asa built it with the stones and
timber of Ramah, 1 Kings xv, 22. There was another Mizpeh in Gilead; on
the spot where Jacob set up the pillar or heap of stones, to commemorate
the covenant there made between him and Laban, Gen. xxxi, 49. (See
_Gilead_.) There was also a third Mizpeh, in the land of Moab, where
David placed his father and mother, while he remained in his retreat at
Adullam, 1 Sam. xxii, 3. It is to be observed, that Mizpeh implies a
beacon or watch tower, a pillar or heap of commemoration; and at all the
places bearing this name, it is probable that a single pillar, or a rude
pile, was erected as the witness and the record of some particular
event. These, subsequently, became altars and places of convocation on
public occasions, religious and civil.

MIZRAIM, or MESRAIM, son of Ham, and father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim,
Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim, Gen. x, 6. Meser or Misor was father
of the Mizraim, the Egyptians; and he himself is commonly called
Mizraim, although there is very strong probability that Mizraim, being
of the plural number, signifies rather the Egyptians themselves, than
the father of that people. Mizraim is also put for the country of Egypt:
thus it has three significations, which are perpetually confounded and
used promiscuously, sometimes denoting the land of Egypt, sometimes him
who first peopled Egypt, and sometimes the inhabitants themselves.
Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and even Egypt itself, are to this day
called Mezer by the Arabians. But the natives call Egypt Chemi, that is,
the land of Cham, or Ham, as it is also sometimes called in Scripture,
Psalm lxxviii, 12; cv, 23; cvi, 22. The Prophet Micah, vii, 15, gives to
Egypt the name of Mezor, or Matzor; and rabbi Kimchi, followed in this
by several learned commentators, explains by Egypt what is said of the
rivers of Mezor, 2 Kings xix, 24; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxvii, 25.

MOAB was the son of Lot, and of his eldest daughter, Gen. xix, 31, &c.
He was born about the same time as Isaac, A. M. 2108, and was father of
the Moabites, whose habitation lay beyond Jordan and the Dead Sea, on
both sides of the river Arnon. Their capital city was situated on that
river, and was called Ar or Areopolis, or Ariol of Moab, or Rabbah Moab,
that is, the capital of Moab, or Kir-haresh, that is, a city with brick
walls. This country was originally possessed by a race of giants called
Emim, Deut. ii, 11, 12. The Moabites conquered them, and afterward the
Amorites took a part from the Moabites, Judges xi, 13. Moses conquered
that part which belonged to the Amorites, and gave it to the tribe of
Reuben. The Moabites were spared by Moses, for God had restricted him,
Deut. ii, 9. But there always was a great antipathy between the Moabites
and the Israelites, which occasioned many wars between them. Balaam
seduced the Hebrews to idolatry and uncleanness, by means of the
daughters of Moab, Num. xxv, 1, 2; and Balak, king of this people,
endeavoured to prevail on Balaam to curse Israel. God ordained that the
Moabites should not enter into the congregation of his people, because
they had the inhumanity to refuse the Israelites a passage through their
country, nor would they supply them with bread and water in their
necessity. Eglon, king of the Moabites, was one of the first that
oppressed Israel after the death of Joshua. Ehud killed Eglon, and
Israel expelled the Moabites, Judges iii, 12, &c. Hanun king of the
Ammonites having insulted David’s ambassadors, David made war against
him, and subdued Moab and Ammon; under which subjection they continued
till the separation of the ten tribes. The Ammonites and the Moabites
continued in subjection to the kings of Israel to the death of Ahab.
Presently after the death of Ahab the Moabites began to revolt, 2 Kings
iii, 4, 5. Mesha, king of Moab, refused the tribute of a hundred
thousand lambs, and as many rams, which till then had been customarily
paid, either yearly, or at the beginning of every reign; which of these
two is not clearly expressed in Scripture. The reign of Ahaziah was too
short to make war with them; but Jehoram, son of Ahab, and brother to
Ahaziah, having ascended the throne, thought of reducing them to
obedience. He invited Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, who, with the king of
Edom, then his vassal, entered Moab, where they were near perishing with
thirst, but were miraculously relieved, 2 Kings iii, 16, &c.

It is not easy to ascertain what were the circumstances of the Moabites
from this time; but Isaiah, at the beginning of the reign of King
Hezekiah, threatens them with a calamity, which was to happen three
years after his prediction, and which probably referred to the war that
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, made with the ten tribes and the other
people beyond Jordan. Amos, i, 13, &c, also foretold great miseries to
them, which, probably, they suffered under Uzziah and Jothan, kings of
Judah, or under Shalmaneser, 2 Chron. xxvi, 7, 8; xxvii, 5; or, lastly,
in the war of Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the destruction of
Jerusalem. This prince carried them captive beyond the Euphrates, as the
prophets had threatened, Jer. ix, 26; xii, 14, 15; xxv, 11, 12; xlviii,
47, &c; xlix, 3, 6, 39; l, 16; and Cyrus sent them home again, as he did
the rest of the captives. After their return from captivity they
multiplied, and fortified themselves, as the Jews did, and other
neighbouring people, still in subjection to the kings of Persia. They
were afterward conquered by Alexander the Great, and were in obedience
to the kings of Syria and Egypt successively, and finally to the Romans.
There is a probability, also, that in the later times of the Jewish
republic they obeyed the Asmonean kings, and afterward Herod the Great.
The principal deities of the Moabites were Chemosh and Baal-peor.

The prophecies concerning Moab are numerous and remarkable. There are,
says Keith, abundant predictions which refer so clearly to its modern
state, that there is scarcely a single feature peculiar to the land of
Moab, as it now exists, which was not marked by the prophets in their
delineation of the low condition to which, from the height of its
wickedness and haughtiness, it was finally to be brought down.

The land of Moab lay to the east and south-east of Judea, and bordered
on the east, north-east, and partly on the south of the Dead Sea. Its
early history is nearly analogous to that of Ammon; and the soil, though
perhaps more diversified, is, in many places where the desert and plains
of salt have not encroached on its borders, of equal fertility. There
are manifest and abundant vestiges of its ancient greatness: the whole
of the plains are covered with the sites of towns, on every eminence or
spot convenient for the construction of one; and as the land is capable
of rich cultivation, there can be no doubt that the country now so
deserted once presented a continued picture of plenty and fertility. The
form of fields is still visible; and there are the remains of Roman
highways, which in some places are completely paved, and on which there
are mile stones of the times of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus,
with the number of the miles legible upon them. Wherever any spot is
cultivated the corn is luxuriant; and the riches of the soil cannot
perhaps be more clearly illustrated than by the fact, that one grain of
Heshbon wheat exceeds in dimensions two of the ordinary sort, and more
than double the number of grains grow on the stalk. The frequency, and
almost, in many instances, the close vicinity of the sites of the
ancient towns, prove that the population of the country was formerly
proportioned to its natural fertility. Such evidence may surely suffice
to prove that the country was well cultivated and peopled at a period so
long posterior to the date of the predictions, that no cause less than
supernatural could have existed at the time when they were delivered,
which could have authorized the assertion with the least probability or
apparent possibility of its truth, that Moab would ever have been
reduced to that state of great and permanent desolation in which it has
continued for so many ages, and which vindicates and ratifies to this
hour the truth of the Scriptural prophecies. The cities of Moab were to
be desolate without any to dwell therein;” no city was to escape: Moab
was to flee away.” And the cities of Moab have all disappeared. Their
place, together with the adjoining part of Idumea, is characterized, in
the map of Volney’s Travels, by the ruins of towns. His information
respecting these ruins was derived from some of the wandering Arabs; and
its accuracy has been fully corroborated by the testimony of different
European travellers of high respectability and undoubted veracity, who
have since visited this devastated region. The whole country abounds
with ruins; and Burckhardt, who encountered many difficulties in so
desolate and dangerous a land, thus records the brief history of a few
of them: The ruins of Eleale, Heshbon, Meon, Medaba, Dibon, Aroer, still
subsist to illustrate the history of the Beni Israel.” And it might with
equal truth have been added, that they still subsist to confirm the
inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, or to prove that the seers of
Israel were the prophets of God; for the desolation of each of these
very cities was a theme of a prediction. Every thing worthy of
observation respecting them has been detailed, not only in Burckhardt’s
Travels in Syria,” but also by Seetzen, and, more recently, by Captains
Irby and Mangles, who, along with Mr. Bankes and Mr. Leigh, visited this
deserted district. The predicted judgment has fallen with such truth
upon these cities, and upon all the cities of the land of Moab far and
near, and they are so utterly broken down,” that even the prying
curiosity of such indefatigable travellers could discover among a
multiplicity of ruins only a few remains so entire as to be worthy of
particular notice. The subjoined description is drawn from their united
testimony: Among the ruins of El Aal (Eleale) are a number of large
cisterns, fragments of buildings, and foundations of houses. At Heshban,
(Heshbon,) are the ruins of a large ancient town, together with the
remains of a temple, and some edifices. A few broken shafts of columns
are still standing; and there are a number of deep wells cut in the
rock. The ruins of Medeba are about two miles in circumference. There
are many remains of the walls of private houses constructed with blocks
of silex, but not a single edifice is standing. The chief object of
interest is an immense tank or cistern of hewn stones, which, as there
is no stream at Medeba,” Burckhardt remarks, might still be of use to
the Bedouins, were the surrounding ground cleared of the rubbish to
allow the water to flow into it; but such an undertaking is far beyond
the views of the wandering Arabs.” There is also the foundation of a
temple built with large stones, and apparently of great antiquity, with
two columns near it. The ruins of Diban, (Dibon,) situated in the midst
of a fine plain, are of considerable extent, but present nothing of
interest. The neighbouring hot wells, and the similarity of the name,
identify the ruins of Myoun with Meon, or Beth Meon of Scripture. Of
this ancient city, as well as of Araayr, (Areor,) nothing is now
remarkable but what is common to them with all the cities of Moab, their
entire desolation. The extent of the ruins of Rabba, (Rabbath Moab,)
formerly the residence of the kings of Moab, sufficiently proves its
ancient importance; though no other object can be particularized among
the ruins, than the remains of a palace or temple, some of the walls of
which are still standing, a gate belonging to another building, and an
insulated altar. There are many remains of private buildings, but none
of them is entire. There being no springs on the spot, the town had two
birkets, the largest of which is cut entirely out of the rocky ground,
together with many cisterns. Mount Nebo was completely barren when
Burckhardt passed over it, and the site of the ancient city had not been
ascertained. Nebo is spoiled.”

While the ruins of all these cities still retain their ancient names,
and are the most conspicuous amidst the wide scene of general
desolation, and while each of them was in like manner particularized in
the visions of the prophet, they yet formed but a small number of the
cities of Moab; and the rest are also, in similar verification of the
prophecies, desolate, without any to dwell therein.” None of the ancient
cities of Moab now remain as tenanted by men. Kerek, which neither bears
any resemblance in name to any of the cities of Moab which are mentioned
as existing in the time of the Israelites, nor possesses any monuments
which denote a very remote antiquity, is the only nominal town in the
whole country, and, in the words of Seetzen, who visited it, in its
present ruined state it can only be called a hamlet; and the houses have
only one floor.” But the most populous and fertile province in Europe,
especially any situated in the interior of a country like Moab, is not
covered so thickly with towns as Moab is plentiful in ruins, deserted
and desolate though now it be. Burckhardt enumerates about fifty ruined
sites within its boundaries, many of them extensive. In general they are
a broken down and undistinguishable mass of ruins; and many of them have
not been closely inspected. But, in some instances, there are the
remains of temples, sepulchral monuments; the ruins of edifices
constructed of very large stones, in one of which buildings some of the
stones are twenty feet in length, and so broad that one constitutes the
thickness of the wall; traces of hanging gardens; entire columns lying
on the ground, three feet in diameter, and fragments of smaller columns;
and many cisterns out of the rock. When the towns of Moab existed in
their prime, and were at ease; when arrogance, and haughtiness, and
pride prevailed among them; the desolation, and total desertion and
abandonment of them all, must have utterly surpassed all human
conception. And that such numerous cities which subsisted for many ages,
some of them being built on eminences, and naturally strong; others on
plains, and surrounded by the richest soil; some situated in valleys by
the side of a plentiful stream; and others where art supplied the
deficiencies of nature, and where immense cisterns were excavated out of
the rock, and which exhibit in their ruins many monuments of ancient
prosperity, and many remains easily convertible into present utility;
should have all fled away, all met the same indiscriminate fate, and be
all desolate, without any to dwell therein,” notwithstanding all these
ancient indications of permanent durability, and their existing
facilities and inducements for becoming the habitations of men, is a
matter of just wonder in the present day. They shall cry of Moab, How is
it broken down!”

The strong contrast between the ancient and the actual state of Moab is
exemplified in the condition of the inhabitants as well as of the land;
and the coincidence between the prediction and the fact is as striking
in the one case as in the other. The days come, saith the Lord, that I
will send unto him (Moab) wanderers that shall cause him to wander, and
shall empty his vessels.” The Bedouin (wandering) Arabs are now the
chief and almost the only inhabitants of a country once studded with
cities. Traversing the country, and fixing their tents for a short time
in one place, and then decamping to another, depasturing every part
successively, and despoiling the whole land of its natural produce, they
are wanderers who have come up against it, and who keep it in a state of
perpetual desolation. They lead a wandering life; and the only
regularity they know or practise, is to act upon a systematic scheme of
spoliation. They prevent any from forming a fixed settlement who are
inclined to attempt it; for although the fruitfulness of the soil would
abundantly repay the labour of settlers, and render migration wholly
unnecessary, even if the population were increased more than tenfold;
yet the Bedouins forcibly deprive them of the means of subsistence,
compel them to search for it elsewhere, and, in the words of the
prediction, literally cause them to wander.” It may be remarked
generally of the Bedouins,” says Burckhardt, in describing their
extortions in this very country, that wherever they are the masters of
the cultivators, the latter are soon reduced to beggary by their
unceasing demands.” “O ye that dwell in Moab, leave the cities and dwell
in the rock, and be like the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of
the hole’s mouth.” In a general description of the condition of the
inhabitants of that extensive desert which now occupies the place of
these ancient flourishing states, Volney in plain but unmeant
illustration of this prediction, remarks, that the wretched peasants
live in perpetual dread of losing the fruit of their labours; and no
sooner have they gathered in their harvest, than they hasten to secrete
it in private places, and retire among the rocks which border on the
Dead Sea.” Toward the opposite extremity of the land of Moab, and at a
little distance from its borders, Seetzen relates, that there are many
families living in caverns;” and he actually designates them the
inhabitants of the rocks.” And at the distance of a few miles from the
ruined site of Heshbon, according to Captains Irby and Mangles, there
are many artificial caves in a large range of perpendicular cliffs, in
some of which are chambers and small sleeping apartments.” While the
cities are desolate, without any to dwell therein, the rocks are
tenanted. But whether flocks lie down in the city without any to make
them afraid, or whether men are to be found dwelling in the rocks, and
are “like the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of the hole’s
mouth,” the wonderful transition, in either case, and the close
accordance, in both, of the fact to the prediction, assuredly mark it in
characters that may be visible to the purblind mind, as the word of that
God before whom the darkness of futurity is as light, and without whom a
sparrow cannot fall unto the ground.

MOLE. This word, in our version of Lev. xi, 30, answers to the word
תנשמת, which Bochart has shown to be the cameleon; but he conjectures,
with great propriety, that חלד, translated weasel,” in the preceding
verse, is the true word for the mole. The present name of the mole in
the east is _khuld_, which is undeniably the same word as the Hebrew
_choled_. The import of the Hebrew word is, to creep into,” and the same
Syriac word implies, to creep underneath,” to creep into by burrowing;
which are well known characteristics of the mole.

MOLOCH, מלך, signifies _king_. Moloch, Molech, Milcom, or Melchom, was a
god of the Ammonites. The word _Moloch_ signifies king,” and _Melchom_
signifies their king.” Moses in several places forbids the Israelites,
under the penalty of death, to dedicate their children to Moloch, by
making them pass through the fire in honour of that god, Lev. xviii, 21;
xx, 2–5. God himself threatens to pour out his wrath against such
offenders. There is great probability that the Hebrews were addicted to
the worship of this deity, even before their coming out of Egypt; since
the Prophet Amos, v, 26, and after him St. Stephen, reproach them with
having carried in the wilderness the tabernacle of their god Moloch,
Acts vii, 43. Solomon built a temple to Moloch upon the Mount of Olives,
1 Kings xi, 7; and Manasseh a long time after imitated his impiety,
making his son pass through the fire in honour of Moloch, 2 Kings xxi,
3–6. It was chiefly in the valley of Tophet and Hinnom, east of
Jerusalem, that this idolatrous worship was paid, Jer. xix, 5, 6, &c.
Some are of opinion that they contented themselves with making their
children leap over a fire sacred to Moloch, by which they consecrated
them to some false deity: and by this lustration purified them; this
being a usual ceremony among the Heathens on other occasions. Some
believe that they made them pass through two fires opposite to each
other, for the same purpose. But the word העביר, to cause to pass
through,” and the phrase to cause to pass through the fire,” are used in
respect to human sacrifices in Deut. xii, 31; xviii, 10; 2 Kings xvi, 3;
xxi, 6; 2 Chron. xxviii, 3; xxxiii, 6. These words are not to be
considered as meaning in these instances literally to pass through, and
that alone. They are rather synonymous with שרף, _to burn_, and זבח, _to
immolate_, with which they are interchanged, as may be seen by an
examination of Jer. vii, 31; xix, 5; Ezek. xvi, 20, 21; Psalm cvi, 38.
In the later periods of the Jewish kingdom, this idol was erected in the
valley south of Jerusalem, namely, in the valley of Hinnom, and in the
part of that valley called _Tophet_, תפת, so named from the _drums_,
תפים תף, which were beaten to prevent the groans and cries of children
sacrificed from being heard, Jer. vii, 31, 32; xix, 6–14; Isaiah xxx,
33; 2 Kings xxiii, 10. The place was so abhorrent to the minds of the
more recent Jews, that they applied the name _ge hinnom_ or _gehenna_ to
the place of torments in a future life. The word _gehenna_ is used in
this way, namely, for the place of punishment beyond the grave, very
frequently in oriental writers, as far as India. There are various
sentiments about the relation that Moloch had to the other Pagan
divinities. Some believe that Moloch was the same as Saturn, to whom it
is well known that human sacrifices were offered; others think it was
the same with Mercury; others, Venus; others, Mars, or Mithra. Calmet
has endeavoured to prove that Moloch signified the sun, or the king of
heaven.

MONEY. Scripture often speaks of gold, silver, brass, of certain sums of
money, of purchases made with money, of current money, of money of a
certain weight; but we do not observe coined or stamped money till a
late period; which makes it probable that the ancient Hebrews took gold
and silver only by weight; that they only considered the purity of the
metal, and not the stamp. The most ancient commerce was conducted by
barter, or exchanging one sort of merchandise for another. One man gave
what he could spare to another, who gave him in return part of his
superabundance. Afterward, the more precious metals were used in
traffic, as a value more generally known and fixed. Lastly, they gave
this metal, by public authority, a certain mark, a certain weight, and a
certain degree of alloy, to fix its value, and to save buyers and
sellers the trouble of weighing and examining the coins. At the siege of
Troy in Homer, no reference is made to gold or silver coined; but the
value of things is estimated by the number of oxen they were worth. For
instance: they bought wine, by exchanging oxen, slaves, skins, iron, &c,
for it. When the Greeks first used money, it was only little pieces of
iron or copper, called _oboli_ or spits, of which a handful was a
drachma, says Plutarch. Herodotus thinks that the Lydians were the first
that stamped money of gold or silver, and introduced it into commerce.
Others say it was Ishon, king of Thessaly, a son of Deucalion. Others
ascribe this honour to Erichthonius; who had been educated by the
daughters of Cecrops, king of Athens: others, again, to Phidon, king of
Argos. Among the Persians it is said Darius, son of Hystaspes, first
coined golden money. Lycurgus banished gold and silver from his
commonwealth of Lacedæmon, and only allowed a rude sort of money, made
of iron. Janus, or rather the kings of Rome, made a kind of gross money
of copper, having on one side the double face of Janus, on the other the
prow of a ship. We find nothing concerning the money of the Egyptians,
Phenicians, Arabians, or Syrians, before Alexander the Great. In China,
to this day, they stamp no money of gold or silver, but only of copper.
Gold and silver pass as merchandise. If gold or silver be offered, they
take it and pay it by weight, as other goods: so that they are obliged
to cut it into pieces with shears for that purpose, and they carry a
steel yard at their girdles to weigh it.

But to return to the Hebrews. Abraham weighed out four hundred shekels
of silver, to purchase Sarah’s tomb, Genesis xxiii, 15, 16; and
Scripture observes that he paid this in current money with the
merchant.” Joseph was sold by his brethren to the Midianites for twenty
pieces (in Hebrew twenty shekels) of silver, Gen. xxxvii, 28. The
brethren of Joseph bring back with them into Egypt the money they found
in their sacks, in the same weight as before, Gen. xliii, 21. The
bracelets that Eliezer gave Rebekah weighed ten shekels, and the ear
rings two shekels, Gen. xxiv, 22. Moses ordered that the weight of five
hundred shekels of myrrh, and two hundred and fifty shekels of cinnamon,
of the weight of the sanctuary, should be taken, to make the perfume
which was to be burnt to the Lord on the golden altar, Exod. xxx, 24. He
acquaints us that the Israelites offered for the works of the tabernacle
seventy-two thousand talents of brass, Exod. xxxviii, 29. We read, in
the books of Samuel, that the weight of Absalom’s hair was two hundred
shekels of the ordinary weight, or of the king’s weight, 2 Sam. xiv, 26.
Isaiah, xlvi, 6, describes the wicked as weighing silver in a balance,
to make an idol of it; and Jeremiah, xxxii, 10, weighs seventeen pieces
of silver in a pair of scales, to pay for a field he had bought. Isaiah
says, Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore
do ye weigh money for that which is not bread?” Amos, viii, 5,
represents the merchants as encouraging one another to make the ephah
small, wherewith to sell, and the shekel great, wherewith to buy, and to
falsify the balances by deceit.

In all these passages three things only are mentioned: 1. The metal,
that is, gold or silver, and never copper, that not being used in
traffic as money. 2. The weight, a talent, a shekel, a gerah or
_obolus_, the weight of the sanctuary, and the king’s weight. 3. The
alloy (standard) of pure or fine gold and silver, and of good quality,
as received by the merchant. The impression of the coinage is not
referred to; but it is said they weighed the silver, or other
commodities, by the shekel and by the talent. This shekel, therefore,
and this talent, were not fixed and determined pieces of money, but
weights applied to things used in commerce. Hence those deceitful
balances of the merchants, who would increase the shekel, that is, would
augment the weight by which they weighed the gold and silver they were
to receive, that they might have a greater quantity than was their due;
hence the weight of the sanctuary, the standard of which was preserved
in the temple to prevent fraud; hence those prohibitions in the law,
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights,” in Hebrew, stones, a
great and a small,” Deut. xxv, 13; hence those scales that the Hebrews
wore at their girdles, Hosea xii, 7, and the Canaanites carried in their
hands, to weigh the gold and silver which they received in payment. It
is true that in the Hebrew we find Jacob bought a field for a hundred
_kesitahs_, Gen. xxxiii, 19; and that the friends of Job, after his
recovery, gave to that model of patience each a _kesitah_, and a golden
pendant for the ears, Job xlii, 11. We also find there _darics_, (in
Hebrew, _darcmonim_ or _adarcmonim_,) and _minæ_, _stateræ_, _oboli_;
but this last kind of money was foreign, and is put for other terms,
which in the Hebrew only signifies the weight of the metal. The
_kesitah_ is not well known to us: some take it for a sheep or a lamb;
others, for a kind of money, having the impression of a lamb or a sheep:
but it was more probably a purse of money. The _darcmonim_ or _darics_
are money of the kings of Persia; and it is agreed that Darius, son of
Hystaspes, first coined golden money. Ezekiel, xlv, 12, tells us that
the _mina_ makes fifty shekels: he reduces this foreign money to the
weight of the Hebrews. The _mina_ might probably be a Persian money
originally, and adopted by the Greeks and by the Hebrews. But under the
dominion of the Persians, the Hebrews were hardly at liberty to coin
money of their own, being in subjection to those princes, and very low
in their own country. They were still less able under the Chaldeans,
during the Babylonish captivity; or afterward under the Grecians, to
whom they were subject till the time of Simon Maccabæus, to whom
Antiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, granted the privilege of coining money
in Judea, 1 Mac. xv, 6. And this is the first Hebrew money, properly so
called, that we know of. There were shekels and demi-shekels, also the
third part of a shekel, and a quarter of a shekel, of silver.

The shekel of silver, or the silverling, Isa. vii, 23, originally
weighed three hundred and twenty barleycorns; but it was afterward
increased to three hundred and eighty-four barleycorns, its value, being
considered equal to four Roman denarii, was two shillings and seven
pence, or, according to Bishop Cumberland, two shillings and four pence
farthing. It is said to have had Aaron’s rod on the one side, and the
pot of manna on the other. The bekah was equal to half a shekel, Exod.
xxxviii, 26. The denarius was one-fourth of a shekel, seven pence three
farthings of our money. The gerah, or meah, Exod. xxx, 13, was the sixth
part of the denarius, or diner, and the twenty-fourth part of the
shekel. The assar, or assarion, Matt. x, 29, was the ninety-sixth part
of a shekel: its value was rather more than a farthing. The farthing,
Matt. v, 26, was in value the thirteenth part of a penny sterling. The
mite was the half of a farthing, or the twenty-sixth part of a penny
sterling. The mina, or maneh, Ezek. xlv, 12, was equal to sixty shekels,
which, taken at two shillings and seven pence, was seven pounds fifteen
shillings. The talent was fifty minas; and its value, therefore, three
hundred and eighty-seven pounds ten shillings. The gold coins were as
follows: a shekel of gold was about fourteen and a half times the value
of silver, that is, one pound seventeen shillings and five pence
halfpenny. A talent of gold consisted of three thousand shekels. The
drachma was equal to a Roman denarius, or seven pence three farthings of
our money. The didrachma, or tribute money, Matt. xvii, 24, was equal to
fifteen pence halfpenny. It is said to have been stamped with a harp on
one side, and a vine on the other. The stater, or piece of money which
Peter found in the fish’s mouth, Matt. xvii, 27, was two half shekels. A
daric, dram, 1 Chron. xxix, 7; Ezra viii, 27, was a gold coin struck by
Darius the Mede. According to Parkhurst its value was one pound five
shillings. A gold penny is stated by Lightfoot to have been equal to
twenty-five silver pence.

Hug derives a satisfactory argument for the veracity of the Gospels from
the different kinds of money mentioned in them:--The admixture of
foreign manners and constitutions proceeded through numberless
circumstances of life. Take, for example, the circulation of coin; at
one time it is Greek coin; at another, Roman; at another time ancient
Jewish. But how accurately is even this stated according to history, and
the arrangement of things! The ancient imposts which were introduced
before the Roman dominion were valued according to the Greek coinage;
for example, the taxes of the temple, the διδραχμον, Matt. xvii, 24. The
offerings were paid in these, Mark xii, 42; Luke xxi, 2. A payment which
proceeded from the temple treasury was made according to the ancient
national payment by weight, Matt. xxvi, 15; but in common business,
trade, wages, sale, &c, the assis and denarius and Roman coin were
usual, Matt. x, 29; xx, 3; Luke xii, 6; Mark xiv, 5; John xii, 5; vi, 7.
The more modern state taxes are likewise paid in the coin of the nation
which exercises at the time the greatest authority, Matthew xxii, 19;
Mark xii, 15; Luke xx, 24. Writers, who, in each little circumstance,
which otherwise would pass by unnoticed, so accurately describe the
period of time, must certainly have had a personal knowledge of it.

MONEY-CHANGERS, in the Gospels, were persons who exchanged native for
foreign coin, to enable those who came to Jerusalem from distant
countries to purchase the necessary sacrifices. In our Lord’s time they
had established themselves in the court of the temple; a profanation
which had probably grown up with the influence of Roman manners, which
allowed the _argentarii_ [money-dealers] to establish their usurious
_mensas_, tables, by the statues of the gods, even at the feet of Janus,
in the most holy places, _in porticibus Basilicarum_, or in the temples,
_pone ædem Castoris_. The following extract from Buckingham’s Travels
among the Arabs, is illustrative:--“The mosque at the time of our
passing through it was full of people, though these were not
worshippers, nor was it at either of the usual hours of public prayers.
Some of the parties were assembled to smoke, others to play at chess,
and some apparently to drive bargains of trade, but certainly none to
pray. It was, indeed, a living picture of what we might believe the
temple at Jerusalem to have been, when those who sold oxen, and sheep,
and doves, and the changers of money sitting there, were driven out by
Jesus, with a scourge of cords, and their tables overturned. It was, in
short, a place of public resort and thoroughfare, a house of
merchandise, as the temple of the Jews had become in the days of the
Messiah.”

MONK anciently denoted a person who retired from the world to give
himself up wholly to God, and to live in solitude and abstinence. The
word is derived from the Latin _monachus_, and that from the Greek
μοναχὸς, _solitary_. The original of monks seems to have been this: The
persecutions which attended the first ages of the Gospel forced some
Christians to retire from the world, and live in deserts and places more
private and unfrequented, in hopes of finding that peace and comfort
among beasts which were denied them among men; and this being the case
of some very extraordinary persons, their example gave such reputation
to retirement, that the practice was continued when the reason of its
commencement ceased. After the empire became Christian, instances of
this kind were numerous; and those whose security had obliged them to
live separately and apart became afterward united into societies. We may
also add, that the mystic theology, which gained ground toward the close
of the third century, contributed to produce the same effect, and to
drive men into solitude, for the purposes of devotion. The monks, at
least the ancient ones, were distinguished into _solitaries_,
_cœnobites_, and _sarabaites_. The first were those who lived in
places remote from all towns and habitations of men, as do still some of
the hermits. The _cœnobites_ were those who lived in community with
several others in the same house, and under the same superiors. The
_sarabaites_ were strolling monks, having no fixed rule of residence.
Those who are now called monks are _cœnobites_, who live together in
a convent or monastery, who make vows of living according to a certain
rule established by the founder, and wear a habit which distinguishes
their order. Those that are endowed, or have a fixed revenue, are most
properly called monks, _monachi_; as the Chartereux, Benedictines,
Bernardines, &c. The Mendicants, or those that beg, as the Capuchins and
Franciscans, are more properly called religious, and friars, though the
names are frequently confounded.

The first monks were those of St. Anthony, who, toward the close of the
fourth century, formed them into a regular body, engaged them to live in
society with each other, and prescribed to them fixed rules for the
direction of their conduct. These regulations, which Anthony had made in
Egypt, were soon introduced into Palestine and Syria by his disciple
Hilarion. Almost about the same time, Aones, or Eugenius, with their
companions, Gaddanus and Azyzas, instituted the monastic order in
Mesopotomia, and the adjacent countries; and their example was followed
with such rapid success, that in a short time the whole east was filled
with a lazy set of mortals, who, abandoning all human connections,
advantages, pleasures, and concerns, wore out a languishing and
miserable existence amidst hardships of want, and various kinds of
suffering, in order to arrive at a more close and rapturous
communication with God and angels. From the east this gloomy institution
passed into the west, and first into Italy and its neighbouring islands,
though it is uncertain who transplanted it thither. St. Martin, the
celebrated bishop of Tours, erected the first monasteries in Gaul, and
recommended this religious solitude with such power and efficacy, both
by his instruction and example, that his funeral is said to have been
attended by no less than two thousand monks. From hence the monastic
discipline extended its progress gradually through the other provinces
and countries of Europe. There were beside, the monks of St. Basil,
called in the east _calogeri_, from καλος γερων, _a good old man_, and
those of St. Jerom, the hermits of St. Augustine, and afterward those of
St. Benedict and St. Bernard: at length came those of St. Francis and
St. Dominic, with a legion of others.

Toward the close of the fifth century, the monks who had formerly lived
only for themselves in solitary retreats, and had never thought of
assuming any rank among the sacerdotal order, were gradually
distinguished from the populace, and endowed with such opulence and
honourable privileges that they found themselves in a condition to claim
an eminent station among the pillars and supporters of the Christian
community. The fame of their piety and sanctity was so great, that
bishops and presbyters were often chosen out of their order; and the
passion of erecting edifices and convents, in which the monks and holy
virgins might serve God in the most commodious manner, was at this time
carried beyond all bounds. However, their licentiousness, even in this
century, was become a proverb; and they are said to have excited the
most dreadful tumults and seditions in various places. The monastic
orders were at first under the immediate jurisdiction of the bishops,
from which they were exempted by the Roman pontiff about the end of the
seventh century; and the monks in return devoted themselves wholly to
advance the interest and to maintain the dignity of the bishop of Rome.
This immunity which they obtained was a fruitful source of
licentiousness and disorder, and occasioned the greatest part of the
vices with which they were afterward so justly charged.

In the eighth century the monastic discipline was extremely relaxed,
both in the eastern and western provinces, and all efforts to restore it
were ineffectual. Nevertheless, this kind of institution was in the
highest esteem; and nothing could equal the veneration that was paid
about the close of the ninth century to such as devoted themselves to
the sacred gloom and indolence of a convent. This veneration caused
several kings and emperors to call them to their courts, and to employ
them in civil affairs of the greatest moment. Their reformation was
attempted by Louis the meek, but the effect was of short duration. In
the eleventh century, they were exempted by the popes from the authority
of their sovereigns, and new orders of monks were continually
established, insomuch that in the council of Lateran, that was held A.
D. 1215, a decree was passed, by the advice of Innocent III., to prevent
any new monastic institutions; and several were entirely suppressed. In
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it appears, from the testimony of
the best writers, that the monks were generally lazy, illiterate,
profligate, and licentious epicures, whose views in life were confined
to opulence, idleness, and pleasure. However, the reformation had a
manifest influence in restraining their excesses, and rendering them
more circumspect and cautious in their external conduct.

Monks are distinguished by the colour of their habits, into black,
white, gray, &c. Among the monks, some are called monks of the choir,
others, professed monks, and others, lay monks; which last are destined
for the service of the convent, and have neither clericate nor
literature. Cloistered monks are those who actually reside in the house,
in opposition to extra monks, who have benefices depending on the
monastery. Monks are also distinguished into reformed, whom the civil
and ecclesiastical authority have made masters of ancient convents, and
empowered to retrieve the ancient discipline, which had been relaxed;
and ancient, who remain in the convent, to live in it according to its
establishment at the time when they made their vows, without obliging
themselves to any new reform. Anciently the monks were all laymen, and
were only distinguished from the rest of the people by a peculiar habit
and an extraordinary piety or devotion. Not only the monks were
prohibited the priesthood, but even priests were expressly prohibited
from becoming monks, as appears from the letters of St. Gregory. Pope
Syricius was the first who called them to the clericate, on account of
some great scarcity of priests that the church was supposed to labour
under; and since that time the priesthood has been usually united to the
monastical profession.

MONOPHYSITES. See HYPOSTATIC UNION.

MONOTHELITES, a denomination in the seventh century. See HYPOSTATIC
UNION.

MONTHS, ירחים, sometimes also called חדשים, _new moons_, from the
circumstance of their commencing with the new moon, anciently had no
separate names, with the exception of the first, which was called
_Abib_, that is, the month of the young ears of corn,” Exod. xiii, 4;
xxiii, 15; xxxiv, 18; Deut. xvi, 1. During the captivity, the Hebrews
adopted the Babylonian names for their months; which were as follows,
and they were reckoned thus:--

     1. ניסן, _Nisan_, from the new of April, Neh. ii, 1.
     moon

     2. זיו, _Zif_ or _Ziv_, also   of May, 1 Kings vi, 1.
     called אייר,

     3. סִיוָן, _Sivan_,              of June, Esther viii, 9.

     4. תמוז, _Tammuz_,             of July.

     5. אב, _Ab_,                   of August.

     6. אלול, _Elul_,               of September, Neh. vi, 15.

     7. תשרי, _Tishri_, also ירח    of October, 1 Kings viii, 2.
     האתנים,

     8. בול, _Bul_, also מרחשון,    of November, 1 Kings vi, 38.

     9. כסלו, _Kislev_,             of December, Neh. i, 1.

     10. טבת, _Tebeth_,             of January, Esther ii, 16.

     11. שבט, _Shebat_,             of February, Zech. i, 7.

     12. אדר, _Adar_,               of March, Esther iii, 7.

        The first month here mentioned, _Nisan_, was originally
     called _Abib_. The intercalary month is denominated in Hebrew
                                 אדר.

MOON. Particular sacrifices were enjoined by Moses at every new moon,
which day was also celebrated as a feast. It is promised in Psalm cxxi,
6, The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.” The
effect of a _coup de soleil_, or stroke of the sun, is well known; and
in some climates the beams of the moon are reputed hurtful. Anderson, in
his Description of the East,” says, One must here (in Batavia) take
great care not to sleep in the beams of the moon uncovered. I have seen
many people whose neck has become crooked, so that they look more to the
side than forward. I will not decide whether it is to be ascribed to the
moon, as people imagine here.” In some of the southern parts of Europe
the same opinions are entertained of the pernicious influence of the
moon beams. An English gentleman walking in the evening in the garden of
a Portuguese nobleman at Lisbon, was most seriously admonished by the
owner to put on his hat, to protect him from the moon beams. The
fishermen in Sicily are said to cover, during the night, the fish which
they expose to dry on the sea shore, alleging that the beams of the moon
cause them to putrefy.

MORAL OBLIGATION. Different opinions have been held as to the ground of
moral obligation. Grotius, Balguy, and Dr. Samuel Clarke, place it in
the eternal and necessary fitness of things. To this there are two
objections. The first is, that it leaves the distinction between virtue
and vice, in a great measure, arbitrary and indefinite, dependent upon
our perception of fitness and unfitness, which, in different individuals
will greatly differ. The second is, that when a fitness or unfitness is
proved, it is no more than the discovery of a natural essential
difference or congruity, which alone cannot constitute a moral
obligation to choose what is fit, and to reject what is unfit. When we
have proved a fitness in a certain course of action, we have not proved
that it is obligatory. A second step is necessary before we can reach
this conclusion. Cudworth, Butler, Price, and others, maintain, that
virtue carries its own obligation in itself; that the understanding at
once perceives a certain action to be right, and therefore it ought to
be performed. Several objections lie to this notion: 1. It supposes the
understandings of men to determine precisely in the same manner
concerning all virtuous and vicious actions; which is contrary to fact.
2. It supposes a previous rule, by which the action is determined to be
right; but if the revealed will of God is not to be taken into
consideration, what common rule exists among men? There is evidently no
such rule, and therefore no means of certainly determining what is
right. 3. If a common standard were known among men, and if the
understandings of men determined in the same manner as to the
conformity, or otherwise, of an action to that standard; what renders it
a matter of obligation that any one should perform it? The rule must be
proved to be binding, or no ground of obligation is established.

An action is obligatory, say others, because it is agreeable to the
moral sense. This is the theory of Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. Hutcheson.
By moral sense appears to be meant an instinctive approbation of right,
and abhorrence of wrong, prior to all reflection on their nature, or
their consequences. If any thing else were understood by it, then the
moral sense must be the same with conscience, which we know to vary with
the judgment, and cannot therefore be the basis of moral obligation. If
conscience be not meant, then the moral sense must be considered as
instinctive: a notion, certainly, which is disproved by the whole moral
history of man. It may, indeed, be conceded, that such is the
constitution of the human soul, that when those distinctions between
actions, which have been taught by religious tradition or direct
revelation, are known in their nature, relations, and consequences, the
calm and sober judgments of men will approve of them; and that
especially when they are considered abstractedly, that is, as not
affecting and controlling their own interests and passions immediately,
virtue may command complacency, and vice provoke abhorrence: but that,
independent of reflection on their nature or their consequences, there
is an instinctive principle in man which abhors evil, and loves good, is
contradicted by that variety of opinion and feeling on the vices and
virtues, which obtains among all uninstructed nations. We applaud the
forgiveness of an injury as magnanimous; a savage despises it as mean.
We think it a duty to support and cherish aged parents; many nations, on
the contrary, abandon them as useless, and throw them to the beasts of
the field. Innumerable instances of this contrariety might be adduced,
which are all contrary to the notion of instinctive sentiment. Instincts
operate uniformly, but this assumed moral sense does not. Beside, if it
be mere matter of feeling, independent of judgment, to love virtue, and
abhor vice, the morality of the exercise of this principle is
questionable; for it would be difficult to show, that there is any more
morality, properly speaking, in the affections and disgusts of instinct
than in those of the palate. If judgment, the knowledge and comparison
of things, be included, then this principle supposes a uniform and
universal individual revelation as to the nature of things to every man,
or an intuitive faculty of determining their moral quality; both of
which are too absurd to be maintained.

The only satisfactory conclusion on this subject, is that which refers
moral obligation to the will of God. Obligation,” says Warburton,
necessarily implies an obliger, and the obliger must be different from,
and not one and the same with, the obliged. Moral obligation, that is,
the obligation of a free agent, farther implies a law, which enjoins and
forbids; but a law is the imposition of an intelligent superior, who
hath power to exact conformity thereto.” This lawgiver is God; and
whatever may be the reasons which have led him to enjoin this, and to
prohibit that, it is plain that the obligation to obey lies not merely
in the fitness and propriety of a creature obeying an infinitely wise
and good Creator, (though such a fitness exists,) but in that obedience
being enjoined. For, since the question respects the duty of a created
being with reference to his Creator, nothing can be more conclusive than
that the Creator has an absolute right to the obedience of his
creatures; and that the creature is in duty obliged to obey him from
whom it not only has received being, but by whom that being is
constantly sustained. It has, indeed, been said, that even if it be
admitted, that I am obliged to obey the will of God, the question is
still open, Why am I obliged to obey his will?” and that this brings us
round to the former answer; because he can only will what is upon the
whole best for his creatures. But this is confounding that which may be,
and doubtless is, a rule to God in the commands which he issues, with
that which really obliges the creature. Now, that which in truth obliges
the creature is not the nature of the commands issued by God; but the
relation in which the creature itself stands to God. If a creature can
have no existence, nor any power or faculty independently of God, it can
have no right to employ its faculties independently of him; and if it
have no right to employ its faculties in an independent manner, the
right to rule its conduct must rest with the Creater alone; and from
this results the obligation of absolute and universal obedience.

MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. The name of Moravians, or Moravian
Brethren, was in England given to the members of a foreign Protestant
church, calling itself the _Unitas Fratrum_, or United Brethren. This
church formerly consisted of three branches, the Bohemian, Moravian, and
Polish. After its renovation in the year 1722, some of its members came
to England in 1728, who being of the Moravian branch, became known by
that appellation; and all those who joined them, and adopted their
doctrines and discipline, have ever since been called Moravians.
Strictly speaking, however, that name is not applicable to them, nor
generally admitted, either by themselves, or in any public documents, in
which they are called by their proper names, the _Unitas Fratrum_, or
United Brethren.

The few remaining members of the ancient church of the United Brethren
in Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland, being much persecuted by the popish
clergy, many of them left all their possessions, and fled with their
families into Silesia and Saxony. In Saxony they found protection from a
Saxon nobleman, Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorff, who gave them some
waste land on one of his estates, on which, in 1722, they built a
village at the foot of a hill, called the Hut-Berg, or Watch-Hill. This
occasioned them to call their settlement _Herrnhut_, the watch of the
Lord.” Hence their enemies designated them in derision by the name of
Herrnhuters, which is altogether improper, but by it they are known in
some countries abroad. By their own account, the community derive their
origin from the ancient Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, who existed as a
distinct people ever since the year 1457, when, separating from those
who took up arms in defence of their protestations against popish
errors, they formed a plan for church fellowship and discipline,
agreeable to their insight into the Scriptures, and called themselves at
first, _Fratres Legis Christi_, or Brethren after the Law of Christ; and
afterward, on being joined by others of the same persuasion in other
places, _Unitas Fratrum_, or _Fratres Unitatis_. By degrees, they
established congregations in various places, and spread themselves into
Moravia and other neighbouring states. Being anxious to preserve among
themselves regular episcopal ordination, and, at a synod held at Lhota
in 1467, taking into consideration the scarcity of ministers regularly
ordained among them, they chose three of their priests ordained by
Calixtine bishops, and sent them to Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses,
then residing in Austria, by whom they were consecrated bishops;
co-bishops and conseniores being appointed from the rest of their
presbyters. In 1468 a great persecution arose against them, and many
were put to death. In 1481 they were banished from Moravia, when many of
them fled as far as Mount Caucasus, and established themselves there,
till driven away by subsequent troubles.

In the mean time, disputes respecting points of doctrine, the enmity of
the papists, and other causes, raised continual disturbances and great
persecutions at various periods, till the Reformation by Luther, when
they opened a correspondence with that eminent reformer and his
associates, and entered into several negotiations, both with him and
Calvin, concerning the extension of the Protestant cause. But their
strict adherence to the discipline of their own church, founded, in
their view, on that of the primitive churches, and the acknowledged
impossibility of its application among the mixed multitude, of which the
Lutheran and Calvinist churches consisted, occasioned a cessation of
coöperation, and, in the sequel, the Brethren were again left to the
mercy of their persecutors, by whom their churches were destroyed, and
their ministers banished, till the year 1575, when they obtained an
edict from the emperor of Germany, for the public exercise of their
religion. This toleration was renewed in 1609, and liberty granted them
to erect new churches. But a civil war, which broke out in Bohemia in
1612, and a violent persecution which followed it in 1621, again
occasioned the dispersion of their ministers, and brought great distress
upon the Brethren in general. Some fled into England, others to Saxony
and Brandenburg; while many, overcome by the severity of the
persecution, conformed to the rites of the church of Rome.

About the year 1640, by incessant persecution, and the most oppressive
measures, this ancient church was brought to so low an ebb, that it
appeared nearly extinct. The persecutions which took place at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, were the occasion that many of the
scattered descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren at length
resolved to quit their native land, and seek liberty of conscience in
foreign countries. Some emigrated into Silesia, and others into Upper
Lusatia, a province of Saxony, adjoining to Bohemia. The latter, as
before observed, found a protector in Nicholas Count Zinzendorff, a
pious, zealous man, and a Lutheran by education. He hoped that the
religious state of the Lutherans in his neighbourhood would be greatly
improved by the conversation and example of these devout emigrants; and
he therefore sought to prevail upon the latter to join the Lutheran
church altogether. To this the Brethren objected, being unwilling to
give up their ancient discipline, and would rather proceed to seek an
asylum in another place; when the count, struck with their steadfast
adherence to the tenets of their forefathers, began more maturely to
examine their pretensions; and being convinced of the justness of them,
he procured for the Brethren the renovation of their ancient
constitution, and ever after proved a most zealous promoter of their
cause. He is, therefore, very justly esteemed by them as the chief
instrument, in the hand of God, in restoring the sinking church, and, in
general, gratefully remembered for his disinterested and indefatigable
labours in promoting the interests of religion, both at home and abroad.
In 1735, having been examined and received into the clerical order, by
the theological faculty at Tuebingen, in the duchy of Wurtemburg, he was
consecrated a bishop of the Brethren’s church.

After the establishment of a regular congregation of the United Brethren
at Herrnhut, multitudes of pious persons from various parts flocked to
it, many of whom had private opinions in religious matters, to which
they were strongly attached. This occasioned great disputes, which even
threatened the destruction of the society; but, by the indefatigable
exertions of Count Zinzendorff, these disputes were allayed, and the
statutes being drawn up, and agreed to in 1727, for better regulation,
brotherly love and union were reëstablished, and no schism whatever, in
point of doctrine, has since that period disturbed the peace of the
church.

Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the
sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg
Confession of Faith. Their church is episcopal; but though they consider
episcopal ordination as necessary to qualify the servants of the church
for their respective functions, they allow to their bishops no elevation
of rank or preëminent authority. The Moravian church, from its first
establishment, has been governed by synods, consisting of deputies from
all the congregations, and by other subordinate bodies, which they call
conferences. According to their regulations, episcopal ordination, of
itself, does not confer any power to preside over one or more
congregations; and a bishop can discharge no office except by the
appointment of a synod, or of its delegate, the elders’ conference of
the unity. Presbyters among them can perform every function of the
bishop, except ordination. Deacons are assistants to presbyters, much in
the same way as in the church of England. Deaconesses are retained for
the purpose of privately admonishing their own sex, and visiting them in
their sickness; but they are not permitted to teach in public, and, far
less, to administer the sacraments. They have also _seniores civiles_,
or lay elders, in contradistinction to spiritual elders or bishops, who
are appointed to watch over the constitution and discipline of the unity
of the Brethren, &c. The synods are generally held once in seven years;
and beside all the bishops, and the deputies sent by each congregation,
those women who have appointments as above described, if on the spot,
are also admitted as hearers, and may be called upon to give their
advice in what relates to the ministerial labour among their own sex;
but they have no decisive vote in the synod. The votes of all the other
members are equal. In questions of importance, or of which the
consequence cannot be foreseen, neither the majority of votes, nor the
unanimous consent of all present, can decide: but recourse is had to the
lot, which, however, is never made use of except after mature
deliberation and prayer; nor is any thing submitted to its decision
which does not, after being thoroughly weighed, appear to the assembly
eligible in itself.

MORDECAI was the son of Jair, of the race of Saul, and a chief of the
tribe of Benjamin. He was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar,
with Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, king of Judah, A. M. 3405, Esther ii, 5,
6. He settled at Shushan, and there lived to the first year of Cyrus,
when it is thought he returned to Jerusalem, with several other
captives; but he afterward returned to Shushan. There is great
probability that Mordecai was very young when taken into captivity. The
book of Esther gives the whole history of Mordecai’s elevation, the
punishment of Haman, and the wonderful deliverance of the Jews, in clear
and regular narrative. But it may be asked, For what reason did Mordecai
refuse to pay that respect to Haman, the neglect of which incensed him
against the Jews? Esther iii, 1–6. Some think the reason was, because
Haman was an Amalekite; a people whom the Israelites had been
commissioned from God to destroy, because of the injuries they had
formerly done them, Deut. xxv, 17–19. But this scarcely seems to be a
sufficient account of Mordecai’s refusing civil respect to Haman, who
was first minister of state; especially when by so doing he exposed his
whole nation to imminent danger. Beside, if nothing but civil respect
had been intended to Haman, the king need not have enjoined it on his
servants after he had made him his first minister and chief favourite,
Esther iii, 1, 2; they would have been ready enough to show it on all
occasions. Probably, therefore, the reverence ordered to be done to this
great man was a kind of divine honour, such as was sometimes addressed
to the Persian monarchs themselves; which, being a species of idolatry,
Mordecai refused for the sake of a good conscience. And perhaps it was
because Haman knew that his refusal was the result of his Jewish
principles, that he determined to attempt the destruction of the Jews in
general, knowing they were all of the same mind. As to another question,
why Haman cast lots, in order to fix the day for the massacre of the
Jews, Esther iii, 7; from whence the feast of purim, which is a Persic
word, and signifies _lots_, took its name, Esther ix, 26; it was no
doubt owing to the superstitious conceit which anciently prevailed, of
some days being more fortunate than others for any undertaking; in
short, he endeavoured to find out, by this way of divining, what month,
and what day of the month, was most unfortunate to the Jews, and most
fortunate for the success of his bloody design against them. It is very
remarkable, that while Haman sought for direction in this affair from
the Persian idols, the God of Israel so over-ruled the lot as to fix the
intended massacre to almost a year’s distance, from Nisan the first
month to Adar the last of the year, in order to give time and
opportunity to Mordecai and Esther to defeat the conspiracy.

MORIAH, MOUNT. A hill on the north-east side of Jerusalem, once
separated from that of Acra by a broad valley, which, according to
Josephus, was filled up by the Asmoneans, and the two hills converted
into one. In the time of David it stood apart from the city, and was
under cultivation; for here was the threshing floor of Araunah, the
Jebusite, which David bought, on which to erect an altar to God, 2 Sam.
xxiv, 15–25. On the same spot Solomon afterward built the temple, 2
Chron. iii, 1; when it was included within the walls of the city. Here,
also, Abraham is supposed to have been directed to offer his son Isaac,
Gen. xxii, 1, 2. _Moriah_ implies vision;” and the land of Moriah,”
mentioned in the above passage in the history of Abraham, was probably
so called from being seen afar off.” It included the whole group of
hills on which Jerusalem was afterward built.

MOSES. This illustrious legislator of the Israelites was of the tribe of
Levi, in the line of Koath and of Amram, whose son he was, and therefore
in the fourth generation after the settlement of the Israelites in
Egypt. The time of his birth is ascertained by the exode of the
Israelites, when Moses was eighty years old, Exod. vii, 7. By a singular
providence, the infant Moses, when exposed on the river Nile, through
fear of the royal decree, after his mother had hid him three months,
because he was a goodly child, was taken up and adopted by Pharaoh’s
daughter, and nursed by his own mother, whom she hired at the suggestion
of his sister Miriam. Thus did he find an asylum in the very palace of
his intended destroyer; while his intercourse with his own family and
nation was still most naturally, though unexpectedly, maintained: so
mysterious are the ways of Heaven. And while he was instructed in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians,” and bred up in the midst of a luxurious
court, he acquired at home the knowledge of the promised redemption of
Israel; and, by faith” in the Redeemer Christ, “refused to be called the
son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the
people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
esteeming the reproach of Christ,” or persecution for Christ’s sake,
greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect to the
recompense of reward,” Exodus ii, 1–10; Acts vii, 20–22; Heb. xi, 23–26;
or looked forward to a future state.

When Moses was grown to manhood, and was full forty years old, he was
moved by a divine intimation, as it seems, to undertake the deliverance
of his countrymen; for he supposed that his brethren would have
understood how that God, by his hand, would give them deliverance; but
they understood not.” For when, in the excess of his zeal to redress
their grievances, he had slain an Egyptian, who injured one of them, in
which he probably went beyond his commission, and afterward endeavoured
to reconcile two of them that were at variance, they rejected his
mediation; and the man who had done wrong said, Who made thee a judge
and a ruler over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the
Egyptian yesterday?” So Moses, finding it was known, and that Pharaoh
sought to slay him, fled for his life to the land of Midian, in Arabia
Petræa, where he married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, or Reuel,
prince and priest of Midian; and, as a shepherd, kept his flocks in the
vicinity of Mount Horeb, or Sinai, for forty years, Exodus ii, 11–21;
iii, 1; xviii, 5; Num. x, 29; Acts vii, 23–30. During this long exile
Moses was trained in the school of humble circumstances for that arduous
mission which he had prematurely anticipated; and, instead of the
unthinking zeal which at first actuated him, learned to distrust
himself. His backwardness, afterward, to undertake that mission for
which he was destined from the womb, was no less remarkable than his
forwardness before, Exod. iv, 10–13.

At length, when the oppression of the Israelites was come to the full,
and they cried to God for succour, and the king was dead, and all the
men in Egypt that sought his life, the God of glory” appeared to Moses
in a flame of fire, from the midst of a bush, and announced himself as
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” under the titles of _Jahoh_
and _Æhjeh_, expressive of his unity and sameness; and commissioned him
first to make known to the Israelites the divine will for their
deliverance; and next to go with the elders of Israel to Pharaoh,
requiring him, in the name of “the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, to
suffer the people to go three days’ journey into the wilderness, to
sacrifice unto the Lord their God,” after such sacrifices had been long
intermitted during their bondage; for the Egyptians had sunk into
bestial polytheism, and would have stoned them, had they attempted to
sacrifice to their principal divinities, the apis, or bull, &c, in the
land itself: foretelling, also, the opposition they would meet with from
the king, the mighty signs and wonders that would finally compel his
assent, and their spoiling of the Egyptians, by asking or demanding of
them (not borrowing) jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment,
(by way of wages or compensation for their services,) as originally
declared to Abraham, that they should go out from thence with great
substance,” Gen. xv, 14; Exod. ii, 23–25; iii, 2–22; viii, 25, 26.

To vouch his divine commission to the Israelites, God enabled Moses to
work three signal miracles: 1. Turning his rod into a serpent, and
restoring it again: 2. Making his hand leprous as snow, when he first
drew it out of his bosom, and restoring it sound as before when he next
drew it out: and, 3. Turning the water of the river into blood. And the
people believed the signs, and the promised deliverance, and worshipped.
To assist him, also, in his arduous mission, when Moses had represented
that he was not eloquent, but slow of speech,” and of a slow or
stammering tongue, God inspired Aaron, his elder brother, to go and meet
Moses in the wilderness, to be his spokesman to the people, Exod. iv,
1–31, and his prophet to Pharaoh; while Moses was to be a god to both,
as speaking to them in the name, or by the authority, of God himself,
Exod. vii, 1, 2. At their first, interview with Pharaoh, they declared,
Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may
hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the
Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not,” or
regard not, the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” In answer to this
haughty tyrant, they styled the Lord by a more ancient title, which the
Egyptians ought to have known and respected, from Abraham’s days, when
he plagued them in the matter of Sarah: “The God of the Hebrews hath met
with us: Let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the desert,
and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with
pestilence or with the sword:” plainly intimating to Pharaoh, also, not
to incur his indignation, by refusing to comply with his desire. But the
king not only refused, but increased the burdens of the people, Exod. v,
1–19; and the people murmured, and hearkened not unto Moses, when he
repeated from the Lord his assurances of deliverance and protection, for
anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage, Exod. v, 20–23; vi, 1–9.

At their second interview with Pharaoh, in obedience to the divine
command, again requiring him to let the children of Israel go out of his
land; Pharaoh, as foretold, demanded of them to show a miracle for
themselves, in proof of their commission, when Aaron cast down his rod,
and it became a serpent before Pharaoh and before his servants, or
officers of his court. The king then called upon his wise men and
magicians, to know if they could do as much by the power of their gods,
“and they did so with their enchantments; for they cast down every man
his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their
serpents.” Here the original phrase, ויעשו כן, and they did so,” or in
like manner,” may only indicate the attempt, and not the deed; as
afterward, in the plague of lice, when they did so with their
enchantments, but could not,” Exod. viii, 18. And, indeed, the original
term, להטיהם, rendered their enchantments,” as derived from the root
לאט, or לוט, to _hide_ or _cover_, fitly expresses the secret deceptions
of legerdemain, or sleight-of-hand, to impose on spectators: and the
remark of the magicians, when unable to imitate the production of lice,
which was beyond their skill and dexterity, on account of their
minuteness,--“This is the finger of a God!”--seems to strengthen the
supposition; especially as the Egyptians were famous for legerdemain and
for charming serpents: and the magicians, having had notice of the
miracle they were expected to imitate, might make provision accordingly,
and bring live serpents, which they might have substituted for their
rods. And though Aaron’s serpent swallowed up their serpents, showing
the superiority of the true miracle over the false, 2 Thess. ii, 9, it
might only lead the king to conclude, that Moses and Aaron were more
expert jugglers than Jannes and Jambres, who opposed them, 2 Timothy
iii, 8. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, so that he hearkened not
unto them, as the Lord had said,” or foretold, Exod. vi, 10, 11; vii,
8–13. For the conduct of Moses as the deliverer and lawgiver of the
Israelites, see PLAGUES OF EGYPT, RED SEA, and LAW.

At Mount Sinai the Lord was pleased to make Moses, the redeemer of
Israel, an eminent type of the Redeemer of the world. I will raise them
up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my
words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall
command him: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken
unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of
him:” which Moses communicated to the people. The Lord thy God will
raise up unto thee a prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren,
like unto me: unto him shall ye hearken,” Deut. xviii, 15–19. This
prophet like unto Moses was our Lord Jesus Christ, who was by birth a
Jew, of the middle class of the people, and resembled his predecessor,
in personal intercourse with God, miracles, and legislation, which no
other prophet did, Deut. xxxiv, 10–12; and to whom God, at his
transfiguration, required the world to hearken, Matt. xvii, 5. Whence
our Lord’s frequent admonition to the Jewish church, He that hath ears
to hear, let him hear,” Matthew xiii, 9, &c; which is addressed, also,
by the Spirit to the Christian churches of Asia Minor, Rev. iii, 22.

In the affair of the _Golden Calf_, (see CALF,) the conduct of Moses
showed the greatest zeal for God’s honour, and a holy indignation
against the sin of Aaron and the people. And when Moses drew nigh, and
saw their proceedings, his anger waxed hot, and he cast away the tables
of the covenant, or stone tablets on which were engraven the ten
commandments by the finger of God himself, and brake them beneath the
mount, in the presence of the people; in token that the covenant between
God and them was now rescinded on his part, in consequence of their
transgression. He then took the golden calf, and burned it in the fire,
and ground it to powder, and mixed it with water, and made the children
of Israel drink of it. After thus destroying their idol, he inflicted
punishment on the idolaters themselves; for he summoned all that were on
the Lord’s side to attend him; and all the Levites having obeyed the
call, he sent them, in the name of the Lord, to slay all the idolaters,
from one end of the camp to the other, without favour or affection
either to their neighbour or to their brother; and they slew about three
thousand men. The Lord also sent a grievous plague among them for their
idolatry, Exodus xxxii, 2–35, on which occasion Moses gave a signal
proof of his love for his people, by interceding for them with the Lord;
and of his own disinterestedness, in refusing the offer of the Almighty
to adopt his family in their room, and make of them a great nation.” He
prayed that God would blot him out of his book, that is, take away his
life, if he would not forgive the great sin of his people;” and
prevailed with God to alter his determination of withdrawing his
presence from them, and sending an inferior angel to conduct them to the
land of promise. So wonderful was the condescension of God to the voice
of a man, and so mighty the power of prayer.

When the Lord had pardoned the people, and taken them again into favour,
he commanded Moses to hew two tablets of stone, like the former which
were broken, and to present them to him on the top of the mount; and on
these the Lord wrote again the ten commandments, for a renewal of the
covenant between him and his people. To reward and strengthen the faith
of Moses, God was pleased, at his request, to grant him a fuller view of
the divine glory, or presence, than he had hitherto done. And, to
confirm his authority with the people on his return, after the second
conference of forty days, he imparted to him a portion of that glory or
light by which his immediate presence was manifested: for the face of
Moses shone so that Aaron and all the people were afraid to come nigh
him, until he had put a veil on his face, to hide its brightness. This
was an honour never vouchsafed to mortal before nor afterward till
Christ, the Prophet like Moses, in his transfiguration also, appeared
arrayed in a larger measure of the same lustre. Then Moses again beheld
the glory of the Word made flesh, and ministered thereto in a glorified
form himself, Exod. xxxiv, 1–35; Matt. xvii, 1–8.

At Kibroth Hataavah, when the people loathed the manna, and longed for
flesh, Moses betrayed great impatience, and wished for death. He was
also reproved for unbelief. At Kadesh-barnea, Moses having encouraged
the people to proceed, saying, Behold, the Lord thy God hath set the
land before thee, go up and possess it, as the Lord God of thy fathers
hath said unto you: fear not,” Deut. i, 19–21; they betrayed great
diffidence, and proposed to Moses to send spies to search out the land,
and point out to them the way they should enter, and the course they
should take. And the proposal pleased him well,” and with the consent of
the Lord he sent twelve men, one out of each tribe, to spy out the land,
Deut. i, 22, 23; Num. xiii, 1–20. All these, except Caleb and Joshua,
having brought an evil report,” so discouraged the people, that they
murmured against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Would God
that we had died in the land of Egypt; or would God that we had died in
the wilderness! And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land to
fall by the sword, that our wives and our children shall be a prey? Were
it not better for us to return into Egypt? And they said one to another,
Let us make a captain, and return into Egypt.” They even went so far as
to propose to stone Joshua and Caleb, because they exhorted the people
not to rebel against the Lord, nor to fear the people of the land, Num.
xiv, 1–10; Deut. i, 26–28. Here again the noble patriotism of Moses was
signally displayed. He again refused the divine offer to disinherit the
Israelites, and make of him and his family a greater and mightier nation
than they.” He urged the most persuasive motives with their offended
God, not to destroy them with the threatened pestilence, lest the
Heathen might say, that the Lord was not able to bring them into the
land which he sware unto them.” He powerfully appealed to the long-tried
mercies and forgivenesses they had experienced ever since their
departure from Egypt; and his energetic supplication prevailed; for the
Lord graciously said, I have pardoned, according to thy word: but
verily, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the
Lord;” or shall adore him for his righteous judgments; for all these men
which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt, and in
the wilderness, and have tempted me these ten times, and have not
hearkened to my voice, surely shall not see the land which I sware unto
their fathers: neither shall any of them that provoked me see it. As ye
have spoken in my ears, so will I do unto you,” by a righteous
retaliation: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. But your
little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in; and
they shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your
whoredoms, after the number of the days in which ye searched the land,
each day for a year, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness.”
And immediately after this sentence, as the earnest of its full
accomplishment, all the spies, except Caleb and Joshua, were cut off,
and died by the plague before the Lord, Num. xiv, 11–37; Deut. i, 34–39.

The people now, to repair their fault, contrary to the advice of Moses,
presumptuously went to invade the Amalekites and Canaanites of Mount
Seir, or Hor; who defeated them, and chased them as bees to Hormah, Num.
xiv, 39–45; Deut. i, 41–44. On the morrow they were ordered to turn away
from the promised land, and to take their journey south-westward, toward
the way of the Red Sea: and they abode in the wilderness of Kadesh many
days, or years, Num. xiv, 25; Deut. i, 40–46. The ill success of the
expedition against the Amalekites, according to Josephus, occasioned the
rebellion of Korah, which broke out shortly after, against Moses and
Aaron, with greater violence than any of the foregoing, under Korah, the
ringleader, who drew into it Dathan and Abiram, the heads of the senior
tribe of Reuben, and two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly,
among whom were even several of the Levites. (See _Korah_.) But although
all Israel round about had fled at the cry of the devoted families of
Dathan and Abiram, for fear that the earth should swallow them up also;”
yet, on the morrow, they returned to their rebellious spirit, and
murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of
the Lord.” On this occasion also, the Lord threatened to consume them as
in a moment; but, on the intercession of Moses, only smote them with a
plague, which was stayed by an atonement made by Aaron, after the
destruction of fourteen thousand seven hundred souls, Num. xvi, 41–50.

On the return of the Israelites, after many years’ wandering, to the
same disastrous station of Kadesh-barnea, even Moses himself was guilty
of an offence, in which his brother Aaron was involved, and for which
both were excluded, as a punishment, from entering the promised land. At
Meribah Kadesh the congregation murmured against Moses, for bringing
them into a barren wilderness without water; when the Lord commanded
Moses to take his rod, which had been laid up before the Lord, and with
Aaron to assemble the congregation together, and to speak to the rock
before their eyes; which should supply water for the congregation and
their cattle. But Moses said unto the congregation, when they were
assembled, Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this
rock? And he smote the rock twice with his rod, and the water came out
abundantly; and the congregation drank, and their cattle also. And the
Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify
me in the eyes of the children of Israel; therefore ye shall not bring
this congregation into the land which I have given them,” Num. xx, 1–13;
and afterward in stronger terms: Because ye rebelled against my
commandment,” &c, Numbers xxvii, 14.

The offence of Moses, as far as may be collected from so concise an
account, seems to have been, 1. He distrusted or disbelieved that water
could be produced from the rock only by speaking to it; which was a
higher miracle than he had performed before at Rephidim, Exod. xvii, 6.
2. He unnecessarily smote the rock twice; thereby betraying an
unwarrantable impatience. 3. He did not, at least in the phrase he used,
ascribe the glory of the miracle wholly to God, but rather to himself
and his brother: Must _we_ fetch you water out of this rock?” And he
denominated them rebels” against his and his brother’s authority, which,
although an implied act of rebellion against God, ought to have been
stated, as on a former occasion, Ye have been rebels against the Lord,
from the day that I knew you,” Deut. ix, 24, which he spake without
blame. For want of more caution on this occasion, he spake unadvisedly
with his lips, because they provoked his spirit,” Psalm cvi, 33. Thus
was God sanctified at the waters of Meribah,” by his impartial justice,
in punishing his greatest favourites when they did amiss, Num. xx, 13.
How severely Moses felt his deprivation, appears from his humble, and it
should seem repeated, supplications to the Lord to reverse the sentence:
O Lord of gods, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness, and
thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or in earth that can do
according to thy works, and according to thy might? I pray thee let me
go over and see the good land beyond Jordan, even that goodly mountain
Lebanon,” or the whole breadth of the land. But the Lord was wroth with
me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and he said unto me, Let it
suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter. Get thee up unto the
top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and
southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt
not go over this Jordan,” Deut. iii, 23–27.

The faculties of this illustrious legislator, both of mind and body,
were not impaired at the age of a hundred and twenty years, when he
died. His eye was not dim, nor his natural strength abated,” Deut.
xxxiv, 7: and the noblest of all his compositions was his Song, or the
Divine Ode, which Bishop Lowth elegantly styles, _Cycnea Oratio_, “the
Dying Swan’s Oration.” His death took place after the Lord had shown
him, from the top of Pisgah, a distant view of the promised land,
throughout its whole extent. He then buried his body in a valley
opposite Beth-peor, in the land of Moab; but no man knoweth his
sepulchre unto this day,” observes the sacred historian, who annexed the
circumstances of his death to the book of Deuteronomy, xxxiv, 6. From an
obscure passage in the New Testament, in which Michael the archangel is
said to have contended with the devil about the body of Moses, Jude 9,
some have thought that he was buried by the ministry of angels, near the
scene of the idolatry of the Israelites; but that the spot was purposely
concealed, lest his tomb might also be converted into an object of
idolatrous worship among the Israelites, like the brazen serpent.
Beth-peor lay in the lot of the Reubenites, Joshua xiii, 20. But on so
obscure a passage nothing can be built. The body of Moses,” may
figuratively mean the Jewish church; or the whole may be an allusion to
a received tradition which, without affirming or denying its truth,
might be made the basis of a moral lesson.

Josephus, who frequently attempts to embellish the simple narrative of
Holy Writ, represents Moses as attended to the top of Pisgah by Joshua,
his successor, Eleazar, the high priest, and the whole senate; and that,
after he had dismissed the senate, while he was conversing with Joshua
and Eleazar, and embracing them, a cloud suddenly came over and
enveloped him; and he vanished from their sight, and he was taken away
to a certain valley. In the sacred books,” says he, it is written, that
he died; fearing to say that on account of his transcendent virtue, he
had departed to the Deity.” The Jewish historian has here, perhaps,
imitated the account of our Lord’s ascension, furnished by the
evangelist, Luke xxiv, 50; Acts i, 9; wishing to raise Moses to a level
with Christ. The preëminence of Moses’s character is briefly described
by the sacred historian, Samuel or Ezra: And there arose not a prophet
since, in Israel, like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; in
all the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land
of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and all his servants, and all his land; and in all
that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the
sight of all Israel,” Deut. xxxiv, 10–12.

So marked and hallowed is the character of this, the most eminent of
mere men, that it has often been successfully made the basis of an
irresistible argument for the truth of his divine mission. Thus
Cellérier observes, Every imposture has an object in view, and an aim
more or less selfish. Men practise deceit for money, for pleasure, or
for glory. If, by a strange combination, the love of mankind ever
entered into the mind of an impostor, doubtless, even then, he has
contrived to reconcile, at least, his own selfish interests with those
of the human race. If men deceive others, for the sake of causing their
own opinions or their own party to triumph, they may sometimes, perhaps,
forget their own interests during the struggle, but they again remember
them when the victory is achieved. It is a general rule, that no
impostor forgets himself long. But Moses forgot himself, and forgot
himself to the last. Yet there is no middle supposition. If Moses was
not a divinely inspired messenger, he was an impostor in the strongest
sense of the term. It is not, as in the case of Numa, a slight and
single fraud, designed to secure some good end, that we have to charge
him with, but a series of deceits, many of which were gross; a profound,
dishonest, perfidious, sanguinary dissimulation, continued for the space
of forty years. If Moses was not a divinely commissioned prophet, he was
not the saviour of the people, but their tyrant and their murderer.
Still, we repeat, this barbarous impostor always forgot himself; and his
disinterestedness, as regarded himself personally, his family, and his
tribe, is one of the most extraordinary features in his administration.
As to himself personally: He is destined to die in the wilderness; he is
never to taste the tranquillity, the plenty, and the delight, the
possession of which he promises to his countrymen; he shares with them
only their fatigues and privations; he has more anxieties than they, on
their account, in their acts of disobedience, and in their perpetual
murmurings. As to his family: He does not nominate his sons as his
successors; he places them, without any privileges or distinctions,
among the obscure sons of Levi; they are not even admitted into the
sacerdotal authority. Unlike all other fathers, Moses withdraws them
from public view, and deprives them of the means of obtaining glory and
favour. Samuel and Eli assign a part of their paternal authority to
their sons, and permit them even to abuse it; but the sons of Moses, in
the wilderness, are only the simple servants of the tabernacle; like all
the other sons of Kohath, if they even dare to raise the veil which
covers the sacred furniture, the burden of which they carry, death is
denounced against them. Where can we find more complete
disinterestedness than in Moses? Is not his the character of an upright
man, who has the general good, not his own interests, at heart; of a man
who submissively acquiesces in the commands of God, without resistance
and without demur? When we consider these several things; when we
reflect on all the ministry of Moses, on his life, on his death, on his
character, on his abilities, and his success; we are powerfully
convinced that he was the messenger of God. If we consider him only as
an able legislator, as a Lycurgus, as a Numa, his actions are
inexplicable: we find not in him the affections, the interests, the
views which usually belong to the human heart. The simplicity, the
harmony, the verity of his natural character are gone; they give place
to an incoherent union of ardour and imposture; of daring and of
timidity, of incapacity and genius, of cruelty and sensibility. No!
Moses was inspired by God: he received from God the law which he left
his countrymen.

To Moses we owe that important portion of Holy Scripture, the
Pentateuch, which brings us acquainted with the creation of the world,
the entrance of sin and death, the first promises of redemption, the
flood, the peopling of the postdiluvian earth, and the origin of
nations, the call of Abraham, and the giving of the law. We have,
indeed, in it the early history of religion, and a key to all the
subsequent dispensations of God to man. The genuineness and authenticity
of these most venerable and important books have been established by
various writers; but the following remarks upon the veracity of the
writings of Moses have the merit of compressing much argument into few
words:--1. There is a _minuteness_ in the details of the Mosaic
writings, which bespeaks their truth; for it often bespeaks the
eye-witness, as in the adventures of the wilderness; and often seems
intended to supply directions to the artificer, as in the construction
of the tabernacle. 2. There are _touches of nature_ in the narrative
which bespeak its truth, for it is not easy to regard them otherwise
than as strokes from the life; as where the mixed multitude,” whether
half-castes or Egyptians, are the first to sigh for the cucumbers and
melons of Egypt, and to spread discontent through the camp, Num. xi, 4;
as the miserable exculpation of himself, which Aaron attempts, with all
the cowardice of conscious guilt, I cast into the fire, and there came
out this calf:” the fire, to be sure, being in the fault, Exod. xxxii,
24. 3. There are certain little _inconveniences_ represented as turning
up unexpectedly, that bespeak truth in the story; for they are just such
accidents as are characteristic of the working of a new system and
untried machinery. What is to be done with the man who is found
gathering sticks on the Sabbath day? Num. xv, 32. (Could an impostor
have devised such a trifle?) How is the inheritance of the daughters of
Zelophehad to be disposed of, there being no heir male? Num. xxxvi, 2.
Either of them inconsiderable matters in themselves, but both giving
occasion to very important laws; the one touching life, and the other
property. 4. There is a _simplicity_ in the manner of Moses, when
telling his tale, which bespeaks its truth: no parade of language, no
pomp of circumstance even in his miracles, a modesty and dignity
throughout all. Let us but compare him in any trying scene with
Josephus; his description, for instance, of the passage through the Red
Sea, Exod. xiv, of the murmuring of the Israelites and the supply of
quails and manna, with the same as given by the Jewish historian, or
rhetorician we might rather say, and the force of the observation will
be felt. 5. There is a _candour_ in the treatment of his subject by
Moses, which bespeaks his truth; as when he tells of his own want of
eloquence, which unfitted him for a leader, Exod. iv, 10; his own want
of faith, which prevented him from entering the promised land, Num. xx,
12; the idolatry of Aaron his brother, Exod. xxxii, 21; the profaneness
of Nadab and Abihu, his nephews, Lev. x; the disaffection and punishment
of Miriam, his sister, Num. xii, 1. 6. There is a _disinterestedness_ in
his conduct, which bespeaks him to be a man of truth; for though he had
sons, he apparently takes no measures during his life to give them
offices of trust or profit; and at his death he appoints as his
successor one who had no claims upon him, either of alliance, of
clanship, or of blood. 7. There are certain _prophetical_ passages in
the writings of Moses, which bespeak their truth; as, several respecting
the future Messiah, and the very sublime and literal one respecting the
final fall of Jerusalem, Deut. xxviii. 8. There is a _simple key_
supplied by these writings, to the meaning of many ancient traditions
current among the Heathens, though greatly disguised, which is another
circumstance that bespeaks their truth: as, the golden age; the garden
of the Hesperides; the fruit tree in the midst, of the garden which the
dragon guarded; the destruction of mankind by a flood, all except two
persons, and those righteous persons,

              _Innocuos ambos, cultores numinis ambos_;
              [Both innocent, both worshippers of Deity;]

the rainbow, which Jupiter set in the cloud, a sign to men;” the seventh
day a sacred day; with many others, all conspiring to establish the
reality of the facts which Moses relates, because tending to show that
vestiges of the like present themselves in the traditional history of
the world at large. 9. The concurrence which is found between the
writings of Moses and those of the New Testament bespeaks their truth:
the latter constantly appealing to them, being indeed but the completion
of the system which the others are the first to put forth. Nor is this
an illogical argument; for, though the credibility of the New Testament
itself may certainly be reasoned out from the truth of the Pentateuch
once established, it is still very far from depending on that
circumstance exclusively, or even principally. The New Testament demands
acceptance on its own merits, on merits distinct from those on which the
books of Moses rest, therefore (so far as it does so) it may fairly give
its suffrage for their veracity, _valeat quantum valet_: [it may avail
as far as it goes;] and surely it is a very improbable thing, that two
dispensations, separated by an interval of some fifteen hundred years,
each exhibiting prophecies of its own, since fulfilled; each asserting
miracles of its own, on strong evidence of its own; that two
dispensations, with such individual claims to be believed, should also
be found to stand in the closest relation to one another, and yet both
turn out impostures after all. 10. Above all, there is a comparative
_purity_ in the theology and morality of the Pentateuch, which argues
not only its truth, but its high original; for how else are we to
account for a system like that of Moses, in such an age and among such a
people; that the doctrine of the unity, the self-existence, the
providence, the perfections of the great God of heaven and earth, should
thus have blazed forth (how far more brightly than even in the vaunted
schools of Athens at its most refined era!) from the midst of a nation,
of themselves ever plunging into gross and grovelling idolatry; and that
principles of social duty, of benevolence, and of self-restraint,
extending even to the thoughts of the heart, should have been the
produce of an age which the very provisions of the Levitical law itself
show to have been full of savage and licentious abominations? Exod. iii,
14; xx, 3–17; Lev. xix, 2, 18; Deut. vi, 4; xxx, 6. Such are some of the
internal evidences for the veracity of the books of Moses. 11. Then the
situation in which the Jews actually found themselves placed, as a
matter of fact, is no slight argument for the truth of the Mosaic
accounts; reminded, as they were, by certain memorials observed from
year to year, of the great events of their early history, just as they
are recorded in the writings of Moses, memorials universally recognised
both in their object and in their authority. The passover, for instance,
celebrated by all, no man doubting its meaning, no man in all Israel
assigning to it any other origin than one, viz. that of being a
contemporary monument of a miracle displayed in favour of the people of
Israel; by right of which credentials, and no other, it summoned from
all quarters of the world, at great cost, and inconvenience, and danger,
the dispersed Jews, none disputing the obligation to obey the summons.
12. Then the heroic _devotion_ with which the Israelites continued to
regard the law, even long after they had ceased to cultivate the better
part of it, even when that very law only served to condemn its
worshippers, so that they would offer themselves up by thousands, with
their children and wives, as martyrs to the honour of their temple, in
which no image, even of an emperor, who could scourge them with
scorpions for their disobedience, should be suffered to stand, and they
live: so that rather than violate the sanctity of the Sabbath day, the
bravest men in arms would lay down their lives as tamely as sheep, and
allow themselves to be burned in the holes where they had taken refuge
from their cruel and cowardly pursuers. All this points to their law, as
having been at first promulgated under circumstances too awful to be
forgotten even after the lapse of ages. 13. Then again, the
extraordinary degree of _national pride_ with which the Jews boasted
themselves to be God’s peculiar people, as if no nation ever was or ever
could be so nigh to him; a feeling which the early teachers of
Christianity found an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the Gospel
among them, and which actually did effect its ultimate rejection, this
may well seem to be founded upon a strong traditional sense of uncommon
tokens of the Almighty’s regard for them above all other nations of the
earth, which they had heard with their ears, or their fathers had
declared unto them, even the noble works that he had done in the old
time before them. 14. Then again, the constant craving after a sign,”
which beset them in the latter days of their history, as a lively
certificate of the prophet; and not after a sign only, but after such a
one as they would themselves prescribe: What sign showest thou, that we
may see, and believe? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert,” John vi,
31. This desire, so frequently expressed, and with which they are so
frequently reproached, looks like the relic of an appetite engendered in
other times, when they had enjoyed the privilege of more intimate
communion with God; it seems the wake, as it were, of miracles departed.
15. Lastly, the very _onerous_ nature of the law; so studiously meddling
with all the occupations of life, great and small;--this yoke would
scarcely have been endured, without the strongest assurance, on the part
of those who were galled by it, of the authority by which it was
imposed. For it met them with some restraint or other at every turn.
Would they plough? then it must not be with an ox and an ass. Would they
sow? then must not the seed be mixed. Would they reap? then must they
not reap clean. Would they make bread? then must they set apart dough
enough for the consecrated loaf. Did they find a bird’s nest? then must
they let the old bird fly away. Did they hunt? then they must shed the
blood of their game, and cover it with dust. Did they plant a fruit
tree? for three years was the fruit to be uncircumcised. Did they shave
their beards? they were not to cut the corners. Did they weave a
garment? then must it be only with threads prescribed. Did they build a
house? they must put rails and battlements on the roof. Did they buy an
estate? at the year of jubilee, back it must go to its owner. All these
(and how many more of the same kind might be named!) are enactments
which it must have required extraordinary influence in the lawgiver to
enjoin, and extraordinary reverence for his powers to perpetuate.

Still, after all, says Mr. Blunt, unbelievers may start
difficulties,--this I dispute not; difficulties, too, which we may not
always be able to answer, though I think we may be always able to
neutralize them. It may be a part of our trial, that such difficulties
should exist and be encountered; for there can be no reason why
temptations should not be provided for the natural pride of our
understanding, as well as for the natural lusts of our flesh. To many,
indeed, they would be the more formidable of the two, perhaps to the
angels who kept not their first estate they proved so. With such facts,
however, before me, as these which I have submitted to my readers, I can
come to no conclusion but one,--that when we read the writings of Moses,
we read no cunningly devised fables, but solemn and safe records of
great and marvellous events, which court examination, and sustain it;
records of such apparent veracity and faithfulness, that I can
understand our Lord to have spoken almost without a figure, when he
said, that he who believed not Moses, neither would he be persuaded
though one rose from the dead.

MOTH, עיש, Job iv, 19; and עשש, Job xiii, 28; xxvii, 18; Psalm vi, 7;
xxxi, 9, 10; xxxix, 11; Isaiah l, 9; Hosea v, 12. The clothes moth is
the _tinea argentea_; of a white, shining silver, or pearl colour. It is
clothed with shells, fourteen in number, and these are scaly. Albin
asserts this to be the insect that eats woollen stuffs; and says that it
is produced from a gray speckled moth, that flies by night, creeps among
woollens, and there lays her eggs, which, after a little time, are
hatched as worms, and in this state they feed on their habitation, till
they change into a chrysalis, and thence emerge into moths. The young
moth, or moth worm,” says the Abbé Pluche, upon leaving the egg which a
_papilio_ had lodged upon a piece of stuff commodious for her purpose,
finds a proper place of residence, grows and feeds upon the nap, and
likewise builds with it an apartment, which is fixed to the groundwork
of the stuff with several cords and a little glue. From an aperture in
this habitation, the moth worm devours and demolishes all about him;
and, when he has cleared the place, he draws out all the fastenings of
his tent; after which he carries it to some little distance, and then
fixes it with the slender cords in a new situation. In this manner he
continues to live at our expense, till he is satisfied with his food, at
which period he is first transformed into the _nympha_, and then changed
into the _papilio_.”

The allusions to this insect in the sacred writings are very striking:
Fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their
revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm
shall eat them like wool.” They shall perish with as little noise as a
garment under the tooth of a moth, Isaiah li, 7, 8. In the prophecies of
Hosea, God himself says, I will be as a moth unto Ephraim, and as a
lion;” that is, I will send silent and secret judgments upon him, which
shall imperceptibly waste his beauty, corrode his power, and diminish
his strength, and will finish his destruction with open and irresistible
calamities. Or the meaning may be, As the moth crumbles into dust under
the slightest pressure, or the gentlest touch, so man dissolves with
equal ease, and vanishes into darkness, under the finger of the
Almighty. Deeply sensible of this affecting truth, the royal Psalmist
earnestly deprecates the judgments of God, humbly confessing his own
weakness, and the inability of every man to endure his frown: Remove thy
stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thy hand. When thou
with rebukes doth correct man for iniquity, thou makest his beauty to
consume away like a moth: surely every man is vanity. Selah,” Psalm
xxxix, 10, 11. Such, in the estimation of Job, is the fading prosperity
of a wicked man: He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a booth that
the keeper maketh,” Job xxvii, 18. His unrighteous acquisitions shall be
of short continuance; they shall moulder insensibly away, returning to
the lawful owner, or pass into the possession of others. It is in this
sense that the Lord threatens: I will be unto Ephraim as a moth,” Hosea
v, 12. By the secret curse of God he shall fade away, and whatever is
most precious in his estimation shall be gradually dissolved and
consumed, as a garment eaten by the moth. The same allusion is involved
in the direction of our Lord to his disciples: Lay not up for yourselves
treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where
thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do
not break through nor steal,” Matthew vi, 19, 20. The word _treasure_
commonly suggests to our minds the idea of some durable substance, as
precious stones, gold, and silver, upon which the persevering industry
of a moth can make no impression; but, in the language of inspiration,
it denotes every thing collected together which men reckon valuable. The
Jews had treasures of raiment as well as of corn, of wine, of oil, of
honey, Jer. xli, 8; and of gold, silver, and brass, Ezek. xxxiii, 4;
Dan. xi, 43. The robes of princes were a part of their treasure, upon
which they often set a particular value. Rich vestments made a
conspicuous figure in the treasury of Ulysses. These were, from their
nature, exposed to the depredations of the moth; fabricated of perishing
materials, they were liable to be prematurely consumed, or taken away by
fraud or violence; but the favour of God, and the graces of his Spirit,
and the enjoyment of eternal happiness, are neither liable to internal
decay nor external violence, and by consequence, are the proper objects
of our highest regard, chief solicitude, and constant pursuit. It is
also likely, that by moth” our Lord meant all the kinds of small insects
which devour or spoil the different kinds of property, such as corn,
honey, fruits, &c, which were treasured up for the future. These, in
warm countries, are very numerous and destructive.

MOURNING. See BURIAL and DEAD.

MOUSE, עבבר, in Chaldee _acalbar_, probably the same with the _aliarbui_
of the Arabians or the _jerboa_, Leviticus xi, 29; 1 Samuel vi, 4, 5,
11, 18; Isaiah xlvi, 17. All interpreters acknowledge that the Hebrew
word _achbar_ signifies a mouse,” and more especially a field mouse.”
Moses declares it to be unclean, which insinuates that it was sometimes
eaten; and, indeed, it is affirmed that the Jews were so oppressed with
famine during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, that,
notwithstanding this prohibition, they were compelled to eat dogs, mice,
and rats. Isaiah, lxvi, 17, justly reproaches the Jews with eating the
flesh of mice and other things that were impure and abominable. It is
known what spoil was made by mice in the fields of the Philistines, 1
Sam. vi, 5, 6, &c, after this people had brought into the country the
ark of the Lord; so that they were obliged to take the resolution to
send it back, accompanied with mice and emerods of gold, as an atonement
for the irreverence they had committed, and to avert from their land the
vengeance that pursued them. Judea has suffered by these animals in
other times. William, archbishop of Tyre, records, that in the beginning
of the twelfth century a penitential council was held at Naplouse, where
five and twenty canons were framed for the correction of the manners of
the inhabitants of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, who, they
apprehended, had provoked God to bring upon them the calamities of
earthquakes, war, and famine. This last the archbishop ascribes to
locusts and devouring mice, which had for four years together so
destroyed the fruits of the earth, as seemed to cause almost a total
failure in their crops. Bochart has collected many curious accounts
relative to the terrible devastation made by these animals.

MULBERRY TREE, בכא, 2 Sam. v, 23, 24; 1 Chronicles xiv, 14, 15; Psalm
lxxxiv, 7. The LXX, in Chronicles, render the word by ἀπίων, pear
trees;” so Aquila and the Vulgate, both in Samuel and Chronicles,
_pyrorum_.” Others translate it the mulberry tree.” More probably it is
the large shrub which the Arabs still call baca;” and which gave name to
the valley where it abounded. Of this valley Celsius remarks, that it
was rugged and embarrassed with bushes and stones, which could not be
passed through without labour and tears;” referring to Psalm lxxxiv, 7;
and the rough valley,” Deut. xxi, 4; and he quotes from a manuscript of
Abu'l Fideli a description of the tree which grew there, and mentions it
as bearing a fruit of an acrid taste.

MULE, פרד, 2 Sam. xiii, 29; 1 Kings i, 33; x, 25, &c. A mongrel kind of
quadruped, between the horse and the ass. Its form bears a considerable
resemblance to the last mentioned animal; but in its disposition it is
rather vicious and intractable; so that its obstinacy has become a
proverb. With this creature the early ages were probably unacquainted.
It is very certain the Jews did not breed mules, because it was
forbidden them to couple together two creatures of different species,
Lev. xix, 19. But they were not prohibited the making use of them: thus
we find in David’s time that they had become very common, and made up a
considerable part of the equipage of princes, 2 Sam. xiii, 29; xviii, 9;
1 Kings i, 33, 38, 44; x, 25; 2 Chron. ix, 24.

MURDER. Among the Hebrews murder was always punished with death; but
involuntary homicide, only by banishment. Cities of refuge were
appointed for involuntary manslaughter, whither the slayer might retire
and continue in safety till the death of the high priest, Num. xxxv, 28.
Then the offender was at liberty to return to his own house, if he
pleased. A murderer was put to death without remission, and the kinsman
of the murdered person might kill him with impunity. Money could not
redeem his life: he was dragged away from the altar, if he had there
taken refuge. When a dead body was found in the fields of a person slain
by a murderer unknown, Moses commanded that the elders and judges of the
neighbouring places should resort to the spot, Deut. xxi, 1–8. The
elders of the city nearest to it were to take a heifer which had never
yet borne the yoke, and were to lead it into some rude and uncultivated
place, which had not been ploughed or sowed, where they were to cut its
throat. The priests of the Lord, with the elders and magistrates of the
city, were to come near the dead body, and, washing their hands over the
heifer that had been slain, were to say, Our hands have not shed this
blood, nor have our eyes seen it shed. Lord, be favourable to thy people
Israel, and impute not to us this blood, which has been shed in the
midst of our country.” This ceremony may inform us how much horror they
conceived at the crime of murder; and it shows their fear that God might
avenge it on the whole country; which was supposed to contract pollution
by the blood spilt in it, unless it were expiated, and avenged on him
who had occasioned it, if he could be discovered.

MUSIC is probably nearly coeval with our race, or, at least, with the
first attempts to preserve the memory of transactions. Before the
invention of writing, the history of remarkable events was committed to
memory, and handed down by oral tradition. The knowledge of laws and of
useful arts was preserved in the same way. Rhythm and song were probably
soon found important helps to the memory; and thus the muses became the
early instructers of mankind. Nor was it long, we may conjecture, before
dancing and song united contributed to festivity, or to the solemnities
of religion. The first instruments of music were probably of the
pulsatile kind; and rhythm, it is likely, preceded the observation of
those intervals of sound which are so pleasing to the ear. The first
mention of stringed instruments, however, precedes the deluge. Tubal,
the sixth descendant from Cain, was the father of all such as handle the
harp and the organ.” About five hundred and fifty years after the
deluge, or B. C. 1800, according to the common chronology, both vocal
and instrumental music are spoken of as things in general use: And Laban
said, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me,
and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?
Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and
didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth and with
songs, with tabret and with harp?” Gen. xxxi, 26, 27.

Egypt has been called the cradle of the arts and sciences, and there can
be no doubt of the very early civilization of that country. To the
Egyptian Mercury, or _Thoth_, who is called _Trismegistos_, or thrice
illustrious,” is ascribed the invention of the lyre, which had at first
only three strings. It would be idle to mention the various conjectures
how these strings were tuned, or to try to settle the chronology of this
invention. The single flute, which they called _photinx_, is also
ascribed to the Egyptians. Its shape was that of a horn, of which, no
doubt, it was originally made. Before the invention of these
instruments, as Dr. Burney justly observes, music could have been little
more than metrical, as no other instruments except those of percussion
were known. When the art was first discovered of refining and sustaining
tones, the power of music over mankind was probably irresistible, from
the agreeable surprise which soft and lengthened sounds must have
occasioned.” The same learned writer has given a drawing, made under his
own eye, of an Egyptian musical instrument, represented on a very
ancient obelisk at Rome, brought from Egypt by Augustus. This obelisk is
supposed to have been erected at Heliopolis, by Sesostris, near four
hundred years before the Trojan war. The most remarkable thing in this
instrument is, that it is supplied with a neck, so that its two strings
were capable of furnishing a great number of sounds. This is a
contrivance which the Greeks, with all their ingenuity, never hit upon.
I have never been able,” says the doctor, to discover in any remains of
Greek sculpture, an instrument furnished with a neck; and Father
Montfaucon says that in examining the representations of near five
hundred ancient lyres, harps, and citharas, he never met with one in
which there was any contrivance for shortening the strings during the
time of performance, as by a neck and finger board.” From the long
residence of the Hebrews in Egypt, it is no improbable conjecture that
their music was derived from that source. However that may be, music,
vocal and instrumental, made one important part of their religious
service. If the excellence of the music was conformable to the sublimity
of the poetry which it accompanied, there would be no injustice in
supposing it unspeakably superior to that of every other people; and the
pains that were taken to render the tabernacle and temple music worthy
of the subjects of their lofty odes, leaves little doubt that it was so.
That the instruments were loud and sonorous, will appear from what
follows; but as the public singing was performed in alternate responses,
or the chorus of all succeeded to those parts of the psalm which were
sung only by the appointed leaders, instruments of this kind were
necessary to command and control the voices of so great a number as was
usually assembled on high occasions.

The Hebrews insisted on having music at marriages, on anniversary birth
days, on the days which reminded them of victories over their enemies,
at the inauguration of their kings, in their public worship, and when
they were coming from afar to attend the great festivals of their
nation, Isaiah xxx, 29. In the tabernacle and the temple, the Levites
were the lawful musicians; but on other occasions any one might use
musical instruments who chose. There was this exception, however: the
holy silver trumpets were to be blown only by the priests, who, by the
sounding of them, proclaimed the festival days, assembled the leaders of
the people, and gave the signal for the battle and for the retreat, Num.
x, 1–10. David, in order to give the best effect to the music of the
tabernacle, divided the four thousand Levites into twenty-four classes,
who sung psalms, and accompanied them with music. Each of these classes
was superintended by a leader, placed over it; and they performed the
duties which devolved upon them, each class a week at a time in
succession, 1 Chron. xvi, 5; xxiii, 4, 5; xxv, 1–31; 2 Chron. v, 12, 13.
The classes collectively, as a united body, were superintended by three
directors. This arrangement was subsequently continued by Solomon after
the erection of the temple, and was transmitted till the time of the
overthrow of Jerusalem. It was indeed sometimes interrupted, during the
reign of the idolatrous kings, but was restored by their successors, 2
Chron. v, 12–14; xxix, 27; xxxv, 15. It was even continued after the
captivity, Ezra iii, 10; Neh. xii, 45–47; 1 Mac. iv, 54; xiii, 51. It
should be remarked, however, that neither music nor poetry attained to
the same excellence after the captivity as before that period.

There were women singers as well as men in the temple choir; for in the
book of Ezra, among those who returned from the Babylonish captivity,
there are said to have been two hundred, Ezra ii, 65; and in Nehemiah
vii, 67, we read of two hundred and forty-five singing men and women.
The Jewish doctors will, indeed, by no means admit there were any female
voices in the temple choir; and as for those משררות, _meshoreroth_, as
they are called in the Hebrew, they suppose them to be the wives of
those who sung. Nevertheless, the following passage makes it evident
that women, likewise, were thus employed: God gave to Heman fourteen
sons and three daughters; and all these were under the hands of their
father for song in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries, and
harps, for the service of the house of God,” 1 Chron. xxv, 5, 6.
Instrumental music was first introduced into the Jewish service by
Moses; and afterward, by the express command of God, was very much
improved with the addition of several instruments in the reign of David.
When Hezekiah restored the temple service, which had been neglected in
his predecessor’s reign, “he set the Levites in the house of the Lord,
with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the
commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the
prophet; for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets,” 2
Chron. xxix, 25.

The _harp_, כנור, kinnor, was the most ancient of the class of stringed
instruments, Gen. iv, 21. It was sometimes called שמינית, or eight
stringed,” 1 Chron. xv, 21; Psalm vi, 1; xii, 1; although, as we may
gather from the coins or medals of the Maccabean age, there were some
harps which were furnished with only three strings. The _nablum_ or
_psaltery_, ναϐλίον, ναύλα, נבל, is first mentioned in the Psalms of
David. In Psalms xxxiii, 2, and cxliv, 9, it is called עשור, a
ten-stringed instrument;” but in Psalm xcii, 3, it is distinguished from
it. Josephus assigns to it twelve strings, which, taken in connection
with the fact above stated, leaves us to conclude that it sometimes had
ten and sometimes twelve strings. It was not played with a bow or fret,
but with the fingers: the act of playing it is expressed in Hebrew by
the word מזר. It resembled in form a right-angled triangle, or the Greek
delta, ▽, inverted. The body of it was of wood and hollow, and was
enclosed with a piece of leather tensely drawn. The chords were extended
on the outside of the leather, and were fixed at one end into the
transverse part of the triangular body of the instrument. Such is its
form at the present day in the east; but it has only five strings in its
modern shape, 2 Sam. vi, 5; 1 Kings x, 12. There was another instrument
of this kind used in Babylonia: it was triangular in form. In Greek it
is called σαμϐύκη; in Hebrew, סבכא and שבכא. It had originally only
four, but subsequently twenty, strings, Dan. iii, 5, 7, 10, 15. Among
their wind instruments was the _organ_, so called in the English
version, in Hebrew, עוגב, Gen. iv, 21. It may be styled the ancient
shepherd’s pipe, corresponding most nearly to the σύριγξ, or the pipe of
Pan among the Greeks. It consisted at first of only one or two, but
afterward of about seven, pipes made of reeds, and differing from each
other in length. The instrument called משרוקיתא, used in Babylon, Dan.
iii, 5, was of a similar construction. חלול, נחילות, and נקב, _chalil_,
_nechiloth_, and _nekeb_, are wind instruments made of various
materials, such as wood, reeds, horns, and bones. As far as we may be
permitted to judge from the three kinds of pipes now used in the east,
the Hebrew instrument called _nechiloth_ is the one that is double in
its structure; _chalil_ is perhaps the one of simpler form, having a
single stem with an orifice through it; while _nekeb_ answers to the one
without an orifice, Isaiah v, 12; xxx, 29; Jer. xlviii, 36; Psalm v, 1;
Ezek. xxviii, 13. סומפוניה, or, according to the marginal reading,
סיפניא, Dan. iii, 5, 10, was a wind instrument made of reeds, by the
Syrians called _sambonja_, by the Greeks _samponja_, and by the Italians
_zampogna_. According to Servius, it was of a crooked shape. קרן, the
_horn_ or _crooked trumpet_, was a very ancient instrument. It was made
of the horns of oxen, which were cut off at the smaller extremity, and
thus presented an orifice which extended through. In progress of time,
rams’ horns were hollowed and employed for the same purpose. It is
probable that in some instances it was made of brass, fashioned so as to
resemble a horn. It was greatly used in war, and its sound resembled
thunder. תץוץרה, _chatsoteroth_, the _silver trumpet_, was straight, a
cubit in length, hollow throughout, and at the larger extremity shaped
so as to resemble the mouth of a small bell. In times of peace, when the
people or the rulers were to be assembled together, this trumpet was
blown softly. When the camps were to move forward, or the people to
march to war, it was sounded with a deeper note.

There were several sorts of drums. The תפים תף, _toph_, rendered in the
English version _tabret_ and _timbrel_, Gen. xxxi, 27, consisted of a
circular hoop, either of wood or brass, three inches and six-tenths
wide, was covered with a skin tensely drawn, and hung round with small
bells. It was held in the left hand, and beaten to notes of music with
the right. The ladies through all the east, even to this day, dance to
the sound of this instrument, Exod. xv, 20; Job xvii, 6; xxi, 12; 2 Sam.
vi, 5. The _cymbals_, צלצלים, _tseltselim_, מצלות, were of two kinds
formerly, as there are to this day, in the east. The first consisted of
two flat pieces of metal or plates: the musician held one of them in his
right hand, the other in his left, and smote them together, as an
accompaniment to other instruments. This cymbal and the mode of using it
may be often seen in modern armies. The second kind of cymbals,
consisted of four small plates attached, two to each hand, which the
ladies, as they danced, smote together. But מצלות, Zech. xiv, 20,
rendered in the English version _bells_, are not musical instruments, as
some suppose, nor indeed bells, but concave pieces or plates of brass,
which were sometimes attached to horses for the sake of ornament.

MUSTARD, σίναπι, Matt. xiii, 32; xvii, 20; Mark iv, 31; Luke xiii, 19;
xvii, 6; a well known garden herb. Christ compares the kingdom of heaven
to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in the earth,
which indeed,” said he, is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown
is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of
the air come and lodge in the branches thereof,” Matt. xiii, 31, 32.
This expression will not appear strange,” says Sir Thomas Browne, if we
recollect that the mustard seed, though it be not simply and in itself
the smallest of seeds, yet may be very well believed to be the smallest
of such as are apt to grow unto a ligneous substance, and become a kind
of tree.” The expression, also, that it might grow into such dimensions
that birds might lodge on its branches, may be literally conceived, if
we allow the luxuriancy of plants in India above our northern regions.
And he quotes upon this occasion what is recorded in the Jewish story,
of a mustard tree that was to be climbed like a fig tree. The Talmud
also mentions one whose branches were so extensive as to cover a tent.
Without insisting on the accuracy of this, we may gather from it that we
should not judge of eastern vegetables by those which are familiar to
ourselves. Scheuchzer describes a species of mustard which grows several
feet high, with a tapering stalk, and spreads into many branches. Of
this arborescent or treelike vegetable, he gives a print; and Linnæus
mentions a species whose branches were real wood, which he names _sinapi
erucoides_. But whatever kind of tree our Lord meant, it is clear, from
the fact that he never takes his illustrations from any objects but such
as were familiar, and often present in the scene around him, that he
spoke of one which the Jews well knew to have minute seeds, and yet to
be of so large growth as to afford shelter for the birds of the air.

MYRRH, מור, Exod. xxx, 23; Esther ii, 12; Psalm xiv, 8; Prov. vii, 17;
Cant. i, 13; iii, 6; iv, 6, 14; v, 1, 5, 13; σμύρνα, Ecclus. xxiv, 15;
Matt. ii, Mark xv, 23; John xix, 39; a precious kind of gum issuing by
incision, and sometimes spontaneously, from the trunk and larger
branches of a tree growing in Egypt, Arabia, and Abyssinia. Its taste is
extremely bitter, but its smell, though strong, is not disagreeable; and
among the ancients it entered into the composition of the most costly
ointments. As a perfume, it appears to have been used to give a pleasant
fragrance to vestments, and to be carried by females in little caskets
in the bosoms. The magi, who came from the east to worship our Saviour
at Bethlehem, made him a present of myrrh among other things, Matt. ii,
11.

MYRTLE, הדס, Neh. viii, 15; Isaiah xli, 19; lv, 13; Zech. i, 8–10; a
shrub, sometimes growing to a small tree, very common in Judea. It has a
hard woody root that sends forth a great number of small flexible
branches, furnished with leaves like those of box, but much less, and
more pointed: they are soft to the touch, shining, smooth, of a
beautiful green, and have a sweet smell. The flowers grow among the
leaves, and consist of five white petals disposed in the form of a rose:
they have an agreeable perfume, and ornamental appearance. Savary,
describing a scene at the end of the forest of Platanea, says, Myrtles,
intermixed with laurel roses, grow in the valleys to the height of ten
feet. Their snow-white flowers, bordered with a purple edging, appear to
peculiar advantage under the verdant foliage. Each myrtle is loaded with
them, and they emit perfumes more exquisite than those of the rose
itself. They enchant every one, and the soul is filled with the softest
sensations.” The myrtle is mentioned in Scripture among lofty trees, not
as comparing with them in size, but as contributing with them to the
beauty and richness of the scenery. Thus Isaiah, xii, 19, intending to
describe a scene of varied excellence: I will plant in the wilderness
the cedar, and the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree;” that
is, I will adorn the dreary and barren waste with trees famed for their
stature and the grandeur of their appearance, the beauty of their form,
and also the fragrance of their odour. The apocryphal Baruch, v, 8,
speaking of the return from Babylon, expresses the protection afforded
by God to the people by the same image: Even the woods and every
sweet-smelling tree shall overshadow Israel by the commandment of God.”

MYSIA, a country of Asia Minor, having the Propontis on the north,
Bithynia on the north-east and east, Phrygia on the south-east, Lydia
(from which it was separated by the river Hermus) on the south, the
Ægean Sea on the west, and the narrow strait, called the Hellespont, on
the north-west. Mysia was visited by St. Paul in his circuit through
Asia Minor; but he was not suffered by the Spirit to remain there, being
directed to pass over into Macedonia, Acts xvi, 7–10. In this country
stood the ancient city Troy; as also that of Pergamus, one of the seven
churches of Asia. Under the Romans it was made a province of the empire,
and called Hellespontus; and its inhabitants are represented by Cicero
as base and contemptible to a proverb.

MYSTERY. The Greek word μυϛηριον denotes, 1. Something hidden, or not
fully manifest. Thus, 2 Thess. ii, 7, we read of the mystery of
iniquity,” which began to work in secret, but was not then completely
disclosed or manifested. 2. Some sacred thing hidden or secret, which is
naturally unknown to human reason, and is only known by the revelation
of God. Thus, Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the
flesh, justified by the Spirit,” &c, 1 Tim. iii, 16. The mystery of
godliness, or of true religion, consisted in the several particulars
here mentioned by the Apostle; particulars, indeed, which it would never
have entered into the heart of man to conceive,” 1 Cor. ii, 9, had not
God accomplished them in fact, and published them by the preaching of
his Gospel; but which, being thus manifested, are intelligible, as
facts, to the meanest understanding. In like manner, the term mystery,
Rom. xi, 25; 1 Cor. xv, 51, denotes what was hidden or unknown, till
revealed; and thus the Apostle speaks of a man’s understanding all
mysteries,” 1 Cor. xiii, 2; that is, all the revealed truths of the
Christian religion, which is elsewhere called the mystery of faith,” 1
Tim. iii, 9. And when he who spake in an unknown tongue is said to speak
mysteries,” 1 Cor. xiv, 2, it is plain, that these mysteries, however
unintelligible to others on account of the language in which they were
spoken, were yet understood by the person himself, because he hereby
edified himself,” 1 Cor. xiv, 4; Acts ii, 11; x, 46. And though in 1
Cor. ii, 7, 8, we read of the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the
hidden wisdom, which none of the princes of this world knew;” yet, says
the Apostle, we speak or declare this wisdom; and he observes, verse 10,
that God had revealed the particulars of which it consisted to them by
his Spirit. So when the Apostles are called stewards of the mysteries of
God,” 1 Cor. iv, 1, these mysteries could not mean what were, as facts,
unknown to them; (because to them it was given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God,” Matt. xiii, 11;) yea, the character here ascribed
to them implies not only that they knew these mysteries themselves, but
that as faithful stewards they were to dispense or make them known to
others, Luke xii, 42; 1 Pet. iv, 10. In Col. ii, 2, St. Paul mentions
his praying for his converts, that their hearts might be comforted to
the knowledge of the mystery of God, even of the Father, and of Christ;”
for thus the passage should be translated. But if, with our translators,
we render ἐπίγνωσιν, _acknowledgment_, still the word μυϛηριον can by no
means exclude knowledge; for this is life eternal,” saith our Lord, John
xvii, 3, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent.” And, lastly, whatever be the particular meaning of
the mystery of God,” mentioned Rev. x, 7, yet it was something he had
declared to (or rather _by_) his servants the prophets.” 3. The word
_mystery_ is sometimes in the writings of St. Paul applied in a peculiar
sense to the calling of the Gentiles, which he styles the mystery,” Eph.
iii, 3–6; and the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not
made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy
Apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow
heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of Christ by the Gospel,”
Rom. xvi, 25; Eph. i, 9; iii, 9; vi, 19; Col. i, 26, 27; iv, 3. 4. It
denotes a spiritual truth couched under an external representation or
similitude, and concealed or hidden thereby, unless some explanation of
it be otherwise given. Thus, Rev. i, 20, The mystery,” that is, the
spiritual meaning, of the seven stars: The seven stars are the angels of
the seven churches.” So Rev. xvii, 5, And upon her forehead a name
written, Mystery, Babylon the Great,” that is, Babylon in a spiritual
sense, the mother of idolatry and abominations;” and, verse 7, I will
tell thee the mystery” or spiritual signification of the woman.” Compare
Matt. xiii, 11; Mark iv, 11; Luke viii, 10; Eph. v, 32; and their
respective contexts.

MYSTICS, who have also been sometimes called Quietists, are those who
profess a pure and sublime devotion, accompanied with a disinterested
love of God, free from all selfish considerations; and who believe that
the Scriptures have a mystic and hidden sense, which must be sought
after, in order to understand their true import. Under this name some
comprehend all those who profess to know that they are inwardly taught
of God. The system of the Mystics proceeded upon the known doctrine of
the Platonic school, which was also adopted by Origen and his disciples,
that the divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or that the
faculty of reason, from which proceed the health and vigour of the mind,
was an emanation from God into the human soul, and comprehended in it
the principles and elements of all truth, human and divine. They denied
that men could, by labour or study, excite this celestial flame in their
breasts; and, therefore, they disapproved highly of the attempts of
those who, by definitions, abstract theorems, and profound speculations,
endeavoured to form distinct notions of truth, and discover its hidden
nature. On the contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity,
repose, and solitude, accompanied with such acts as might tend to
attenuate and exhaust the body, were the means by which the hidden and
internal word was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct
men in the knowledge of divine things. They reasoned as follows: Those
who behold, with a noble contempt, all human affairs, who turn away
their eyes from terrestrial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the
outward senses against the contagious influence of a material world,
must necessarily return to God, when the spirit is thus disengaged from
the impediments which prevented that happy union. And, in this blessed
frame, they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures from that communion
with the supreme Being, but also are invested with the inestimable
privilege of contemplating truth undisguised and uncorrupted in its
native purity, while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.”
The number of the Mystics increased in the fourth century, under the
influence of the Grecian fanatic, who gave himself out for Dionysius the
Areopagite, a disciple of St. Paul, and who probably lived about this
period; and, by pretending to higher degrees of perfection than other
Christians, and practising great austerities, their cause gained ground,
especially in the eastern provinces, in the fifth century. A copy of the
pretended works of Dionysius was sent by Balbus to Lewis the meek, A. D.
824, which kindled the holy flame of Mysticism in the western provinces,
and filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new
system. In the twelfth century, these Mystics took the lead in their
method of expounding the Scriptures. In the thirteenth, they were the
most formidable antagonists of the schoolmen; and, toward the close of
the fourteenth, many of them resided and propagated their tenets in
almost every part of Europe. They had, in the fifteenth century, many
persons of distinguished merit in their number. In the sixteenth,
previously to the reformation, if any sparks of real piety subsisted
under the despotic empire of superstition, they were chiefly to be found
among the Mystics; and in the seventeenth, the radical principle of
Mysticism was adopted by the Behmists, Bourignonists, and Quietists.

The Mystics propose a disinterestedness of love, without other motives,
and profess to feel, in the enjoyment of the temper itself, an abundant
reward; and passive contemplation in the state of perfection to which
they aspire. They lay little or no stress upon the outward ceremonies
and ordinances of religion, but dwell chiefly upon the inward operations
of the mind. It is not uncommon for them to allegorize certain passages
of Scripture; at the same time they do not deny the literal sense, as
having an allusion to the inward experience of believers. Thus,
according to them, the word Jerusalem, which is the name of the capital
of Judea, signifies, allegorically, the church militant; morally, a
believer; and mysteriously, heaven. That sublime passage also in
Genesis, Let there be light, and there was light,” which is, according
to the letter, corporeal light, signifies, allegorically, the Messiah;
morally, grace; and mysteriously, beatitude, or the light of glory. All
this appears to be harmless; yet we must be careful not to give way to
the sallies of a lively imagination in interpreting Scripture. Woolston
is said to have been led to reject the Old Testament by spiritualizing
and allegorizing the New.

The Mystics are not confined to any particular denomination of
Christians, but may be found in most countries, and among many
descriptions of religionists. Among the number of Mystics may be
reckoned many singular characters, especially Behmen, a shoemaker at
Gorlitz, in Germany; Molinos, a Spanish priest, in the seventeenth
century; Madam Guion, a French lady who made a great noise in the
religious world; and the celebrated Madame Bourignon, who wrote a work
entitled, The Light of the World,” which is full of Mystic
extravagancies. Fenelon, also, the learned and amiable archbishop of
Cambray, favoured the same sentiments, for which he was reprimanded by
the pope. His work, entitled, An Explication of the Maxims of the
Saints,” which abounds with Mystical sentiments was condemned; and to
the pope’s sentence against him, the good archbishop quietly submitted,
and even read it publicly himself in the cathedral of Cambray. In this
whole affair, his chief opponent is said to have been the famous
Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. Mr. William Law, author of the Serious Call,”
&c, degenerated in the latter part of his life, into all the
singularities of Mysticism. In the best sense, Mysticism is to be
regarded as an error arising out of partial views of the truth, or truth
made erroneous, as being put out of its proper relation to, and
connection with, other truths. As it respects the inward life of
religion, its tendency is to a species of fanaticism, and to induce a
contempt for divinely appointed ordinances. In many, however, it has
been happily tempered by good principles; and too frequently has all
Scriptural Christianity, in its inward influence, been branded with the
name of Mysticism.


NAAMAN, general of the army of Benhadad, king of Syria, mentioned 2
Kings v. He appears to have been a Gentile idolater; but being
miraculously cured of his leprosy by the power of the God of Israel, and
the direction of his Prophet Elisha, he renounced his idolatry, and
acknowledged this God to be the only true God: Behold, now I know that
there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,” 2 Kings v, 15, and
promised, for the time to come, that he would worship none other but
Jehovah, verse 17. He also requested the prophet, that he might have two
mules’ load of earth to carry home with him from the land of Israel,
most probably intending to build an altar with it in his own country;
which seems, indeed, to be implied in the reason with which he enforces
his request: “Shall there not, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two
mules’ burden of earth; for thy servant will henceforth offer neither
burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other gods but unto Jehovah.” He farther
says, In this the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goes into
the house of Rimmon, to worship there, and he leaneth upon my hand, and
I bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow down in the house of
Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing,” verse 18; which some
understand to be a reserve, denoting that he would renounce idolatry no
farther than was consistent with his worldly interest, with his prince’s
favour, and his place at court. But, if so, the prophet would hardly
have dismissed him with a blessing, saying, Go in peace,” verse 19.
Others, therefore, suppose, that in these words he begs pardon for what
he had done in times past, not for what he should continue to do. They
observe, that השתחויתי, though rendered in the future tense by the
Targum, and by all the ancient versions, is really the preterperfect;
and they, therefore, understand it,--“when I have bowed myself,” or,
because I have bowed myself” in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy
servant. With this sense Dr. Lightfoot agrees, and it is defended by the
learned Bochart in a large dissertation on the case of Naaman. Yet it
does not seem very probable, that, if he meant this for a penitential
acknowledgment of his former idolatry, he should only mention what he
had done as the king’s servant, and omit his own voluntary worship of
the idol. The more probable opinion, therefore, is, that he consulted
the prophet, whether it was lawful for him, having renounced idolatry,
and publicly professed the worship of the true God, still, in virtue of
his office, to attend his master in the temple of Rimmon, in order that
he might lean upon him, either out of state, or perhaps out of bodily
weakness; because, if he attended him, as he had formerly done, he could
not avoid bowing down when he did. To this the prophet returns no direct
answer; making no other reply than, Go in peace;” putting it, probably,
upon his conscience to act as that should dictate, and not being willing
to relieve him from this trial of his recent faith.

After this we have no farther mention of Naaman. But in the following
account of the wars between Syria and Israel, Benhadad seems to have
commanded his army in person; from whence Mr. Bedford infers, that
Naaman was dismissed from the command for refusing to worship Rimmon.
But the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion; for it
appears that Benhadad had commanded his army in person twice before;
once in the siege of Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 1, and once at Aphek, verse
26. Yet, from the total silence concerning Naaman, it is probably enough
conjectured, that he either died, or resigned, or was dismissed, soon
after his return.

NABOTH, an Israelite of the city of Jezreel, who lived under Ahab, king
of the ten tribes, and had a fine vineyard near the king’s palace. Ahab
coveted his property; but Naboth, according to the law, Lev. xxv, 23,
24, refused to sell it: and beside, it was a disgrace for a Hebrew to
alienate the inheritance of his ancestors. Ahab, returning into his
house, threw himself on his bed, and refused to eat, when Jezebel, his
wife, took upon herself to procure the vineyard. She wrote letters in
Ahab’s name, and sealed them with the king’s seal, and sent them to the
elders of Jezreel, directing them to publish a fast, to place Naboth
among the chief of the people, suborn against him two sons of Belial, or
two false witnesses, who might depose, that Naboth had blasphemed God
and the king. Accordingly, Naboth was condemned and stoned for the
supposed crime, which brought upon Ahab and Jezebel the severest
maledictions, 1 Kings xxi. See AHAB.

NADAB, son of Aaron, and brother to Abihu. He offered incense to the
Lord with strange fire, that is, with common fire, and not with that
which had been miraculously lighted upon the altar of burnt-offerings.
Therefore, he was slain by the Lord, together with his brother Abihu,
Lev. x, 1, &c.

NAHOR, son of Terah, and brother of Abraham, Gen. xi, 26. Neither the
year of his birth nor of his death is exactly known. Nahor married
Milcah, the daughter of Haran, by whom he had several sons, namely, Huz,
Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel. Nahor fixed
his habitation at Haran, which is therefore called the city of Nahor,
Gen. xi, 29; xxii, 20–22; xxiv, 10.

NAHUM is supposed to have been a native of Elcosh or Elcosha, a village
in Galilee, and to have been of the tribe of Simeon. There is great
uncertainty about the exact period in which he lived; but it is
generally allowed that he delivered his predictions between the Assyrian
and Babylonian captivities, and probably about B. C. 715. They relate
solely to the destruction of Nineveh by the Babylonians and Medes, and
are introduced by an animated display of the attributes of God. Of all
the minor prophets, says Bishop Lowth, none seems to equal Nahum in
sublimity, ardour, and boldness. His prophecy forms an entire and
regular poem. The exordium is magnificent and truly august. The
preparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of that
destruction, are expressed in the most glowing colours; and at the same
time the prophet writes with a perspicuity and elegance which have a
just claim to our highest admiration.

NAIL. The nail of Jael’s tent with which she killed Sisera, is called
יתד; it was formed for penetrating earth, or other hard substances, when
driven by sufficient force, as with a hammer, &c; it includes the idea
of strength. The orientals, in fitting up their houses, were by no means
inattentive to the comfort and satisfaction arising from order and
method. Their furniture was scanty and plain; but they were careful to
arrange the few household utensils they needed, so as not to encumber
the apartments to which they belonged. Their devices for this purpose,
which, like every part of the structure, bore the character of
remarkable simplicity, may not correspond with our ideas of neatness and
propriety; but they accorded with their taste, and sufficiently answered
their design. One of these consisted in a set of spikes, nails, or large
pegs fixed in the walls of the house, upon which they hung up the
movables and utensils in common use that belonged to the room. These
nails they do not drive into the walls with a hammer or mallet, but fix
them there when the house is building; for if the walls are of brick,
they are too hard, or if they consist of clay, too soft and mouldering,
to admit the action of the hammer. The spikes, which are so contrived as
to strengthen the walls, by binding the parts together, as well as to
serve for convenience, are large, with square heads like dice, and bent
at the ends so as to make them cramp irons. They commonly place them at
the windows and doors, in order to hang upon them, when they choose,
veils and curtains, although they place them in other parts of the room,
to hang up other things of various kinds. The care with which they fixed
these nails, may be inferred, as well from the important purposes they
were meant to serve, as from the promise of the Lord to Eliakim: And I
will fasten him as a nail in a sure place,” Isa. xxii, 23. It is evident
from the words of the prophet, that it was common in his time to suspend
upon them the utensils belonging to the apartment: Will men take a pin
of it to hang any vessel thereon?” Ezek. xv, 3. The word used in Isaiah
for a nail of this sort, is the same which denotes the stake, or large
pin of iron, which fastened down to the ground the cords of their tents.
These nails, therefore, were of necessary and common use, and of no
small importance in all their apartments; and if they seem to us mean
and insignificant, it is because they are unknown to us, and
inconsistent with our notions of propriety, and because we have no name
for them but what conveys to our ear a low and contemptible idea. It is
evident from the frequent allusions in Scripture to these instruments,
that they were not regarded with contempt or indifference by the natives
of Palestine. Grace has been shown from the Lord our God,” said Ezra, to
leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place,”
Ezra ix, 8; or, as explained in the margin, a constant and sure abode.
The dignity and propriety of the metaphor appear from the use which the
Prophet Zechariah makes of it: Out of him cometh forth the corner, out
of him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor
together,” Zech. x, 4. The whole frame of government, both in church and
state, which the chosen people of God enjoyed, was the contrivance of
his wisdom and the gift of his bounty; the foundations upon which it
rested, the bonds which kept the several parts together, its means of
defence, its officers and executors, were all the fruits of
distinguishing goodness: even the oppressors of his people were a rod of
correction in the hand of Jehovah, to convince them of sin, and restore
them to his service.

NAIN, a city of Palestine, in which Jesus Christ restored the widow’s
son to life, as they were carrying him out to be buried. Eusebius says,
that this was in the neighbourhood of Endor, and Scythopolis, two miles
from Tabor, toward the south.

NAKEDNESS, NUDITY. These terms, beside their ordinary and literal
meaning, sometimes signify void of succour, disarmed. So, after
worshipping the golden calf, the Israelites found themselves naked in
the midst of their enemies. Nakedness of the feet” was a token of
respect. Moses put off his shoes to approach the burning bush. Most
commentators are of opinion, that the priests served in the tabernacle
with their feet naked; and afterward in the temple. In the enumeration
that Moses makes of the habit and ornaments of the priests, he no where
mentions any dress for the feet. Also the frequent ablutions appointed
them in the temple seem to imply that their feet were naked. To uncover
the nakedness of any one, is commonly put for a shameful and unlawful
conjunction, or an incestuous marriage, Lev. xx, 19; Ezek. xvi, 37.
Nakedness is sometimes put for being partly undressed; _en déshabillé_.
Saul continued naked among the prophets; that is, having only his under
garments on. Isaiah received orders from the Lord to go naked; that is,
clothed as a slave, half clad. Thus it is recommended to clothe the
naked; that is, such as are ill clothed. St. Paul says, that he was in
cold, in nakedness; that is, in poverty and want of raiment. Naked is
put for discovered, known, manifest. So Job xxvi, 6: Hell is naked
before him.” The sepulchre, the unseen state, is open to the eyes of
God. St. Paul says, in the same sense, Neither is there any creature
that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and open
unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,” Heb. iv, 13.

NAME. A name was given to the male child at the time of its
circumcision, but it is probable, previous to the introduction of that
rite, that the name was given immediately after its birth. Among the
orientals the appellations given as names are always significant. In the
Old Testament, we find that the child was named in many instances from
the circumstances of its birth, or from some peculiarities in the
history of the family to which it belonged, Gen. xvi, 11; xix, 37; xxv,
25, 26; Exod. ii, 10; xviii, 3, 4. Frequently the name was a compound
one, one part being the name of the Deity, and among idolatrous nations
the name of an idol. The following instances may be mentioned among
others, and may stand as specimens of the whole, namely, שמואל,
_Samuel_, hear God;” אדניה, _Adonijah_, God is lord;” יהוצדק,
_Josedech_, God is just;” אתבעל, _Ethbaal_, a Canaanitish name, the
latter part of the compound being the name of the idol deity, Baal;
בלשאצר, _Belshazzar_, Bel,” a Babylonish deity, is ruler and king.”
Sometimes the name had a prophetic meaning, Gen. xvii, 15; Isa. vii, 14;
viii, 3; Hos. i, 4, 6, 9; Matt. i, 21; Luke i, 13, 60, 63. In the later
times names were selected from those of the progenitors of a family;
hence in the New Testament hardly any other than ancient names occur,
Matt. i, 12; Luke i, 61; iii, 23, &c. The inhabitants of the east very
frequently change their names, and sometimes do it for very slight
reasons. This accounts for the fact of so many persons having two names
in Scripture, Ruth i, 20, 21; 1 Sam. xiv, 49; xxxi, 2; 1 Chron. x, 2;
Judges vi, 32; vii, 1; 2 Sam. xxiii, 8. Kings and princes very often
changed the names of those who held offices under them, particularly
when they first attracted their notice, and were taken into their
employ, and when subsequently they were elevated to some new station,
and crowned with additional honours, Gen. xli, 45; xvii, 5; xxxii, 28;
xxxv, 10; 2 Kings xxiii, 34, 35; xxiv, 17; Dan. i, 6; John i, 42; Mark
iii, 17. Hence a name, a new name, occurs tropically, as a token or
proof of distinction and honour in the following among other passages,
Phil. ii, 9; Heb. i, 4; Rev. ii, 17. Sometimes the names of the dead
were changed; for instance that of Abel, הבל, a word which signifies
breath, or something transitory as a breath, given to him after his
death, in allusion to the shortness of his life, Gen. ii, 8. Sometimes
proper names are translated into other languages, losing their original
form, while they preserve their signification. This appears to have been
the case with the proper names, which occur in the first eleven chapters
of Genesis, and which were translated into the Hebrew from a language
still more ancient. The orientals in some instances, in order to
distinguish themselves from others of the same name, added to their own
name the name of their father, grandfather, and even great grandfather.
The name of God often signifies God himself; sometimes his attributes
collectively; sometimes his power and authority. Of the Messiah it is
said, And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King
of kings, and Lord of lords,” Rev. xix, 16. In illustration of this it
may be remarked, that it appears to have been an ancient custom among
several nations, to adorn the images of their deities, princes, victors
at their public games, and other eminent persons, with inscriptions
expressive of their names, character, titles, or some circumstance which
might contribute to their honour. There are several such images yet
extant, with an inscription written either on the garment, or one of the
thighs. Herodotus mentions two figures of Sesostris, king of Egypt, cut
upon rocks in Ionia, after his conquest of that country, with the
following inscription across the breast, extending from one shoulder to
the other: I conquered this country by the force of my arms.” Gruter has
published a naked statue made of marble, and supposed to represent the
genius either of some Roman emperor, or of Antinöus, who was deified by
Hadrian, with an inscription on the inside of the right thigh, written
perpendicularly in Roman letters, and containing the names of three
persons. Near the statue, on the same side of it, stands an oval shield
with the names of two other persons written round the rim in letters of
the same form. In the appendix to Dempster’s _Etruria Regalis_” is a
female image of brass, clothed in a loose tunic down to the feet, with a
shorter garment over it, on the right side of which is a perpendicular
inscription in Etrurian characters, extending partly on the lower
garment. This figure, from the diadem on the head, and other
circumstances which accompany it, Philip Bonarota, the editor of that
work, supposes to have been designed for some Etrurian deity. Montfaucon
has given us a male image of the same metal, dressed in a tunic, and
over that another vestment something like a Roman toga, reaching to the
middle of the legs, on the bottom of which is an Etrurian inscription
written horizontally. There are likewise in both those writers two male
figures crowned with laurel, which Montfaucon calls combatants, as the
laurel was an emblem of victory. But Bonarota takes one of them for an
image of Apollo, which has a chain round the neck, a garment wrapped
over the right arm, and a bracelet on the left, with half boots on the
legs; the rest of the body being naked has an Etrurian inscription
written downward in two lines on the inside of the left thigh. The other
figure has the lower part of the body clothed in a loose vestment, with
an inscription upon it over the right thigh, perpendicularly written in
Roman letters, which Bonarota has thus expressed in a more distinct
manner than they appear in Montfaucon: POMPONIO VIRIO I. To these may be
added from Montfaucon, a marble statue of a naked combatant, with a
fillet about his head in token of victory. It is drawn in two views, one
exhibiting the back and the other the fore part of the body, the latter
of which has in Greek letters, ΚΑΦΙΣΟΔΟΡΟΣ for ΚΑΦΙΣΟΔΩΡΟΣ,
perpendicularly inscribed on the outside of the left thigh; and the
former the name ΑΙΣΧΛΑΜΙΟΥ in the like characters and situation on the
right thigh; these together make one inscription signifying
_Caphisodorus filius Æschlamii_. [Caphisodorus the son of Æschlamius.]

NAOMI. See RUTH.

NAPHTALI, the sixth son of Jacob by Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid. The word
Naphtali signifies _wrestling_, or _struggling_. When Rachel gave him
this name, she said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my
sister, and I have prevailed,” Gen. xxx, 8. Naphtali had but four sons,
and yet at the coming out of Egypt his tribe made up fifty-three
thousand four hundred men, able to bear arms. Moses, in the blessing he
gave to the same tribe, says, O Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and
full with the blessing of the Lord, possess thou the west and the
south,” Deut. xxxiii, 23. The Vulgate reads it, the sea and the south,”
and the Hebrew will admit of either interpretation, that is, the sea of
Gennesareth, which was to the south by the inheritance of this tribe.
His soil was very fruitful in corn and oil. His limits were extended
into upper and lower Galilee, having Jordan to the east, the tribes of
Asher and Zebulun to the west, Libanus to the north, and the tribe of
Issachar to the south. Under Barak, their general, they and the
Zebulunites fought with distinguished bravery against the army of Jabin
the younger; and at the desire of Gideon they pursued the Midianites,
Judges iv, 10; v, 18; vii, 23. A thousand of their captains, with
thirty-seven thousand of their troops, assisted at David’s coronation,
and brought great quantities of provision with them, 1 Chron. xii, 34,
40. We find no person of distinguished note among them, save Barak, and
Hiram the artificer. Instigated by Asa, Benhadad the elder, king of
Syria, terribly ravaged the land of Naphtali; and what it suffered in
after invasions by the Syrians we are partly told, 1 Kings xv, 20. The
Naphtalites were, many, if not most of them, carried captive by
Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, 2 Kings xv, 29. Josiah purged their
country from idols. Our Saviour and his disciples, during his public
ministry, resided much and preached frequently in the land of Naphtali,
Isaiah ix, 1; Matt. iv, 13, 15.

NAPHTUHIM, a son, or rather the descendants of a son, of Mizraim, whose
proper name is Naphtuch. Naphtuch is supposed to have given his name to
Naph, Noph, or Memphis, and to have been the first king of that division
of Egypt. He is, however, placed by Bochart in Libya; and is conjectured
to be the Aphtuchus, or Autuchus, who had a temple somewhere here. He is
farther conjectured, and not without reason, to be the original of the
Heathen god Neptune; who is represented to have been a Libyan, and whose
temples were generally built near the sea coast. By others, he is
supposed to have peopled that part of Ethiopia between Syene and Meroe,
the capital of which was called Napata.

NATHAN, a prophet of the Lord, who appeared in Israel in the time of
King David, and had a great share in the confidence of this prince. His
country is unknown, as also the time in which he began to prophesy. The
first time we find him mentioned, is when David designed to build the
temple, 2 Sam. vii, 3, &c. We find him mentioned again in the affair of
David and Bathsheba, when he faithfully reproved the king for his wicked
conduct, 2 Sam. xii, 1–14. And when Adonijah began to take upon him the
state, and to assume the dignity, of a sovereign, and to form a party in
opposition to his brother Solomon, Nathan repaired to Bathsheba, and
sent her immediately to the king with instructions what to say; and
while she was yet discoursing with the king, Nathan came in, reminded
David of his promise, that Solomon should be his successor, and procured
Solomon to be immediately anointed king of Israel.

NATHANAEL, a disciple of our Lord. He appears to have been a pious Jew
who waited for the Messiah: and upon Jesus saying to him, Before Philip
called thee, I saw thee under the fig tree,” Nathanael, convinced, by
some circumstance not explained, of his omniscience, exclaimed, Master,
thou art the Son of God, and the King of Israel.” Many have thought that
Nathanael was the same as Bartholomew. The evangelists, who mention
Bartholomew, say nothing of Nathanael; and St. John, who mentions
Nathanael, takes no notice of Bartholomew. We read at the end of St.
John’s Gospel, that our Saviour, after his resurrection, manifested
himself to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, as they
were fishing in the lake of Gennesareth. We know no other circumstances
of the life of this holy man.

NATURAL, ψυχικὸς, is a term that frequently occurs in the apostolic
writings: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,” 1
Cor. ii, 14. Here it is plain that by the natural man,” is not meant a
person devoid of natural judgment, reason, or conscience, in which sense
the expression is often used among men. Nor does it signify one who is
entirely governed by his fleshly appetites, or what the world calls a
voluptuary, or sensualist. Neither does it signify merely a man in the
rude state of nature, whose faculties have not been cultivated by
learning and study, and polished by an intercourse with society. The
Apostle manifestly takes his natural man” from among such as the world
hold in the highest repute for their natural parts, their learning, and
their religion. He selects him from among the philosophers of Greece,
who sought after wisdom, and from among the Jewish scribes, who were
instructed in the revealed law of God, 1 Cor. i, 22, 23. These are the
persons whom he terms the wise, the scribes, the disputers of this
world--men to whom the Gospel was a stumbling block and foolishness, 1
Cor. i, 20, 23. The natural man is here evidently opposed to, ὁ
πνευματικὸς, him that is spiritual,” 1 Cor. ii, 15, even as the natural
body which we derive from Adam is opposed to the spiritual body which
believers will receive from Christ at the resurrection, according to 1
Cor. xv, 44, 45. Now the spiritual man is one who has the Spirit of
Christ dwelling in him, Rom. viii, 9, not merely in the way of
miraculous gifts, as some have imagined, (for these were peculiar to the
first age of the Christian church, and even then not common to all the
saints, nor inseparably connected with salvation, 1 Cor. xiii, 1–4; Heb.
vi, 4–7,) but in his saving influences of light, holiness, and
consolation, whereby the subject is made to discern the truth and
excellency of spiritual things, and so to believe, love, and delight in
them as his true happiness. If therefore a man is called spiritual”
because the Spirit of Christ dwells in him, giving him new views,
dispositions, and enjoyments, then the natural man,” being opposed to
such, must be one who is destitute of the Spirit, and of all his saving
and supernatural effects, whatever may be his attainments in human
learning and science. It is obviously upon this principle that our Lord
insists upon the necessity of the new birth in order to our entering
into the kingdom of heaven, John iii, 3, 5.

NATURE. In Scripture the word nature expresses the orderly and usual
course of things established in the world. St. Paul says, to ingraft a
good olive tree into a wild olive is contrary to nature, Rom. xi, 24;
the customary order of nature is thereby in some measure inverted.
Nature is also put for natural descent: We who are Jews by nature,” by
birth, and not Gentiles,” Gal. ii, 15. We were by nature the children of
wrath,” Eph. ii, 3. Nature also denotes common sense, natural instinct:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it
is a shame to him?” 1 Cor. xi, 14.

NAZARENES, or NAZARÆANS, a name originally given to Christians in
general, on account of Jesus Christ’s being of the city of Nazareth; but
was, in the second century, restrained to certain judaizing Christians,
who blended Christianity and Judaism together. They held that Christ was
born of a virgin, and was also in a certain manner united to the divine
nature. They refused to abandon the ceremonies prescribed by the law of
Moses; but were far from attempting to impose the observance of these
ceremonies upon Gentile Christians. They rejected those additions that
were made to the Mosaic institutions by the Pharisees and doctors of the
law, and admitted the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament. The
fathers frequently mention the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which differs
nothing from that of St. Matthew, but was afterward corrupted by the
Ebionites. These Nazarenes preserved this first Gospel in its primitive
purity. Some of them were still in being in the time of St. Jerome, who
does not reproach them with any errors.

NAZARETH, a little city in the tribe of Zebulun, in Lower Galilee, to
the west of Tabor, and to the east of Ptolemais. This city is much
celebrated in the Scriptures for having been the usual place of the
residence of Jesus Christ, during the first thirty years of his life,
Luke ii, 51. It was here he lived in obedience to Joseph and Mary, and
hence he took the name of Nazarene. After he had begun to execute his
mission he preached here sometimes in the synagogue, Luke iv, 16. But
because his countrymen had no faith in him, and were offended at the
meanness of his original, he did not many miracles here, Matt. xiii, 54,
58, nor would he dwell in the city. So he fixed his habitation at
Capernaum for the latter part of his life, Matt. iv, 13. The city of
Nazareth was situated upon an eminence, and on one side was a precipice,
from whence the Nazarenes designed, at one time, to cast Christ down
headlong, because he upbraided them for their incredulity, Luke iv, 29.

The present state of this celebrated place is thus described by modern
travellers:--Nassara, or Naszera, is one of the principal towns in the
pashalic of Acre. Its inhabitants are industrious, because they are
treated with less severity than those of the country towns in general.
The population is estimated at three thousand, of whom five hundred are
Turks; the remainder are Christians. There are about ninety Latin
families, according to Burckhardt; but Mr. Connor reports the Greeks to
be the most numerous: there is, beside, a congregation of Greek
Catholics, and another of Maronites. The Latin convent is a very
spacious and commodious building, which was thoroughly repaired and
considerably enlarged in 1730. The remains of the more ancient edifice,
ascribed to the mother of Constantine, may be observed in the form of
subverted columns, with fragments of capitals and bases of pillars,
lying near the modern building. Pococke noticed, over a door, an old
alto-relief of Judith cutting off the head of Holofernes. Within the
convent is the church of the annunciation, containing the house of
Joseph and Mary, the length of which is not quite the breadth of the
church; but it forms the principal part of it. The columns and all the
interior of the church are hung round with damask silk, which gives it a
warm and rich appearance. Behind the great altar is a subterranean
cavern, divided into small grottoes, where the virgin is said to have
lived. Her kitchen, parlour, and bed room, are shown, and also a narrow
hole in the rock, in which the child Jesus once hid himself from his
persecutors. The pilgrims who visit these holy spots are in the habit of
knocking off small pieces of stone from the walls, which are thus
considerably enlarging. In the church a miracle is still exhibited to
the faithful. In front of the altar are two granite columns, each two
feet one inch in diameter, and about three feet apart. They are supposed
to occupy the very places where the angel and the virgin stood at the
precise moment of the annunciation. The innermost of these, that of the
virgin, has been broken away, some say by the Turks, in expectation of
finding treasure under it; so that,” as Maundrell states, “eighteen
inches’ length of it is clean gone between the pillar and the pedestal.”
Nevertheless, it remains erect, suspended from the roof, as if attracted
by a loadstone. It has evidently no support below; and, though it
touches the roof, the hierophant protests that it has none above. All
the Christians of Nazareth,” says Burckhardt, with the friars, of
course, at their head, affect to believe in this miracle; though it is
perfectly evident that the upper part of the column is connected with
the roof.” The fact is,” says Dr. E. D. Clarke, that the capital and a
piece of the shaft of a pillar of gray granite have been fastened on to
the roof of the cave; and so clumsily is the rest of the _hocus pocus_
contrived, that what is shown for the lower fragment of the same pillar
resting upon the earth, is not of the same substance, but of Cipolino
marble. About this pillar, a different story has been related by almost
every traveller since the trick was devised. Maundrell, and Egmont and
Heyman, were told that it was broken, in search of hidden treasure, by a
pasha, who was struck with blindness for his impiety. We were assured
that it was separated in this manner when the angel announced to the
virgin the tidings of her conception. The monks had placed a rail, to
prevent persons infected with the plague from coming to rub against
these pillars: this had been, for many years, their constant practice,
whenever afflicted with any sickness. The reputation of the broken
pillar, for healing every kind of disease, prevails all over Galilee.”

Burckhardt says that this church, next to that of the holy sepulchre, is
the finest in Syria, and contains two tolerably good organs. Within the
walls of the convent are two gardens, and a small burying ground: the
walls are very thick, and serve occasionally as a fortress to all the
Christians in the town. There are, at present, eleven friars in the
convent: they are chiefly Spaniards. The yearly expenses of the
establishment are stated to amount to upward of nine hundred pounds; a
small part of which is defrayed by the rent of a few houses in the town,
and by the produce of some acres of corn land: the rest is remitted from
Jerusalem. The whole annual expenses of the _Terra Santa_ convents are
about fifteen thousand pounds; of which the pasha of Damascus receives
about twelve thousand pounds. The Greek convent of Jerusalem, according
to Burckhardt’s authority, pays much more, as well to maintain its own
privileges, as with a view to encroach upon those of the Latins. To the
north-west of the convent is a small church, built over Joseph’s work
shop. Both Maundrell and Pococke describe it as in ruins; but Dr. E. D.
Clarke says, This is now a small chapel, perfectly modern, and neatly
whitewashed.” To the west of this is a small arched building, which,
they say, is the synagogue where Christ exasperated the Jews, by
applying the language of Isaiah to himself. It once belonged to the
Greeks; but, Hasselquist says, was taken from them by the Arabs, who
intended to convert it into a mosque, but afterward sold it to the
Latins. This was then so late a transaction that they had not had time
to embellish it. The Mountain of the Precipitation” is at least two
miles off; so that, according to this authentic tradition, the Jews must
have led our Lord a marvellous way. But the said precipice is shown as
that which the Messiah leaped down to escape from the Jews; and as the
monks could not pitch upon any other place frightful enough for the
miracle, they contend that Nazareth formerly stood eastward of its
present situation, upon a more elevated spot. Dr. E. D. Clarke, however,
remarks that the situation of the modern town answers exactly to the
description of St. Luke. “Induced, by the words of the Gospel, to
examine the place more attentively than we should otherwise have done,
we went, as it is written, out of the city, ‘to the brow of the hill
whereon the city is built,’ and came to a precipice corresponding to the
words of the evangelist. It is above the Maronite church, and, probably,
the precise spot alluded to by the text.”

NAZARITES, those under the ancient law who engaged by a vow to abstain
from wine and all intoxicating liquors, to let their hair grow, not to
enter any house polluted by having a dead corpse in it, nor to be
present at any funeral. If, by accident, any one should have died in
their presence, they recommenced the whole of their consecration and
Nazariteship. This vow generally lasted eight days, sometimes a month,
and sometimes their whole lives. When the time of their Nazariteship was
expired, the priest brought the person to the door of the temple, who
there offered to the Lord a he-lamb for a burnt-offering, a she-lamb for
an expiatory sacrifice, and a ram for a peace-offering. They offered,
likewise, loaves and cakes, with wine, for libations. After all was
sacrificed and offered, the priest, or some other, shaved the head of
the Nazarite at the door of the tabernacle, and burned his hair on the
fire of the altar. Then the priest put into the hands of the Nazarite
the shoulder of the ram roasted, with a loaf and a cake, which the
Nazarite returning into the hands of the priest, he offered them to the
Lord, lifting them up in the presence of the Nazarite. And from this
time he might again drink wine, his Nazariteship being accomplished.

Perpetual Nazarites, as Samson and John the Baptist, were consecrated to
their Nazariteship by their parents, and continued all their lives in
this state, without drinking wine or cutting their hair. Those who made
a vow of Nazariteship out of Palestine, and could not come to the temple
when their vow was expired, contented themselves with observing the
abstinence required by the law, and cutting off their hair in the place
where they were: the offerings and sacrifices prescribed by Moses, to be
offered at the temple, by themselves or by others for them, they
deferred till a convenient opportunity. Hence it was that St. Paul,
being at Corinth, and having made the vow of a Nazarite, had his hair
cut off at Cenchrea, a port of Corinth, and deferred the rest of his vow
till he came to Jerusalem, Acts xviii, 18. When a person found he was
not in a condition to make a vow of Nazariteship, or had not leisure
fully to perform it, he contented himself by contributing to the expense
of sacrifices and offerings of those who had made and were fulfilling
this vow; and by this means he became a partaker in such Nazariteship.
When St. Paul came to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, St. James, with other
brethren, said to him, that to quiet the minds of the converted Jews he
should join himself to four persons who had a vow of Nazariteship, and
contribute to their charges and ceremonies; by which the new converts
would perceive that he did not totally disregard the law, as they had
been led to suppose, Acts xxi, 23, 24. The institution of Nazaritism is
involved in much mystery; and no satisfactory reason has ever been given
of it. This is certain, that it had the approbation of God, and may be
considered as affording a good example of self-denial in order to be
given up to the study of the law, and the practice of exact
righteousness.

NEBO, the name of an idol of the Babylonians: Bel boweth down, Nebo
stoopeth,” Isaiah xlvi, 1. The word _Nebo_ comes from a root that
signifies to prophesy,” and therefore may stand for an oracle. There is
some probability in the opinion of Calmet, that Bel and Nebo are but one
and the same deity, and that Isaiah made use of these names as
synonymous. The god Bel was the oracle of the Babylonians. The name
Nebo, or Nabo, is found in the composition of the names of several
princes of Babylon; as Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar,
Nebuzar-adan, Nebushasban, &c.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR THE GREAT, son and successor of Nabopolassar, succeeded
to the kingdom of Chaldea, A. M. 3399. Some time previously to this,
Nabopolassar had associated him in the kingdom, and sent him to recover
Carchemish, which had been conquered from him four years before by
Necho, king of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar, having been successful, marched
against the governor of Phenicia, and Jehoiakim, king of Judah, who was
tributary to Necho, king of Egypt. He took Jehoiakim, and put him in
chains in order to carry him captive to Babylon; but afterward left him
in Judea, on condition of paying a large tribute. He took away several
persons from Jerusalem; among others Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah, all of the royal family, whom the king of Babylon caused to be
carefully instructed in the language and in the learning of the
Chaldeans, that they might be employed at court, Dan. i. Nabopolassar
dying about the end of A. M. 3399, Nebuchadnezzar, who was then either
in Egypt or in Judea, hastened to Babylon, leaving to his generals the
care of bringing to Chaldea the captives whom he had taken in Syria,
Judea, Phenicia, and Egypt; for, according to Berosus, he had subdued
all those countries. He distributed these captives into several
colonies; and deposited the sacred vessels of the temple of Jerusalem,
and other rich spoils in the temple of Belus. Jehoiakim, king of Judah,
continued three years in fealty to King Nebuchadnezzar; but being then
weary of paying tribute, he threw off the yoke. The king of Chaldea sent
troops of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, who harassed
Judea during three or four years, and at last Jehoiakim was besieged and
taken in Jerusalem, put to death, and his body thrown to the birds of
the air, according to the predictions of Jeremiah. See JEHOIAKIM.

In the mean time, Nebuchadnezzar being at Babylon in the second year of
his reign, had a mysterious dream, in which he saw a statue composed of
several metals, a head of gold, a breast of silver, belly and thighs of
brass, legs of iron, and feet half of iron and half clay; and a little
stone rolling by its own impulse from the mountain struck the statue and
broke it. This dream gave him great uneasiness, yet it faded away from
his memory, and he could not recover more than the general impression of
it. He ordered all his diviners and interpreters of dreams to be sent
for; but none could tell him the dream or the interpretation: and, in
wrath, he sentenced them all to death, which was about to be put in
execution, when Daniel was informed of it. He went immediately to the
king, and desired him to respite the sentence a little, and he would
endeavour to satisfy his desire. God in the night revealed to him the
king’s dream, and also the interpretation: Thou,” said Daniel, art
represented by the golden head of the statue. After thee will arise a
kingdom inferior to thine, represented by the breast of silver; and
after this, another, still inferior, denoted by the belly and thighs of
brass. After these three empires,” which are the Chaldeans, Persians,
and Greeks, will arise a fourth, denoted by the legs of iron,” the
Romans. Under this last empire God will raise a new one, of greater
strength, power, and extent, than all the others. This last is that of
the Messiah, represented by the little stone coming out from the
mountain and overthrowing the statue.” Then the king raised Daniel to
great honour, set him over all the wise men of Babylon, and give him the
government of that province. At his request he granted to Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, the oversight of the works of the same province
of Babylon.

In the same year, as Dr. Hales thinks, in which he had this dream, he
erected a golden statue, whose height was sixty cubits, and breadth six
cubits, in the plains of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Having
appointed a day for the dedication of this statue, he assembled the
principal officers of his kingdom, and published by a herald, that all
should adore this image, at the sound of music, on penalty of being cast
into a burning fiery furnace. The result, as to the three Jews,
companions of Daniel, who would not bend the knee to the image, is
stated in Dan. iii. Daniel probably was absent. The effect of the
miracle was so great that Nebuchadnezzar gave glory to the God of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and he exalted the three Hebrews to
great dignity in the province of Babylon, Dan. iv.

Jehoiachin, king of Judah, having revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, this
prince besieged him in Jerusalem, and forced him to surrender.
Nebuchadnezzar took him, with his chief officers, captive to Babylon,
with his mother, his wives, and the best workmen of Jerusalem, to the
number of ten thousand men. Among the captives were Mordecai, the uncle
of Esther, and Ezekiel the prophet. He took, also, all the vessels of
gold which Solomon made for the temple, and the king’s treasury, and he
set up Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle by his father’s side, whom he named
Zedekiah. This prince continued faithful to Nebuchadnezzar nine years:
being then weary of subjection, he revolted, and confederated with the
neighbouring princes. The king of Babylon came into Judea, reduced the
chief places of the country, and besieged Jerusalem: but Pharaoh-Hophra
coming out of Egypt to assist Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar overcame him in
battle, and forced him to retire into his own country. After this he
returned to the siege of Jerusalem, and was three hundred and ninety
days before the place before he could take it. But in the eleventh year
of Zedekiah, A. M. 3416, the city was taken. Zedekiah attempted to
escape, but was taken and brought to Nebuchadnezzar, who was then at
Riblah in Syria. The king of Babylon condemned him to die, caused his
children to be put to death in his presence, and then bored out his
eyes, loaded him with chains, and sent him to Babylon.

Three years after the Jewish war Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city of
Tyre, which siege held thirteen years. But during this interval, he made
war, also, on the Sidonians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Idumeans; and
these he treated in nearly the same manner as the Jews. Josephus says
these wars happened five years after the destruction of Jerusalem,
consequently in A. M. 3421. The city of Tyre was taken in A. M. 3432.
Ithobaal, who was then king, was put to death, and Baal succeeded him.
The Lord, as a reward to the army of Nebuchadnezzar, which had lain so
long before Tyre, gave up to them Egypt and its spoils. Nebuchadnezzar
made an easy conquest of it, because the Egyptians were divided by civil
wars among themselves: he enriched himself with booty, and returned in
triumph to Babylon, with a great number of captives. Being now at peace,
he applied himself to the adorning, aggrandizing, and enriching of
Babylon with magnificent buildings. To him some ascribe those famous
gardens, supported by arches, reckoned among the wonders of the world;
and also the walls of Babylon, though many give the honour of this work
to Semiramis.

About this time Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a great tree, loaded with
fruit. Suddenly, an angel descending from heaven, commanded that the
tree should be cut down, but that the root should be preserved in the
earth, Dan. iv. The king sent for all the diviners in the country, but
none could explain his dream, till Daniel, by divine revelation, showed
that it represented his present greatness, his signal approaching
humiliation, and his restoration to reason and dignity. A year after, as
Nebuchadnezzar was walking on his palace at Babylon, he began to say, Is
not this great Babylon, which I have built for the house of the kingdom,
by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” and
scarcely had he pronounced these words, when he fell into a distemper or
distraction, which so altered his imagination that he fled into the
fields and assumed the manners of an ox. After having been seven years
in this state, God opened his eyes, his understanding was restored to
him, and he recovered his royal dignity.

Nebuchadnezzar died, A. M. 3442, after having reigned forty-three years.
Megasthenes, quoted by Eusebius, says, that this prince having ascended
to the top of his palace, was there seized with a fit of divine
enthusiasm, and cried out, O Babylonians, I declare to you a misfortune,
that neither our father Belus, nor Queen Baltis has been able to
prevent. A Persian mule shall one day come into this country, who,
supported by the power of your gods, shall bring you into slavery. He
shall be assisted by the Mede, the glory of the Assyrians.” This Persian
mule is Cyrus, whose mother was a Mede, and whose father was a Persian.
The Mede who assisted Cyrus was Cyaxares, or Darius the Mede. This story
at least shows that the Heathens had traditions of an extraordinary kind
respecting this monarch, and that the fate of Babylon had been the
subject of prophecy.

NEBUZAR-ADAN, a general of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, and the chief officer
of his household. He managed the siege of Jerusalem, and made himself
master of the city, while his sovereign was at Riblah in Syria, 2 Kings
xxv; Jer. xxxix; xl; lii.

NECESSITARIANS. The doctrine of necessity regards the origin of human
actions, and the specific mode of the divine government; and it seems to
be the immediate result of the materiality of man; for mechanism is the
undoubted consequence of materialism. Hence all materialists are of
course necessitarians; but it does not follow that all necessitarians
are or must be materialists. Whatever is done by a cause or power that
is irresistible, is by necessity; in which sense this term is opposed to
freedom. Man is, therefore, a necessary agent, if all his actions be so
determined by the causes preceding each action, that not one past action
could possibly not have come to pass, or have been otherwise than it
hath been; and not one future action can possibly not come to pass, or
be otherwise than it shall be. But man is a free agent, if he be able at
any time, in the circumstances in which he is placed, to do different
things; or, in other words, if he be not unavoidably determined in every
point of time by the circumstances he is in, and the causes he is under,
to do that one thing he does, and not possibly to do any other thing.
This abstruse subject has occasioned much controversy, and has been
debated by writers of the first eminence, from Hobbes and Clarke, to
Priestley and Gregory. The anti-necessitarians allege, that the doctrine
of necessity charges God as the author of sin; that it takes away the
freedom of the will; renders man unaccountable to his Maker; makes sin
to be no evil, and morality or virtue to be no good; and that it
precludes the use of means, and is of the most gloomy tendency. The
necessitarians, on the other hand, deny these to be legitimate
consequences of their doctrine, which they declare to be the most
consistent mode of explaining the divine government; and they observe,
that the Deity acts no more immorally in decreeing vicious actions, than
in permitting all those irregularities which he could so easily have
prevented. All necessity, say they, doth not take away freedom. The
actions of a man may be at one and the same time both free and
necessary. Thus, it was infallibly certain that Judas would betray
Christ, yet he did it voluntarily; Jesus Christ necessarily became man,
and died, yet he acted freely. A good man doth naturally and necessarily
love his children, yet voluntarily. They insist that necessity doth not
render actions less morally good; for, if necessary virtue be neither
moral nor praiseworthy, it will follow that God himself is not a moral
being, because he is a necessary one; and the obedience of Christ cannot
be good, because it was necessary. Farther, say they, necessity does not
preclude the use of means; for means are no less appointed than the end.
It was ordained that Christ should be delivered up to death; but he
could not have been betrayed without a betrayer, nor crucified without
crucifiers. That it is not a gloomy doctrine they allege, because
nothing can be more consolatory than to believe, that all things are
under the direction of an all-wise Being, that his kingdom ruleth over
all, and that he doeth all things well. They also urge, that to deny
necessity, is to deny the foreknowledge of God, and to wrest the sceptre
from the hand of the Creator, and to place that capricious and
undefinable principle, the self-determining power of man, upon the
throne of the universe. In these statements there is obviously a
confused use of terms in different meanings, so as to mislead the
unwary. For instance: _necessity_ is confounded with _certainty_; but an
action may be certain, though free; that is to say, certain to an
omniscient Being, who knows how a free agent will finally resolve; but
this certainty is, in fact, a quality of the prescient Being, not that
of the action, to which, however, men delusively transfer it. Again: God
is called a necessary Being, which, if it mean any thing, signifies, as
to his moral acts, that he can only act right. But then this is a wrong
application of the term necessity, which properly implies such a
constraint upon actions, exercised _ab extra_, as renders choice or will
impossible. But such necessity cannot exist as to the supreme Being.
Again: the obedience of Christ unto death was necessary, that is to say,
unless he had died guilty man could not have been forgiven; but this
could not make the act of the Jews who put him to death a necessary act,
that is to say, a forced and constrained one; nor did this necessity
affect the act of Christ himself, who acted voluntarily, and might have
left man without salvation. That the Jews acted _freely_, is evident
from their being held liable to punishment, although unconsciously they
accomplished the great designs of Heaven, which, however, was no excuse
for their crime. Finally: as to the allegation, that the doctrine of
free agency puts man’s self-determining power upon the throne of the
universe, that view proceeds upon notions unworthy of God, as though he
could not accomplish his plans without compelling and controlling all
things by a fixed fate; whereas it is both more glorious to him, and
certainly more in accordance with the Scriptures, to say that he has a
perfect foresight of the manner in which all creatures will act, and
that he, by a profound and infinite wisdom, subordinates every thing
without violence to the evolution and accomplishment of his own glorious
purposes.

The doctrine of necessity is nearly connected with that of
predestination, which, of late years, has assumed a form very different
from that which it formerly possessed; for, instead of being considered
as a point to be determined almost entirely by the sacred writings, it
has, in the hands of a number of able writers, in a great measure
resolved itself into a question of natural religion, under the head of
the philosophical liberty or necessity of the will; or, whether all
human actions are, or are not, necessarily determined by motives arising
from the character which God has impressed on our minds, and the train
of circumstances amidst which his providence has placed us? The
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is, that God for his own glory,
hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.” The scheme of philosophical
necessity, as stated by the most celebrated necessitarian of the age,
is, that every thing is predetermined by the divine Being; that whatever
has been, must have been; and that whatever will be, must be; that all
events are preordained by infinite wisdom and unlimited goodness; that
the will, in all its determinations, is governed by the state of mind;
that the state of mind is, in every instance, determined by the Deity;
and that there is a continued chain of causes and effects, of motives
and actions, inseparably connected, and originating from the condition
in which we are brought into existence by the Author of our being.” On
the other hand, it is justly remarked, that “those who believe the being
and perfections of God, and a state of retribution, in which he will
reward and punish mankind according to the diversity of their actions,
will find it difficult to reconcile the justice of punishment with the
necessity of crimes punished. And they that believe all that the
Scripture says on the one hand, of the eternity of future punishments,
and on the other, of God’s compassion to sinners, and his solemn
assurance that he desires not their death, will find the difficulty
greatly increased.” It is doubtless an article of the Christian faith,
that God will reward or punish every man hereafter according to his
actions in this life. But we cannot maintain his justice in this
particular, if men’s actions be necessary either in their own nature, or
by the divine decrees. Activity and self-determining powers are the
foundation of all morality; and to prove that such powers belong to man,
it is urged that we ourselves are conscious of possessing them. We blame
and condemn ourselves when we do amiss; but guilt, and inward sense of
shame, and remorse of conscience, are feelings which are inconsistent
with the scheme of necessity. It is also agreed that some actions
deserve praise, and afford an inward satisfaction; but for this, there
would be no foundation, if we were invincibly determined in every
volition: so that approbation and blame are consequent on free actions
only. Nor is the matter at all relieved by bringing in a chain of
circumstances as motives necessarily to determine the will. This comes
to the same result in sound argument, as though there was an immediate
_coäction_ of omnipotent power compelling one kind of volitions only;
which is utterly irreconcilable to all just notions of the nature and
operations of will, and to all accountability. Necessity, in the sense
of irresistible control, and the doctrine of Scripture, cannot coëxist.

NECROMANCY, νεκρομαντεία, is the art of raising up the ghosts of
deceased persons, to get information from them concerning future events.
This practice, no doubt, the Israelites brought with them from Egypt,
which affected to be the mother of such occult sciences; and from thence
it spread into the neighbouring countries, and soon infected all the
east. The injunction of the law is very express against this vice; and
the punishment to be inflicted on the practisers of it was stoning to
death, Lev. xx, 27. What forms of enchantment were used in the practice
of necromancy we are at a loss to know, because we read of none that the
pythoness of Endor employed; however, that there were several rites,
spells, and invocations used upon these occasions, we may learn from
almost every ancient author, but from none more particularly than from
Lucan in his _Pharsalia_. Whether the art of conversing with the dead
was mere imposture, or grounded upon diabolical agency, is a question
which has been disputed in all ages.

NEHEMIAH professes himself the author of the book which bears his name,
in the very beginning of it, and he uniformly writes in the first
person. He was of the tribe of Judah, and was probably born at Babylon
during the captivity. He was so distinguished for his family and
attainments, as to be selected for the office of cup bearer to the king
of Persia, a situation of great honour and emolument. He was made
governor of Judea, upon his own application, by Artaxerxes Longimanus;
and his book, which in the Hebrew canon was joined to that of Ezra,
gives an account of his appointment and administration through a space
of about thirty-six years to A. M. 3595, at which time the Scripture
history closes; and, consequently, the historical books, from Joshua to
Nehemiah inclusive, contain the history of the Jewish people from the
death of Moses, A. M. 2553, to the reformation established by Nehemiah,
after the return from captivity, being a period of one thousand and
forty-two years.

NEOLOGY. This term, which signifies _new doctrine_, has been used to
designate a species of theology and Biblical criticism which has of late
years much prevailed among the Protestant divines of Germany, and the
professors of their universities. It is now, however, more frequently
termed rationalism, and is supposed to occupy a sort of middle place
between the orthodox system and pure deism. The German divines
themselves speak of naturalism, rationalism, and supernaturalism. The
term _naturalism_ arose first in the sixteenth century, and was spread
in the seventeenth. It was understood to be the system of those who
allowed no other knowledge of religion than the natural, which man could
shape out by his own strength, and, consequently, excluded all
supernatural revelation. As to the different forms of naturalism,
theologians say there are three: the first, which they call Pelagianism,
and which considers human dispositions and notions as perfectly pure,
and the religious knowledge derived from them as sufficiently explicit.
A grosser kind denies all particular revelation; and the grossest of all
considers the world as God. _Rationalism_ has been thus explained: Those
who are generally termed rationalists,” says Dr. Bretschneider, admit
universally in Christianity, a divine, benevolent, and positive
appointment for the good of mankind, and Jesus as a messenger of Divine
Providence, believing that the true and everlasting word of God is
contained in the Holy Scripture, and that by the same the welfare of
mankind will be obtained and extended. But they deny therein a
supernatural and miraculous working of God, and consider the object of
Christianity to be that of introducing into the world such a religion as
reason can comprehend; and they distinguish the essential from the
unessential, and what is local and temporary from that which is
universal and permanent in Christianity.” There is, however, a third
class of divines who in fact differ very little from this, though very
widely in profession. They affect to allow a revealing operation of God,
but establish on internal proofs rather than on miracles the divine
nature of Christianity. They allow that revelation _may_ contain much
out of the power of reason to explain, but say that it should assert
nothing contrary to reason, but rather what may be proved by it.
_Supernaturalism_ consists in general in the conviction that God has
revealed himself supernaturally and immediately. The notion of a miracle
cannot well be separated from such a revelation, whether it happens out
of, on, or in men. What is revealed may belong to the order of nature,
but an order higher and unknown to us, which we could never have known
without miracles, and cannot bring under the laws of nature.

The difference between the naturalists and the rationalists, as Mr. Rose
justly remarks, is not quite so wide either as it would appear to be at
first sight, or as one of them assuredly wishes it to appear. For if I
receive a system, be it of religion, of morals, or of politics, only so
far as it approves itself to my reason, whatever be the authority that
presents it to me, it is idle to say that I receive the system out of
any respect to that authority. I receive it _only_ because my reason
approves it; and I should, of course, do so if an authority of far
inferior value were to present the system to me. This is what that
division of rationalists, which professes to receive Christianity, and
at the same time to make reason the supreme arbiter in matters of faith,
has done. Their system, in a word, is this: They assume certain general
principles, which they maintain to be the necessary deductions of reason
from an extended and unprejudiced contemplation of the natural and moral
order of things, and to be in themselves immutable and universal.
Consequently, any thing which, on however good authority, may be
advanced in apparent opposition to them must either be rejected as
unworthy of rational belief, or, at least, explained away till it is
made to accord with the assumed principles; and the truth or falsehood
of all doctrines proposed is to be decided according to their agreement
or disagreement with those principles.

It is easy, then, to anticipate how, with such principles, the Biblical
critics of Germany, distinguished as many of them have been for
learning, would proceed to interpret the Scriptures. Many of the sacred
books and parts of others have, of course, been rejected by them as
spurious, the strongest external evidence being thought by them
insufficient to prove the truth of what was determined to be
contradictory to their reason; and the inspiration of the rest was
understood in no higher a sense, to use the language of one of their
professors, than the expressions of Cicero as to the inspiration of the
poets, or those of Quintilian respecting Plato. It would be disgusting,
says Rose, to go through all the strange fancies which were set afloat,
and which tended only to set Scripture on the same footing as an
ingenious but improbable romance. They all proceeded from the
determination that whatever was not intelligible was incredible, that
only what was of familiar and easy explanation deserved belief, and that
all which was miraculous and mysterious in Scripture must be rejected;
and they rested perpetually on notions and reasonings which were in
themselves miracles of incredibility. But there were many of the German
divines of this rationalist period who went much farther, and who
imputed a deception to our Lord and his disciples, not for evil but for
good purposes. In reading or in hearing of these wretched productions,
the mind is divided between disgust at folly, and indignation at
wickedness. What can be said for the heart which could suppose that the
founders of Christianity could have taught the sublime and holy
doctrines of the Gospel with a lie in their hearts and on their lips? or
for the intellect which could believe that ambitious and designing men
would encounter years of poverty, and shame, and danger, with no
prospect but that of an ignominious death? But where the supernatural
and miraculous accounts were not rejected, they were, by many of the
most eminent of these writers, explained away by a monstrous ingenuity,
which, on any other subject, and applied to any ancient classic or other
writer, would provoke the most contemptuous ridicule. When Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed up, Moses had previously _secretly
undermined the earth_.” Jacob wrestled with the angel in a _dream_;” and
a rheumatic pain in his thigh during sleep suggested the incident in his
dream of the angel touching the sinew of his thigh. Professor Paulus
gravely explains the miracle of the tribute money thus: That Christ only
meant to give a moral lesson, that is, that we are not, if we can avoid
it by trifling sacrifices, to give offence to our brethren; that he
probably reasoned thus with St. Peter: Though there is no real occasion
for us to pay the tribute, yet, as we may be reckoned as enemies of the
temple, and not attended to when we wish to teach what is good, why
should not you who are a fisherman,” a remark which might very properly
be made at a place where St. Peter had been engaged in a fishery for two
years, “and can easily do it, go and get enough to pay the demand? Go,
then, to the sea, cast your hook, and take up ϖρῶτον ἴχθυν, the first
and best fish.” St. Peter was not to stay longer at his work this time
than to gain the required money: ϖρῶτος often refers not to number but
to time; and ἴχθυν may undoubtedly be taken as a collective. St. Peter
must either have caught so many fish as would be reckoned worth a
_stater_ at Capernaum, (so near to a sea rich in fish,) or one so large
and fine as would have been valued at that sum. As it was uncertain
whether one or more would be necessary, the expression is indefinite,
τὸν ἀναϐάντα ϖρῶτον ἴχθυν; [the fish first coming up;] but it would not
be ambiguous to St. Peter, as the necessity and the event would give it
a fixed meaning. Ἀνοίξας τὸ ϛόμα. [Opening the mouth.] This opening of
the mouth might have different objects, which must be fixed by the
context. If the fisherman opens the mouth of a fish caught with a hook,
he does it first to release him from the hook; for if he hangs long he
is less saleable: he soon decays. The circumstantiality in the account
is _picturesque_. Take the hook out his mouth!” Ἑυρήσεις ἑυρίσκειν is
used in Greek in a more extended sense than the German _finden_, as in
Xenophon, where it is to get by selling.” When such a word is used of
saleable articles, like fish, and in a connection which requires the
getting a piece of money, it is clear that getting by sale and not by
finding is referred to. “And this from a professor’s chair!” In like
manner the miracle of feeding the five thousand in the desert is
resolved into the opportune passing by of a caravan with provisions, of
which the hungry multitude were allowed to partake, according to eastern
hospitality; and the Apostles were merely employed in conveying it out
in baskets. Christ’s walking _upon_ the sea is explained by his walking
upon the sea shore, and St. Peter’s walking on the sea is resolved into
swimming. The miracles of healing were the effect of fancy operating
favourably upon the disorders; and Ananias and Sapphira died of a
fright; with many other absurdities, half dreams and half blasphemies;
and of which the above are given but as a specimen.

The first step in this sorrowful gradation down to a depth of falsehood
and blasphemy, into which certainly no body of Christian ministers, so
large, so learned, and influential, in any age or period of the church
ever before fell, was, contempt for the authority of the divines of the
Reformation, and of the subsequent age. They were about to set out on a
voyage of discovery; and it was necessary to assume that truth still
inhabited some _terra incognita_, [unknown region,] to which neither
Luther, Melancthon, nor their early disciples, had ever found access.
One of this school is pleased, indeed, to denominate the whole even of
the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, the age of
theological barbarism; an age, notwithstanding, which produced in the
Lutheran church alone Calovius, Schmidt, Hackspan, Walther, Glass, and
the Carpzoffs, and others, as many and as great writers as any church
can boast in an equal space of time; writers whose works are, or ought
to be, in the hands of the theological student. The general statements
of the innovators amount to this, that the divines of the age of which
we speak had neither the inclination nor the power to do any thing but
fortify their own systems, which were dogmatical, and not to search out
truth for themselves from Scripture; that theology, as a science, was
left from the epoch of the Reformation as it had been received from the
schoolmen; that the interpretation of the Bible was made the slave, not
the mistress, of dogmatical theology, as it ought to be.

The vain conceit that the doctrines of religion were capable of
philosophic demonstration, which obtained among the followers of Wolf,
is considered by Mr. Rose as having hastened onward the progress of
error. We find some of them not content with applying demonstration to
the truth of the system, but endeavouring to establish each separate
dogma, the Trinity, the nature of the Redeemer, the incarnation, the
eternity of punishment, on philosophical and, strange as it may appear,
some of these truths on mathematical, grounds. We have had instances of
this in our own country; and the reason why they have done little injury
is, that none of those who thus presumed, whether learned or half
learned, had success enough to form a school. So far as such a theory
does obtain influence, it must necessarily be mischievous. The first
authors may hold the mysteries of Christianity sacred; they may fancy
that they can render faith in them more easy by affecting demonstrative
evidence, which, indeed, were the subjects capable of it, would render
faith unnecessary; but they are equally guilty of a vain presumption in
their own powers, and of a want of real reverence to God, and to his
revelation. With them, this boast of demonstration generally ends in the
rejection of some truth, or the adoption of some positive error; while
their followers fail not to bound over the limits at which they have
stopped. The fallacy of the whole lies in assuming that divine things
are on the same level with those which the human mind can grasp, and may
therefore be compared with them. One of these consequences must
therefore follow: either that the mind is exalted above its own sphere,
or that divine things are brought down below theirs. In the former case,
a dogmatical pride is the result; in the latter, the scheme of
revelation is stripped of its divinity, and sinks gradually into a
system of human philosophy, with the empty name of a revelation still
appended to it to save appearances. What can bear the test of the
philosophical standard is retained, and what cannot be thus proved is,
by degrees, rejected; so that the Scripture is no longer the ground of
religious truth; but a sort of witness to be compelled to assent to any
conclusions at which this philosophy may arrive.

The effect in Germany was speedily developed, though Wolf, the founder
of this school, and most of his followers, were pious and faithful
Christians. By carrying demonstrative evidence beyond its own province,
they had nurtured in their followers a vain confidence in human reason;
and the next and still more fatal step was, that it was the province of
human reason in an enlightened and intellectual age to perfect
Christianity, which, it was contended, had hitherto existed in a low and
degraded state, and to perfect that system of which the elements only
were contained in the Scripture. All restraint was broken by this
principle. Philosophy, good and bad, was left to build up these
elements” according to its own views; and as, after all, many of these
elements were found to be too untractable and too rudely shaped to
accord with the plans of these manifold constructions, formed according
to every pattern,” except that in the mount;” when the stone could not
be squared and framed by any art which these builders possessed, it was
rejected,” even to the head stone of the corner.” Semler appears to have
been the author of that famous theory of accommodation, which, in the
hands of his followers, says Mr. Rose, became the most formidable weapon
ever devised for the destruction of Christianity.” As far as Germany is
concerned, this language is not too strong; and we may add, that it was
the most impudent theory ever advocated by men professing still to be
Christians, and one, the avowal of which can scarcely be accounted for,
except on the ground, that as, because of their interests, it was not
convenient for these teachers of theology and ministers of the German
churches to disavow Christianity altogether; it was devised and
maintained, in order to connect the profits of the Christian profession
with substantial and almost undisguised deism. This theory was, that we
are not to take all the declarations of Scripture as addressed to us;
but to consider them as, in many points, purposely adapted to the
feelings and dispositions of the age when they originated; but by no
means to be received by another and more enlightened period; that, in
fact, Jesus himself and his Apostles had _accommodated_ themselves in
their doctrines to the barbarism, ignorance, and prejudices of the Jews;
and that it was therefore our duty to reject the whole of this temporary
part of Christianity, and retain only what is substantial and eternal.
In plain words they assumed, as the very basis of their Scriptural
interpretations, the blasphemous principle, that our Lord and his
Apostles taught, or, at least, connived at doctrines absolutely false,
rather than they would consent to shock the prejudices of their hearers!
This principle is shown at length by Mr. Rose, to run through the whole
maze of error into which this body of Protestant divines themselves
wandered, and led their flocks. Thus the chairs of theology and the very
pulpits were turned into the seats of the scornful;” and where doctrines
were at all preached, they were too frequently of this daring and
infidel character. It became even, at least, a negative good, that the
sermons delivered were often discourses on the best modes of cultivating
corn and wine, and the preachers employed the Sabbath and the church in
instructing their flocks how to choose the best kinds of potatoes, or to
enforce upon them the benefits of vaccination. Undisguised infidelity
has in no country treated the grand evidences of the truth of
Christianity with greater contumely, or been more offensive in its
attacks upon the prophets, or more ridiculous in its attempts to
account, on natural principles, for the miracles. Extremes of every kind
were produced, philosophic mysticism, pantheism, and atheism.

We have hitherto referred chiefly to Mr. Rose’s work on this awful
declension in the Lutheran and other continental churches. In a work on
the same subject by Mr. Pusey, the stages of the apostasy are more
carefully marked, and more copiously and deeply investigated. Our limits
will, however, but allow us to advert to two or three points. In Mr.
Pusey’s account of the state of German theology in the seventeenth
century, he opens to us the sources of the evil. Francke, he observes,
assigns as a reason for attaching the more value to the opportunities
provided at Halle for the study of Scripture, that “in former times, and
in those which are scarcely past, one generally found at universities
opportunities for every thing rather than a solid study of God’s word.”
In all my university years,” says Knapp, I was not happy enough to hear
a lecture upon the whole of Scripture; we should have regarded it as a
great blessing which came down from heaven.” It is said to be one only
of many instances, that at Leipzig, Carpzoff, having in his lectures for
one half year completed the first chapter of Isaiah, did not again
lecture on the Bible for twenty years, while Olearius suspended his for
ten. Yet Olearius, as well as Alberti, Spener says, were diligent
theologians, but that most pains were employed on doctrinal theology and
controversy.” It is, moreover, a painful speaking fact, which is
mentioned by Francke, (1709,) that in Leipzig, the great mart of
literature as well as of trade, “twenty years ago, in no bookseller’s
shop was either Bible or Testament to be found.” Of the passages in
Francke, which prove the same state of things, I will select one or two
only: Youth are sent to the universities with a moderate knowledge of
Latin; but of Greek, and especially of Hebrew next to none. And it would
even then have been well, if what had been neglected before had been
made up in the universities. There, however, most are borne, as by a
torrent, with the multitude; they flock to logical, metaphysical,
ethical, polemical, physical, pneumatical lectures, and what not;
treating least of all those things whose benefit is most permanent in
their future office, especially deferring, and at last neglecting, the
study of the sacred languages.” “To this is added, that, they comfort
themselves, that in examinations for orders these things are not
generally much attended to. Hence most who are anxious about a
maintenance, hurry to those things which may hasten their promotion,
attend above all things a lecture on the art of preaching, and if they
can remain so long at the university, one on doctrinal theology, (would
that all were anxious about a salutary knowledge of the sacred
doctrines,) and having committed these things to paper and memory,
return home, as if excellently armed against Satan, are examined,
preach, are promoted, provide for their families.” And having spoken
farther on the superficial knowledge, pedantry, and other faults of
those few who acquired knowledge of these subjects, he sums up: As the
vernacular Scriptures are ordinarily neglected or ill employed by the
illiterate, so are the original by the lettered: whence there cannot but
arise either ignorance in matters of faith, or an unfruitful and vain
knowledge; a pleasurable fancy is substituted for the substance of the
faith; impiety daily increases. In a word, from the neglect of Scripture
all impiety is derived; and so again from the impiety or unbelief of
men, there is derived a contempt of Scripture, or at all events an
abuse, and an absurd and perverted employment of it: and hence follows
either a neglect of the original languages, or a senseless method, or an
unfitting employment of them; which evils, since they are continued from
the teachers to the disciples, the corrupted state of the schools and
universities continually increases: and these we cannot remedy, unless
we can prevail upon ourselves to make the word of God our first object,
to look for Christ in it, and to embrace him, when found, with genuine
faith, and perseveringly to follow him.” Pfaff thus describes the
previous state of doctrinal theology: All the compendia of holy
doctrines, which have hitherto appeared, are of such a character, that,
though their excellence has been hitherto extolled by the common praise
of our countrymen, and they still enjoy considerable reputation, (_suâ
utique luce niteat_,) they can even on this ground not be satisfactory
to our age,--that since one system was extracted and worked out of the
other, with a very few variations, they dwell uniformly on the same
string; and that metaphysical clang of causes, which sounds somewhat
harshly and unpleasantly to well cultivated ears, constantly
reverberates in them, the same terms uniformly recurring in all. To this
is added, that a certain coldness appears to prevail in the common mode
of treating these subjects, especially in the practical topics of
theology; these being set forth as theoretical propositions, so that
scarcely any life or any religious influence finds its way into the
minds of readers; and the edification of mind, (though it should be the
principal object in sacred theology,) derived from them is very slight.
Nor does it appear less a subject of blame, that various theological
τόποι, and those the very chief, are here altogether omitted; that every
thing is choked with the thorns of scholasticism; and that divine truths
are often made secondary to the zeal for authority: nor is there
sufficient reference to the language of the symbolical books, to the
promotion of the peace of the church, to the exhibition of what is of
real importance in controverted points, and of the unreality of the mere
logomachies, with which all theology abounds; nor again, to destroy
theological pedantry and a sectarian spirit, or to treat the subjects
themselves in a style becoming to them: but most of all, sufficient
pains are not bestowed upon that which is of chief importance, the
building up the kingdom of God in the hearts of men, and the influencing
their hearts more thoroughly with vivid conceptions of true
Christianity.”

Yet these were but effects of a still higher cause,--the rapid decay of
piety in this century, of which the statements of Mr. Pusey, and the
authorities he quotes, present a melancholy picture. Speaking of J. V.
Andrea, he says, the want of practical religious instruction in the
early schools, the perverted state of all education, the extravagance
and dissoluteness of the universities, the total unfitness of the
teachers whom they sent forth and authorized, the degraded state of
general as well as of theological science, the interested motives for
entering into holy orders, the canvassing for benefices, the simony in
obtaining them, the especial neglect of the poorer, the bad lives, the
carelessness and bitter controversies of the preachers, and the general
corruption of manners in all ranks, are again and again the subjects of
his deep regrets or of his censure. “After the evangelic church,” he
says, in an energetic comparison of the evils which reigned in the
beginning of this period with those which had occasioned the yoke of
Rome to be broken, “after the evangelic church had thrown off the yoke
of human inventions, they should have bowed their neck under the easy
yoke of the Lord. But now one set of human inventions are but exchanged
for another, equally, or indeed very little, human; and these are called
the word of God, though in reality things are nothing milder than
before. Idols were cast out, but the idols of sins are worshipped. The
primacy of the pope is denied, but we constitute lesser popes. The
bishops are abrogated, but ministers are still introduced or cast out at
will; simony came into ill repute, but who now rejects a hand laden with
gold? the monks were reproached for indolence,--as if there were too
much study at our universities; the monasteries were dissolved,--to
stand empty, or to be stalls for cattle; the regularly recurring prayers
are abolished, yet so that now most pray not at all; the public fasts
were laid aside, now the command of Christ is held to be but useless
words; not to say any thing of blasphemers, adulterers, extortioners,”
&c. After many testimonies of a similar and even stronger kind from
other pious divines, who lifted up their voice strongly but almost
ineffectually against the growing corruption of the universities, the
clergy, and the people, Mr. Pusey adds the following passages from
Francke: “The works of the flesh are done openly and unrestrainedly,
with so little shame, that one who does not approve of many things not
consistent with the truth which is in Jesus, would almost be enrolled
among heretics. Ambition, pride, love of pleasure, luxury, impurity,
wantonness, and all the crop of foulest wickednesses which spring from
these; injustice also, avarice, and a species of rivalry among all vices
every where sensibly increases, atheism joining itself with epicurism
and libertinism. Thus while Christ is held to, while orthodoxy is
presented as a shield, all imitation of Christ, all anxiety for true and
spiritual holiness, “without which no one shall see the Lord,” nay, all
the decorum befitting a Christian, is banished, is exterminated, that it
may not disturb the societies of perverse men.” Into the state of the
clergy he enters more fully in another work. I remember,” he says, “that
a theologian of no common learning, piety, and practical knowledge, νῦν
ἐν ἁγίοις, told me, that a certain monarch, at his suggestion, applied
to a university, where there was a large concourse of students of
theology, for two candidates for holy orders, who, by the excellence and
purity of their doctrine, and by holiness of life, might serve as an
example to the congregation committed to their charge; the professors
candidly answered that there was no such student of theology among them.
Nor is this surprising. I remember that Kortholt used to say with pain,
that in the disgraceful strifes, disturbances, and tumults in the
universities, which were, alas, but too frequent, it scarcely ever
happened that theological students were not found to be accomplices,
nay, the chiefs. I remember that another theologian often lamented, that
there was such a dearth in the church of such persons as the Apostle
would alone think worthy of the ministerial functions, that it was to be
regarded as a happiness if, of many applicants, some one of outwardly
decent life could at length be found.”

With several happy exceptions, and the raising up of a few pious people
in some places, and a partial revival of evangelical doctrines, which,
however, often ran at length into mysticism and antinomianism, the evil,
both doctrinally and morally, continued to increase to our own day; for
if any ask what has been the moral effect of the appalling apostasy of
the teachers of religion, above described, upon the people of Germany,
the answer may be given from one of these rationalizing divines
themselves, whose statement is not therefore likely to be too highly
coloured. It is from a pamphlet of Bretschneider, published in 1822, and
the substance is, Indifference to religion among all classes; that
formerly the Bible used to be in every house, but now the people either
do not possess it, or, as formerly, read it; that few attend the
churches, which are now too large, though fifty years ago they were too
small; that few honour the Sabbath; that there are now few students of
theology, compared with those in law and medicine; that if things go on
so, there will shortly not be persons to supply the various
ecclesiastical offices; that preaching had fallen into contempt; and
that distrust and suspicion of the doctrines of Christianity prevailed
among all classes.” Melancholy as this picture is, nothing in it can
surprise any one, except that the very persons who have created the evil
should themselves be astonished at its existence, or even affect to be
so. But the mercy of God has begun to answer the prayers of the few
faithful who are left as the gleanings of grapes after the vintage; and
to revive, in some active, learned, and influential men, the spirit of
primitive faith and zeal. The effect of the exertions of these excellent
men, both from the professor’s chair, the pulpit, and the press, has
been considerable; and it is remarked by Mr. Rose, that no small degree
of disgust at the past follies of the rationalists prevails; that the
cold and comfortless nature of their system has been perceived; that a
party of truly Christian views has arisen; and that there is a
disposition alike in the people, the better part of the divines, and the
philosophers, to return to that revealed religion which alone can give
them comfort and peace. It is equally clear that some at least of the
governments perceive the dangerous tendency of the rationalist opinions,
and that they are sincerely desirous of promoting a better state of
religious feeling.

We close this article with the excellent remarks of Dr. Tittman of
Dresden, on the neological interpreters: What is the interpretation of
the Scriptures, if it relies not on words, but things, not on the
assistance of languages, but on the decrees of reason that is, of modern
philosophy? What is all religion, what the knowledge of divine things,
what are faith and hope placed in Christ, what is all Christianity, if
human reason and philosophy is the only fountain of divine wisdom, and
the supreme judge in the matter of religion? What is the doctrine of
Christ and the Apostles more than some philosophical system? But what,
then, I pray you, is, to deny, to blaspheme Jesus the Lord, to render
his divine mission doubtful, nay vain and useless, to impugn his
doctrine, to disfigure it shamefully, to attack it, to expose it to
ridicule, and, if possible, to suppress it, to remove all Christianity
out of religion, and to bound religion within the narrow limits of
reason alone, to deride miracles, and hold them up to derision, to
accuse them as vain, to bring them into disrepute, to torture sacred
Scripture into seeming agreement with the fancies of human wisdom, to
alloy it with human conjectures, to bring it into contempt, and to break
down its divine authority, to undermine, to shake, to overthrow utterly
the foundations of Christian faith? What else can be the event than
this, as all history, a most weighty witness in this matter, informs us,
namely, that when sacred Scripture, its grammatical interpretation and a
sound knowledge of languages are, as it were, despised and banished, all
religion should be contemned, shaken, corrupted, troubled, undermined,
utterly overturned, and should be entirely removed and reduced to
natural religion; or that it should end in a mystical theology, than
which nothing was ever more pernicious to the Christian doctrine, and be
converted into an empty μυθολογία, or even into a poetical system,
hiding every thing in figures and fictions, to which latter system not a
few of the sacred orators and theologians of our time seem chiefly
inclined.”

NEOMENIA, νεομηνία, _new moon_, Col. ii, 16, a Greek word, signifying
the first day of the moon or month. The Hebrews had a particular
veneration for the first day of every month; and Moses appointed
peculiar sacrifices for the day, Num. xxviii, 11, 12; but he gave no
orders that it should be kept as a holy day, nor can it be proved that
the ancients observed it so: it was a festival of merely voluntary
devotion. It appears that even from the time of Saul they made, on this
day, a sort of family entertainment, since David ought then to have been
at the king’s table; and Saul took his absence amiss, 1 Sam. xx, 5, 18.
Moses insinuates that, beside the national sacrifices then regularly
offered, every private person had his particular sacrifices of devotion,
Num. x, 10. The beginning of the month was proclaimed by sound of
trumpet, at the offering of the solemn sacrifices. But the most
celebrated neomenia was that at the beginning of the civil year, or
first day of the month Tizri, Lev. xxiii, 24. This was a sacred day, on
which no servile labour was performed; on this they offered public or
national burnt-sacrifices, and sounded the trumpets in the temple. In
the kingdom of the ten tribes, the serious among the people used to
assemble at the houses of the prophets, to hear their instructions. The
Shunamite, who entertained Elisha, proposing to visit that prophet, her
husband said to her, Why do you go to-day, since it is neither Sabbath
nor new moon?” 2 Kings iv, 23. Isaiah declares that the Lord abhors the
new moons, the Sabbaths, and other days of festival and assembly of
those Jews who in other things neglected his laws, Isaiah i, 13, 14.
Ezekiel says that the burnt-offerings offered on the day of the new moon
were provided at the king’s expense, and that on this day was to be
opened the eastern gate of the court of the priests, Ezek. xiv, 17;
xlvi, 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxiii, 31; 2 Chron. viii, 13. Judith kept no fast
on festival days, or on the new moon, Judith viii, 6. The modern Jews
keep the neomenia only as a feast of devotion, to be observed or not at
pleasure. They think it rather belongs to the women than to the men. The
women forbear work, and indulge a little more on this day than on
others. In the prayers of the synagogue, they read from Psalm cxiii, to
cxviii. They bring forth the roll of the law, and read therein to four
persons. They call to remembrance the sacrifice that on this day used to
be offered in the temple. On the evening of the Sabbath which follows
the new moon, or some other evening following, when the new moon first
appears, they assemble and pray to God, as the Creator of the planets,
and the restorer of the new moon; raising themselves toward heaven, they
entreat of God to be preserved from misfortune; then, after mentioning
David, they salute each other, and separate. See MOON.

NEONOMIANISM, so called from the Greek νέος, _new_, and νόμος, _law_.
This is not the appellation of a separate sect, but of those both among
Arminians and Calvinists who regard Christianity as a _new law_,
mitigated in its requisitions for the sake of Christ. This opinion has
many modifications, and has been held by persons very greatly differing
from each other in the consequences to which they carry it, and in the
principles from which they deduce it. One opinion is, that the new
covenant of grace which, through the medium of Christ’s death, the
Father made with men, consists, according to this system, not in our
being justified by faith, as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ;
but in this, that God, abrogating the exaction of perfect legal
obedience, reputes or accepts of faith itself, and the imperfect
obedience of faith, instead of the perfect obedience of the law, and
graciously accounts them worthy of the reward of eternal life. Toward
the close of the seventeenth century, a controversy was agitated among
the English Dissenters, in which the one side, who were partial to the
writings of Dr. Crisp, were charged with antinomianism, and the other,
who favoured those of Mr. Baxter, were accused of neonomianism. Dr.
Daniel Williams was a principal writer on what was called the neonomian
side.

The following objection, among others, was made by several ministers in
1692, against Dr. Williams’s Gospel Truth Stated,” &c: “To supply the
room of the moral law, vacated by him, he turns the Gospel into a new
law, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake of Christ’s
righteousness, making qualifications and acts of ours a disposing
subordinate righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified
by Christ’s righteousness.” To this, among other things, he answers:
“The difference is not, 1. Whether the Gospel be a new law in the
Socinian, popish, or Arminian sense. This I deny. Nor, 2. Is faith, or
any other grace or acts of ours, any atonement for sin, satisfaction to
justice, meriting qualification, or any part of that righteousness for
which we are justified at God our Creator’s bar. This I deny in places
innumerable. Nor, 3. Whether the Gospel be a law more new than is
implied in the first promise to fallen Adam, proposed to Cain, and
obeyed by Abel, to the differencing him from his unbelieving brother.
This I deny. 4. Nor whether the Gospel be a law that allows sin, when it
accepts such graces as true, though short of perfection, to be the
conditions of our personal interest in the benefits purchased by Christ.
This I deny. 5. Nor whether the Gospel be a law, the promises whereof
entitle the performers of its conditions to the benefits as of debt.
This I deny. The difference is, 1. Is the Gospel a law in this sense;
namely, God in Christ thereby commandeth sinners to repent of sin, and
receive Christ by a true operative faith, promising that thereupon they
shall be united to him, justified by his righteousness, pardoned, and
adopted; and that, persevering in faith and true holiness, they shall be
finally saved; also threatening that if any shall die impenitent,
unbelieving, ungodly, rejecters of his grace, they shall perish without
relief, and endure sorer punishments than if these offers had not been
made to them? 2. Hath the Gospel a sanction, that is, doth Christ
therein enforce his commands of faith, repentance, and perseverance, by
the foresaid promises and threatenings, as motives to our obedience?
Both these I affirm, and they deny; saying, the Gospel in the largest
sense is an absolute promise without precepts and conditions, and a
Gospel threat is a bull. 3. Do the Gospel promises of benefits to
certain graces, and its threats that those benefits shall be withheld,
and the contrary evils inflicted for the neglect of such graces, render
these graces the condition of our personal title to those benefits? This
they deny, and I affirm,” &c.

It does not appear to have been a question in this controversy, whether
God in his word commands sinners to repent, and believe in Christ, nor
whether he promises life to believers, and threatens death to
unbelievers; but whether it be the Gospel under the form of a new law
that thus commands or threatens, or the moral law on its behalf, and
whether its promises to believing render such believing a condition of
the things promised. In another controversy, however, which arose about
forty years afterward among the same people, it became a question
whether God did by his word, call it law or Gospel, command unregenerate
sinners to repent and believe in Christ, or do any thing also, which is
spiritually good. Of those who took the affirmative side of this
question, one party maintained it on the ground of the Gospel being a
new law, consisting of commands, promises, and threatenings, the terms
or conditions of which were repentance, faith, and sincere obedience.
But those who first engaged in the controversy, though they allowed the
encouragement to repent and believe to arise merely from the grace of
the Gospel, yet considered the formal obligation to do so as arising
merely from the moral law, which, requiring supreme love to God,
requires acquiescence in any revelation which he shall at any time make
known.

NERO. The Emperor Nero is not named in Scripture; but he is indicated by
his title of emperor, and by his surname Cæsar. To him St. Paul appealed
after his imprisonment by Felix, and his examination by Festus, who was
swayed by the Jews. St. Paul was therefore carried to Rome, where he
arrived A. D. 61. Here he continued two years, preaching the Gospel with
freedom, till he became famous even in the emperor’s court, in which
were many Christians; for he salutes the Philippians in the name of the
brethren who were of the household of Cæsar, that is, of Nero’s court,
Phil. i, 12, 13; iv, 22. We have no particular information how he
cleared himself from the accusations of the Jews, whether by answering
before Nero, or whether his enemies dropped their prosecutions, which
seems probable, Acts xxviii, 21. However, it appears that he was
liberated in the year 63. Nero is reckoned the first persecutor of the
Christian church: his persecution was A. D. 64. Nero, the most cruel and
savage of all men, and also the most wicked and depraved, began his
persecution against the Christian church, A. D. 64, on pretence of the
burning of Rome, of which some have thought himself to be the author. He
endeavoured to throw all the odium on the Christians: those were seized
first that were known publicly as such, and by their means many others
were discovered. They were condemned to death, and were even insulted in
their sufferings. Some were sewed up in skins of beasts, and then
exposed to dogs to be torn in pieces; some were nailed to crosses;
others perished by fire. The latter were sewed up in pitched coverings,
which, being set on fire, served as torches to the people, and were
lighted up in the night. Nero gave leave to use his own gardens, as the
scene of all these cruelties. From this time edicts were published
against the Christians, and many martyrs suffered, especially in Italy.
St. Peter and St. Paul are thought to have suffered martyrdom,
consequent on this persecution, A. D. 65. The revolt of the Jews from
the Romans happened about A. D. 65 and 66, in the twelfth and thirteenth
of Nero. The city of Jerusalem making an insurrection, A. D. 66, Florus
there slew three thousand six hundred persons, and thus began the war. A
little while afterward, those of Jerusalem killed the Roman garrison.
Cestius on this came to Jerusalem to suppress the sedition; but he was
forced to retire, after having besieged it about six weeks, and was
routed in his retreat, A. D. 66. About the end of the same year, Nero
gave Vespasian the command of his troops against the Jews. This general
carried on the war in Galilee and Judea during A. D. 67 and 68, the
thirteenth and fourteenth of Nero. But Nero killing himself in the
fourteenth year of his reign, Jerusalem was not besieged till after his
death, A. D. 70, the first and second of Vespasian.

NESTORIANS, a denomination which arose in the fifth century, from
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople; a man of considerable learning and
eloquence, and of an independent spirit. The Catholic clergy were fond
of calling the Virgin Mary Mother of God,” to which Nestorius objected,
as implying that she was mother of the divine nature, which he very
properly denied; and this raised against him, from Cyril and others, the
cry of heresy, and perhaps led him into some improper forms of
expression and explication. It is generally agreed, however, by the
moderns, that Nestorius showed a much better spirit in controversy than
his antagonist, St. Cyril. As to the doctrine of the trinity, it does
not appear that Nestorius differed from his antagonists, admitting the
coëquality of the divine Persons; but he was charged with maintaining
two distinct persons, as well as natures, in the mysterious character of
Christ. This, however, he solemnly and constantly denied; and from this,
as a foul reproach, he has been cleared by the moderns, and particularly
by Martin Luther, who lays the whole blame of this controversy on the
turbulent and angry Cyril. (See HYPOSTATIC UNION.) The discordancy not
only between the Nestorians and other Christians, but also among
themselves, arose, no doubt, in a great measure, from the ambiguity of
the Greek terms _hypostasis_ and _prosopon_. The councils assembled at
Seleucia on this occasion decreed that in Christ there were two
_hypostases_. But this word, unhappily, was used both for person and
subsistence, or existence; hence the difficulty and ambiguity: and of
these _hypostases_ it is said the one was divine, and the other
human;--the divine Word, and the man Jesus. Now of these two
_hypostases_ it is added, they had only one _barsopa_, the original term
used by Nestorius, and usually translated by the Greeks, person;” but to
avoid the appearance of an express contradiction, Dr. Mosheim translates
this barbarous word aspect,” as meaning a union of will and affection,
rather than of nature or of person. And thus the Nestorians are charged
with rejecting the union of two natures in one person, from their
peculiar manner of expressing themselves, though they absolutely denied
the charge.

In the earliest ages of Nestorianism, the various branches of that
numerous and powerful sect were under the spiritual jurisdiction of the
Catholic patriarch of Babylon,--a vague appellation which has been
successively applied to the sees of Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and
Bagdad,--but who now resides at Mousul. In the sixteenth century the
Nestorians were divided into two sects; for in 1551 a warm dispute arose
among them about the creation of a new patriarch, Simeon Barmamas, or
Barmana, being proposed by one party, and Sulaka, otherwise named Siud,
earnestly desired by the other; when the latter, to support his
pretensions the more effectually, repaired to Rome, and was consecrated
patriarch in 1553, by Pope Julius III., whose jurisdiction he had
acknowledged, and to whose commands he had promised unlimited submission
and obedience. Upon this new Chaldean patriarch’s return to his own
country, Julius sent with him several persons skilled in the Syriac
language, to assist him in establishing and extending the papal empire
among the Nestorians; and from that time, that unhappy people have been
divided into two factions, and have often been involved in the greatest
dangers and difficulties, by the jarring sentiments and perpetual
quarrels of their patriarchs. In 1555, Simeon Denha, archbishop of Gelu,
adopted the party of the fugitive patriarch, who had embraced the
communion of the Latin church; and, being afterward chosen patriarch
himself, he fixed his residence in the city of Van, or Ormia, in the
mountainous parts of Persia, where his successors still continue, and
are all distinguished by the name of Simeon; but they seem of late to
have withdrawn themselves from their communion with the church of Rome.
The great Nestorian pontiffs who form the opposite party, and who have,
since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and
reside constantly at Mousul, look with a hostile eye on this little
patriarch; but since 1617 the bishops of Ormus have been in so low and
declining a state, both in opulence and credit, that they are no longer
in a condition to excite the envy of their brethren at Mousul, whose
spiritual dominion is very extensive, taking in great part of Asia, and
comprehending within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, as also the
Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar.

NETHINIMS. The Nethinims were servants who had been given up to the
service of the tabernacle and temple, to perform the meanest and most
laborious services therein, in supplying wood and water. At first the
Gibeonites were appointed to this service, Joshua ix, 27. Afterward the
Canaanites who surrendered themselves, and whose lives were spared, were
consigned to the performance of the same duties. We read, Ezra viii, 20,
that the Nethinims were slaves devoted by David and the other princes to
the ministry of the temple; and elsewhere, that they were slaves given
by Solomon; the children of Solomon’s servants, Ezra ii, 58; and we see,
in 1 Kings ix, 20, 21, that this prince had subdued the remains of the
Canaanites, and had constrained them to several servitudes; and, it is
very probable, he gave a good number of them to the priests and Levites
for the service of the temple. The Nethinims were carried into captivity
with the tribe of Judah, and there were great numbers of them near the
coast of the Caspian Sea, from whence Ezra brought some of them back,
Ezra viii, 17. After the return from the captivity, they dwelt in the
cities appointed them, Ezra ii, 17. There were some of them also at
Jerusalem, who inhabited that part of the city called Ophel, Neh. iii,
26. Those who returned with Ezra were to the number of two hundred and
twenty, Ezra viii, 20; and those who followed Zerubbabel made up three
hundred and ninety-two, Ezra ii, 58. This number was but small in regard
to the offices that were imposed on them; so that we find them afterward
instituting a solemnity called _Xylophoria_, in which the people carried
wood to the temple with great ceremony, to keep up the fire on the altar
of burnt sacrifices.

NETTLES. We find this name given to two different words in the original.
The first is חרול, Job xxx, 7; Proverbs xxiv, 31; Zeph. ii, 9. It is not
easy to determine what species of plant is here meant. From the passage
in Job, the nettle could not be intended; for a plant is referred to
large enough for people to take shelter under. The following extract
from Denon’s Travels may help to illustrate the text, and show to what
an uncomfortable retreat those vagabonds must have resorted. One of the
inconveniences of the vegetable thickets of Egypt is, that it is
difficult to remain in them; as nine-tenths of the trees and the plants
are armed with inexorable thorns, which suffer only an unquiet enjoyment
of the shadow which is so constantly desirable, from the precaution
necessary to guard against them.” The קימוש, Prov. xxiv, 31; Isaiah
xxxiv, 13; Hosea ix, 6; is by the Vulgate rendered _urtica_,” which is
well defended by Celsius, and very probably means the nettle.”

NICE or NICENE CREED is so denominated, because the greater part of it,
namely, as far as the words, Holy Ghost,” was drawn up and agreed to at
the council of Nice, or Nicæa, in Bithynia, A. D. 325. This council was
assembled against Arius, who, though he brought down the Son to the
condition of a creature, inferior, for that reason, in nature to the
Father, yet acknowledged his personal subsistence before the world, and
his superiority in nature to all the things that were created by him. So
that there was need of some higher expression in this case than the
other, to import his equal dignity of nature with the Father and Creator
of all; and nothing was found to answer the purpose so well as the term
ὁμοούσιος. The rest of this creed was added at the council of
Constantinople, A. D. 581, except the words, and the Son,” which follow
the words, who proceedeth from the Father,” and they were inserted A. D.
447. The addition made at Constantinople was caused by the denial of the
divinity of the Holy Ghost by Macedonius and his followers; and the
creed, thus enlarged, was immediately received by all orthodox
Christians. The insertion of the words, and the Son,” was made by the
Spanish bishops; and they were soon after adopted by the Christians in
France. The bishops of Rome for some time refused to admit these words
into the creed; but at last, A. D. 883, when Nicholas the First was
pope, they were allowed, and from that time they have stood in the
Nicene creed, in all the western churches; but the Greek church has
never received them. See ARIUS.

NICODEMUS, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a Jew by nation, and a Pharisee,
John iii, 1, &c. At the time when the priests and Pharisees had sent
officers to seize Jesus, Nicodemus declared himself openly in his
favour, John vii, 45, &c; and still more so when he went with Joseph of
Arimathea to pay the last duties to his body, which they took down from
the cross, embalmed, and laid in a sepulchre.

NICOLAITANS. St. John says in his Revelation, to the angel of the church
of Ephesus, But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitans, which I also hate,” Rev. ii, 6; and again, to the angel of
the church of Pergamos: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate,” Rev. ii, 15. These are the only
two places where the Nicolaitans are mentioned in the New Testament: and
it might appear at first, that little could be inferred from these
concerning either their doctrine or their practice. It is asserted,
however, by all the fathers, that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the
Gnostics: and the epistles, which were addressed by St. John to the
seven Asiatic churches, may perhaps lead us to the same conclusion. Thus
to the church at Ephesus he writes: Thou hast tried them which say they
are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars,” Rev. ii, 2. This
may be understood of the Gnostic teachers, who falsely called themselves
Christians, and who would be not unlikely to assume also the title of
Apostles. It appears from this and other passages, that they had
distinguished themselves at Ephesus; and it is when writing to that
church, that St. John mentions the Nicolaitans. Again, when writing to
the church at Smyrna, he says: I know the blasphemy of them which say
they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,” Rev. ii, 9.
The Gnostics borrowed many doctrines from the Jews, and thought by this
means to attract both the Jews and Christians. We might therefore infer,
even without the testimony of the fathers, that the Gnostic doctrines
were prevalent in these churches, where St. John speaks of the
Nicolaitans: and if so, we have a still more specific indication of
their doctrine and practice, when we find St. John saying to the church
in Pergamos, I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there
them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
unto idols, and to commit fornication,” Rev. ii, 14. Then follow the
words already quoted, So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.” There seems here to be some
comparison between the doctrine of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans:
and I would also point out, that to the church in Thyatira the Apostle
writes, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to
seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed
unto idols,” Rev. ii, 20. The two passages are very similar, and may
enable us to throw some light upon the history of the Nicolaitans.
Tertullian has preserved a tradition, that the person here spoken of as
Jezebel was a female heretic, who taught what she had learned from the
Nicolaitans: and whether the tradition be true or not, it seems certain,
that to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication, was
part of the practice of the Nicolaitans.

These two sins are compared to the doctrine of Balaam: and though the
Bible tells us little of Balaam’s history, beyond his prophecies and his
death, yet we can collect enough to enable us to explain this allusion
of St. John. We read, that when Israel abode in Shittim, the people
began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab: and they,” that is,
the women, called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the
people did eat, and bowed down to their gods,” Num. xxv, 1, 2. But we
read farther, that when the Midianites were spoiled and Balaam slain,
Moses said of the women who were taken, Behold, these caused the
children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass
against the Lord in the matter of Peor,” Num. xxxi, 16. This, then, was
the insidious policy and advice of Balaam. When he found that he was
prohibited by God from cursing Israel, he advised Balak to seduce the
Israelites by the women of Moab, and thus to entice them to the
sacrifices of their gods. This is what St. John calls the doctrine of
Balaam,” or the wicked artifice which he taught the king of Moab: and so
he says, that in the church of Pergamos there were some who held the
doctrine of the Nicolaitans. We have therefore the testimony of St.
John, as well as of the fathers, that the lives of the Nicolaitans were
profligate and vicious; to which we may add, that they ate things
sacrificed to idols. This is expressly said of Basilides and Valentinus,
two celebrated leaders of Gnostic sects: and we perhaps are not going
too far, if we infer from St. John, that the Nicolaitans were the first
who enticed the Christians to this impious practice, and obtained from
thence the distinction of their peculiar celebrity. Their motive for
such conduct is very evident. They wished to gain proselytes to their
doctrines; and they therefore taught that it was lawful to indulge the
passions, and that there was no harm in partaking of an idol sacrifice.
This had now become the test to which Christians must submit, if they
wished to escape persecution: and the Nicolaitans sought to gain
converts by telling them that they might still believe in Jesus though
they ate of things sacrificed unto idols.” The fear of death would shake
the faith of some; others would be gained over by sensual arguments: and
thus many unhappy Christians of the Asiatic churches were found by St.
John in the ranks of the Nicolaitans.

We might wish perhaps to know at what time the sect of the Nicolaitans
began; but we cannot define it accurately. If Irenæus is correct in
saying that it preceded by a considerable time the heresy of Cerinthus,
and that the Cerinthian heresy was a principal cause of St. John writing
his Gospel, it follows, that the Nicolaitans were in existence at least
some years before the time of their being mentioned in the Revelation;
and the persecution under Domitian, which was the cause of St. John
being sent to Patmos, may have been the time which enabled the
Nicolaitans to exhibit their principles. Irenæus indeed adds, that St.
John directed his Gospel against the Nicolaitans as well as against
Cerinthus: and the comparison which is made between their doctrine and
that of Balaam, may perhaps authorize us to refer to this sect what is
said in the second Epistle of St. Peter. The whole passage contains
marked allusions to Gnostic teachers. There is another question
concerning the Nicolaitans, which has excited much discussion. It is a
question entirely of evidence and detail; and the two points to be
considered are, 1. Whether the Nicolaitans derived their name from
Nicolas of Antioch, who was one of the seven deacons: 2. Supposing this
to be the fact, whether Nicolas had disgraced himself by sensual
indulgence. Those writers who have endeavoured to clear the character of
Nicolas have generally tried also to prove that he was not the man whom
the Nicolaitans claimed as their head. But the one point may be true
without the other: and the evidence is so overwhelming, which states
that Nicolas the deacon was at least the person intended by the
Nicolaitans, that it is difficult to come to any other conclusion upon
the subject. We must not deny that some of the fathers have also charged
him with falling into vicious habits, and thus affording too true a
support to the heretics who claimed him as their leader. These writers,
however, are of a late date; and some, who are much more ancient, have
entirely acquitted him, and furnished an explanation of the calumnies
which attach to his name. We know that the Gnostics were not ashamed to
claim as their founders the Apostles, or friends of the Apostles. The
same may have been the case with Nicolas the deacon; and though we
allow, that if the Nicolaitans were distinguished as a sect some time
before the end of the century, the probability is lessened that his name
was thus abused; yet if his career was a short one, his history, like
that of the other deacons, would soon be forgotten: and the same fertile
invention, which gave rise in the two first centuries to so many
apocryphal Gospels, may also have led the Nicolaitans to give a false
character to him whose name they had assumed.

NICOPOLIS, a city of Epirus, on the gulf of Ambracia, whither, as some
think, St. Paul wrote to Titus, then in Crete, to come to him, Titus
iii, 12; but others, with greater probability, are of opinion, that the
city of Nicopolis, where St. Paul was, was not that of Epirus, but that
of Thrace, on the borders of Macedonia, near the river Nessus. Emmaus in
Palestine was also called Nicopolis by the Romans.

NIGHT. The ancient Hebrews began their artificial day in the evening,
and ended it the next evening; so that the night preceded the day,
whence it is said, evening and morning one day,” Gen. i, 5. They allowed
twelve hours to the night, and twelve to the day. Night is put for a
time of affliction and adversity: Thou hast proved mine heart, thou hast
visited me in the night, thou hast tried me,” Psalm xvii, 3; that is, by
adversity and tribulation. And the morning cometh, and also the night,”
Isaiah xxi, 12. Night is also put for the time of death: The night
cometh, wherein no man can work,” John ix, 4. Children of the day, and
children of the night, in a moral and figurative sense, denote good men
and wicked men, Christians and Gentiles. The disciples of the Son of God
are children of light: they belong to the light, they walk in the light
of truth; while the children of the night walk in the darkness of
ignorance and infidelity, and perform only works of darkness. Ye are all
the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of
the night, nor of darkness,” 1 Thess. v, 5.

NIGHT-HAWK, תחמס, Lev. xi, 16; Deut. xiv, 15. That this is a voracious
bird seems clear from the import of its name; and interpreters are
generally agreed to describe it as flying by night. On the whole, it
should seem to be the _strix orientalis_, which Hasselquist thus
describes: It is of the size of the common owl, and lodges in the large
buildings or ruins of Egypt and Syria, and sometimes even in the
dwelling houses. The Arabs settled in Egypt call it massasa,” and the
Syrians banu.” It is extremely voracious in Syria; to such a degree,
that if care is not taken to shut the windows at the coming on of night,
he enters the houses and kills the children: the women, therefore, are
very much afraid of him.

NILE, the river of Egypt, whose fountain is in the Upper Ethiopia. After
having watered several kingdoms, the Nile continues its course far into
the kingdom of Goiam. Then it winds about again, from the east to the
north. Having crossed several kingdoms and provinces, it falls into
Egypt at the cataracts, which are waterfalls over steep rocks of the
length of two hundred feet. At the bottom of these rocks the Nile
returns to its usual pace, and thus flows through the valley of Egypt.
Its channel, according to Villamont, is about a league broad. At eight
miles below Grand Cairo, it is divided into two arms, which make a
triangle, whose base is at the Mediterranean Sea, and which the Greeks
call the Delta, because of its figure Δ. These two arms are divided into
others, which discharge themselves into the Mediterranean, the distance
of which from the top of the Delta is about twenty leagues. These
branches of the Nile the ancients commonly reckoned to be seven. Ptolemy
makes them nine, some only four, some eleven, some fourteen. Homer,
Xenophon, and Diodorus Siculus testify, that the ancient name of this
river was Egyptus; and the latter of these writers says, that it took
the name Nilus only since the time of a king of Egypt called by that
name. The Greeks gave it the name of Melas; and Diodorus Siculus
observes, that the most ancient name by which the Grecians have known
the Nile was Oceanus. The Egyptians paid divine honours to this river,
and called it Jupiter Nilus.

Very little rain ever falls in Egypt, never sufficient to fertilize the
land; and but for the provision of this bountiful river, the country
would be condemned to perpetual sterility. As it is, from the joint
operation of the regularity of the flood, the deposit of mud from the
water of the river and the warmth of the climate, it is the most fertile
country in the world; the produce exceeding all calculation. It has in
consequence been, in all ages, the granary of the east; and has on more
than one occasion, an instance of which is recorded in the history of
Joseph, saved the neighbouring countries from starvation. It is
probable, that, while in these countries, on the occasion referred to,
the seven years’ famine was the result of the absence of rain, in Egypt
it was brought about by the inundation being withheld: and the
consternation of the Egyptians, at witnessing this phenomenon for seven
successive years, may easily be conceived. The origin and course of the
Nile being unknown to the ancients, its stream was held, and is still
held by the natives, in the greatest veneration; and its periodical
overflow was viewed with mysterious wonder. But both of these are now,
from the discoveries of the moderns, better understood. It is now known,
that the sources, or permanent springs, of the Nile are situated in the
mountains of Abyssinia, and the unexplored regions to the west and
south-west of that country; and that the occasional supplies, or causes
of the inundation, are the periodical rains which fall in those
districts. For a correct knowledge of these facts, and of the true
position of the source of that branch of the river, which has generally
been considered to be the continuation of the true Nile, we are indebted
to our countryman, the intrepid and indefatigable Bruce. Although the
Nile, by way of eminence, has been called the river of Egypt,” it must
not be confounded with another stream so denominated in Scripture, an
insignificant rivulet in comparison, which falls into the Mediterranean
below Gaza.

NIMROD. He is generally supposed to have been the immediate son of Cush,
and the youngest, or sixth, from the Scriptural phrase, Cush begat
Nimrod,” after the mention of his five sons, Gen. x, 8. But the phrase
is used with considerable latitude, like father” and son,” in Scripture.
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar: out of that land he went forth to invade
Assyria; and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin,
between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city,” Gen. x, 8–12.
Though the main body of the Cushites was miraculously dispersed, and
sent by Providence to their destinations along the sea coasts of Asia
and Africa, yet Nimrod remained behind, and founded an empire in
Babylonia, according to Berosus, by usurping the property of the
Arphaxadites in the land of Shinar; where the beginning of his kingdom
was Babel,” or Babylon, and other towns: and, not satisfied with this,
he next invaded Assur, or Assyria, east of the Tigris, where he built
Nineveh, and several other towns. The marginal reading of our English
Bible, He went out into Assyria,” or to invade Assyria, is here adopted
in preference to that in the text: And out of that land went forth
Ashur, and builded Nineveh,” &c. The meaning of the word Nineveh may
lead us to his original name, Nin, signifying a son,” the most
celebrated of the sons of Cush. That of Nimrod, or Rebel,” was probably
a parody, or nickname, given him by the oppressed Shemites, of which we
have several instances in Scripture. Thus _nahash_, the brazen serpent”
in the wilderness, was called by Hezekiah, in contempt, _nehushtan_, a
piece of brass,” when he broke it in pieces, because it was perverted
into an object of idolatrous worship by the Jews, 2 Kings xviii, 4.
Nimrod, that arch rebel, who first subverted the patriarchal government,
introduced also the Zabian idolatry, or worship of the heavenly host;
and, after his death, was deified by his subjects, and supposed to be
translated into the constellations of Orion, attended by his hounds,
Sirius and Canicula, and still pursuing his favourite game, the great
bear; supposed also to be translated into _ursa major_, near the north
pole; as admirably described by Homer,--

           Ἄρκτον θ’, ἣν καὶ ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν,
           Ἤ τ’ αὐτου ϛρέφεται, καὶ τ’ Ὠρίωνα δοκεύει.
                                         _Iliad_ xviii, 485.

And the bear, surnamed also the wain, by the Egyptians, who is turning
herself about there, and watching Orion.” Homer also introduces the
shade of Orion, as hunting in the Elysian fields,--

            Τὸν δὲ μέτ’, Ὠρίωνα πελώριον είσενόησα
            Θῆρας ὁμοῦ εἰλεῦντα, κατ’ ἀσφοδελον λειμωνα·
            Τοὺς αὐτος κατέπεφνεν ἐν οἰοπόλοισιν ὄρεσσι
            Χερσὶν ἔχων ρὅπαλον παγχάλκεον, αἰὲν ἀαγές.
                                              _Odyss._ xi, 571.

       Next, I observed the mighty Orion
       Chasing wild beasts through an asphodel mead,
       Which himself had slain on the solitary mountains:
       Holding in his hands a solid brazen mace, ever unbroken.”

The Grecian name of this mighty hunter” may furnish a satisfactory clue
to the name given him by the impious adulation of the Babylonians and
Assyrians. Ὠρίων nearly resembles, Ὀυρίαν, the oblique case of Ὀυρίας,
which is the Septuagint rendering of Uriah, a proper name in Scripture,
2 Sam. xi, 6–21. But Uriah, signifying the light of the Lord,” was an
appropriate appellation of that most brilliant constellation. He was
also called Baal, Beel, Bel, or Belus, signifying lord,” or master,” by
the Phenicians, Assyrians, and Greeks; and Bala Rama, by the Hindus. At
a village called Bala-deva, or Baldeo in the vulgar dialect, thirteen
miles east by south from Muttra, in Hindustan, there is a very ancient
statue of Bala Rama, in which he is represented with a ploughshare in
his left hand, and a thick cudgel in his right, and his shoulders
covered with the skin of a tiger. Captain Wilford supposes that the
ploughshare was designed to hook his enemies; but may it not more
naturally denote the constellation of the great bear, which strikingly
represents the figure of a plough in its seven bright stars; and was
probably so denominated by the earliest astronomers, before the
introduction of the Zabian idolatry, as a celestial symbol of
agriculture? The thick cudgel corresponds to the brazen mace of Homer.
And it is highly probable that the Assyrian Nimrod, or Hindu Bala, was
also the prototype of the Grecian Hercules, with his club and lion’s
skin.

Nimrod is said to have been a mighty hunter before the Lord;” which the
Jerusalem paraphrast interprets of a sinful hunting after the sons of
men to turn them off from the true religion. But it may as well be taken
in a more literal sense, for hunting of wild beasts; inasmuch as the
circumstance of his being a mighty hunter is mentioned with great
propriety to introduce the account of his setting up his kingdom; the
exercise of hunting being looked upon in ancient times as a means of
acquiring the rudiments of war; for which reason, the principal heroes
of Heathen antiquity, as Theseus, Nestor, &c, were, as Xenophon tells
us, bred up to hunting. Beside, it may be supposed, that by this
practice Nimrod drew together a great company of robust young men to
attend him in his sport, and by that means increased his power. And by
destroying the wild beasts, which, in the comparatively defenceless
state of society in those early ages, were no doubt very dangerous
enemies, he might, perhaps, render himself farther popular; thereby
engaging numbers to join with him, and to promote his chief design of
subduing men, and making himself master of many nations.

NINEVEH. This capital of the Assyrian empire could boast of the remotest
antiquity. Tacitus styles it, _Vetustissima sedes Assyriæ_;” [the most
ancient seat of Assyria;] and Scripture informs us that Nimrod, after he
had built Babel, in the land of Shinar, invaded Assyria, where he built
Nineveh, and several other cities, Genesis x, 11. Its name denotes the
habitation of Nin,” which seems to have been the proper name of that
rebel,” as Nimrod signifies. And it is uniformly styled by Herodotus,
Xenophon, Diodorus, Lucian, &c, Ἡ Νίνος, the city of Ninus.” And the
village of Nunia, opposite Mosul, in its name, and the tradition of the
natives, ascertains the site of the ancient city, which was near the
castle of Arbela, according to Tacitus, so celebrated for the decisive
victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians there; the site of
which is ascertained by the village of Arbil, about ten German miles to
the east of Nunia, according to Niebuhr’s map. Nineveh at first seems
only to have been a small city, and less than Resen, in its
neighbourhood; which is conjectured by Bochart, and not without reason,
to have been the same as Larissa, which Xenophon describes as the ruins
of a great city, formerly inhabited by the Medes,” and which the natives
might have described as belonging _la Resen_, to Resen.” Nineveh did not
rise to greatness for many ages after, until its second founder, Ninus
II., about B. C. 1230, enlarged and made it the greatest city in the
world. According to Diodorus, it was of an oblong form, a hundred and
fifty stadia long, and ninety broad, and, consequently, four hundred and
eighty in circuit, or forty-eight miles, reckoning ten stadia to an
English mile, with Major Rennel. And its walls were a hundred feet high,
and so broad that three chariots could drive on them abreast; and on the
walls were fifteen hundred towers, each two hundred feet high. We are
not, however, to imagine that all this vast enclosure was built upon: it
contained great parks and extensive fields, and detached houses and
buildings, like Babylon, and other great cities of the east even at the
present day, as Bussorah, &c. And this entirely corresponds with the
representations of Scripture. In the days of the Prophet Jonah, about B.
C. 800, it seems to have been a “great city, an exceeding great city, of
three days’ journey,” Jonah i, 2; iii, 3; perhaps in circuit. The
population of Nineveh, also, at that time was very great. It contained
more than sixscore thousand persons that could not discern between their
right hand and their left, beside much cattle,” Jonah iv, 11. Reckoning
the persons to have been infants of two years old and under, and that
these were a fifth part of the whole, according to Bochart, the whole
population would amount to six hundred thousand souls. The same number
Pliny assigns for the population of Seleucia, on the decline of Babylon.
This population shows that a great part of the city must have been left
open and unbuilt.

The threatened overthrow of Nineveh within three days, was, by the
general repentance and humiliation of the inhabitants, from the highest
to the lowest, suspended for near two hundred years, until their
iniquity came to the full;” and then the prophecy was literally
accomplished, in the third year of the siege of the city, by the
combined Medes and Babylonians; the king, Sardanapalus, being encouraged
to hold out in consequence of an ancient prophecy, that Nineveh should
never be taken by assault, till the river became its enemy; when a
mighty inundation of the river, swollen by continual rains, came up
against a part of the city, and threw down twenty stadia of the wall in
length; upon which, the king, conceiving that the oracle was
accomplished, burned himself, his concubines, eunuchs, and treasures;
and the enemy, entering by the breach, sacked and rased the city, about
B. C. 606. Diodorus, also, relates that Belesis, the governor of
Babylon, obtained from Arbaces, the king of Media, the ashes of the
palace, to erect a mount with them near the temple of Belus at Babylon;
and that he forthwith prepared shipping, and, together with the ashes,
carried away most of the gold and silver, of which he had private
information given him by one of the eunuchs who escaped the fire. Dr.
Gillies thinks it incredible that these could be transported from
Nineveh to Babylon, three hundred miles distant; but likely enough, if
Nineveh was only fifty miles from Babylon, with a large canal of
communication between them, the Nahar Malka, or Royal River. But we
learn from Niebuhr, that the conveyance of goods from Nosul to Bagdat by
the Tigris is very commodious, in the very large boats called _helleks_;
in which, in spring, when the river is rapid, the voyage may be made in
three or four days, which would take fifteen by land. The complete
demolition of such immense piles as the walls and towers of Nineveh may
seem matter of surprise to those who do not consider the nature of the
materials of which they were constructed, that is, of bricks, dried or
baked in the sun, and cemented with bitumen, which were apt to be
dissolved” by water, or to moulder away by the injuries of the weather.
Beside, in the east, the materials of ancient cities have been often
employed in the building of new ones in the neighbourhood. Thus Mosul
was built with the spoils of Nineveh. Tauk Kesra, or the Palace of
Chosroes, appears to have been built of bricks brought from the ruins of
Babylon; and so was Hellah, as the dimensions are nearly the same, and
the proportions so singular. And when such materials could conveniently
be transported by inland navigations, they are to be found at very great
distances from their ancient place, much farther, indeed, than are
Bagdat and Seleucia, or Ctesiphon, from Babylon.

The book of Nahum was avowedly prophetic of the destruction of Nineveh;
and it is there foretold that the gates of the river shall be opened,
and the palace shall be dissolved. Nineveh of old, like a pool of water,
with an overflowing flood he will make an utter end of the place
thereof,” Nahum ii, 6; i, 8, 9. The historian describes the facts by
which the other predictions of the prophet were as literally fulfilled.
He relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories,
and ignorant of the revolt of the Bactrians, had abandoned himself to
scandalous inaction; had appointed a time of festivity, and supplied his
soldiers with abundance of wine; and that the general of the enemy,
apprised by deserters, of their negligence and drunkenness, attacked the
Assyrian army while the whole of them were fearlessly giving way to
indulgence, destroyed great part of them, and drove the rest into the
city. The words of the prophet were hereby verified: While they be
folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they
shall be devoured as stubble fully dry,” Nahum i, 10. The prophet
promised much spoil to the enemy: Take the spoil of silver, take the
spoil of gold; for there is no end of the store and glory out of all the
pleasant furniture,” Nahum ii, 9. And the historian affirms that many
talents of gold and silver, preserved from the fire, were carried to
Ecbatana. According to Nahum, iii, 15, the city was not only to be
destroyed by an overflowing flood, but the fire, also, was to devour it;
and, as Diodorus relates, partly by water, partly by fire, it was
destroyed.

The utter and perpetual destruction and desolation of Nineveh were
foretold: The Lord will make an utter end of the place thereof.
Affliction shall not rise up the second time. She is empty, void, and
waste,” Nahum i, 8, 9; ii, 10; iii, 17–19. The Lord will stretch out his
hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a
desolation, and dry like a wilderness. How is she become a desolation, a
place for beasts to lie down in,” Zeph. ii, 13–15. In the second
century, Lucian, a native of a city on the banks of the Euphrates,
testified that Nineveh was utterly perished, that there was no vestige
of it remaining, and that none could tell where once it was situated.
This testimony of Lucian, and the lapse of many ages during which the
place was not known where it stood, render it at least somewhat doubtful
whether the remains of an ancient city, opposite to Mosul, which have
been described as such by travellers, be indeed those of ancient
Nineveh. It is, perhaps, probable that they are the remains of the city
which succeeded Nineveh, or of a Persian city of the same name, which
was built on the banks of the Tigris by the Persians subsequently to A.
D. 230, and demolished by the Saracens, A. D. 632. In contrasting the
then existing great and increasing population, and the accumulating
wealth of the proud inhabitants of the mighty Nineveh, with the utter
ruin that awaited it, the word of God by the Prophet Nahum, was, Make
thyself many as the canker worm, make thyself many as the locusts. Thou
hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the canker worm
spoileth and flieth away. Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy
captains as the great grasshoppers which camp in the hedges in the cold
day: but when the sun riseth, they flee away; and their place is not
known where they are,” or were. Whether these words imply that even the
site of Nineveh would in future ages be uncertain or unknown; or, as
they rather seem to intimate, that every vestige of the palaces of its
monarchs, of the greatness of its nobles, and of the wealth of its
numerous merchants, would wholly disappear; the truth of the prediction
cannot be invalidated under either interpretation. The avowed ignorance
respecting Nineveh, and the oblivion which passed over it, for many an
age, conjoined with the meagreness of evidence to identify it, still
prove that the place where it stood was long unknown, and that, even
now, it can scarcely with certainty be determined. And if the only spot
that bears its name, or that can be said to be the place where it was,
be indeed the site of one of the most extensive of cities on which the
sun ever shone, and which continued for many centuries to be the capital
of Assyria,--the principal mounds, few in number, which show neither
bricks, stones, nor other materials of building,--but are in many places
overgrown with grass, and resemble the mounds left by intrenchments and
fortifications of ancient Roman camps, and the appearances of other
mounds and ruins less marked than even these, extending for ten miles,
and widely spread, and seeming to be the wreck of former
buildings,--show that Nineveh is left without one monument of royalty,
without any token whatever of its splendour or wealth; that their place
is not known where they were; and that it is indeed a desolation, empty,
void, and waste,” its very ruins perished, and less than the wreck of
what it was. Such an utter ruin, in every view, has been made of it; and
such is the truth of the divine predictions!

NISAN, a month of the Hebrews, answering to our March, and which
sometimes takes from February or April, according to the course of the
moon. It was made the first month of the sacred year, at the coming out
of Egypt, Exod. xii, 2; and it was the seventh month of the civil year.
By Moses it is called Abib. The name Nisan was introduced only since the
time of Ezra, and the return from the captivity of Babylon.

NISROCH, a god of the Assyrians. Sennacherib was killed by two of his
sons, while he was paying his adorations in the temple of this deity, 2
Kings xix, 37; Isaiah xxxvii, 38. It is uncertain who this god was.

NITRE, נתר, Prov. xxv, 20; Jer. ii, 22. This is not the same that we
call nitre, or saltpetre, but a native salt of a different kind,
distinguished among naturalists by the name of natrum. The natrum of the
ancients was an earthy alkaline salt. It was found in abundance
separated from the water of the lake Natron in Egypt. It rises from the
bottom of the lake to the top of the water, and is there condensed by
the heat of the sun into the hard and dry form in which it is sold. This
salt thus scummed off is the same in all respects with the Smyrna soap
earth. Pliny, Matthiolus, and Agricola, have described it to us:
Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, and others, mention its uses. It is
also found in great plenty in Sindy, a province in the inner part of
Asia, and in many other parts of the east; and might be had in any
quantities. The learned Michaëlis plainly demonstrates, from the nature
of the thing and the context, that this fossil and natural alkali must
be that which the Hebrews called _nether_. Solomon must mean the same
when he compares the effect which unseasonable mirth has upon a man in
affliction to the action of vinegar upon nitre, Prov. xxv, 20; for
vinegar has no effect upon what we call nitre, but upon the alkali in
question has a great effect, making it rise up in bubbles with much
effervescence. It is of a soapy nature, and was used to take spots from
clothes, and even from the face. Jeremiah alludes to this use of it, ii,
22.

NO, or NO-AMMON, a city of Egypt, supposed to be Thebes.

NOAH, the son of Lamech. Amidst the general corruption of the human
race, Noah only was found righteous, Gen. vi, 9. He therefore found
grace in the sight of the Lord,” and was directed for his preservation
to make an ark, the shape and dimensions of which were prescribed by the
Lord. In A. M. 1656, and in the six hundredth year of his age, Noah, by
divine appointment, entered the ark with his family, and all the animals
collected for the renewal of the world. (See _Deluge_.) After the ark
had stranded, and the earth was in a measure dried, Noah offered a
burnt-sacrifice to the Lord, of the pure animals that were in the ark;
and the Lord was pleased to accept of his offering, and to give him
assurance that he would no more destroy the world by water, Genesis ix.
He gave Noah power over all the brute creation, and permitted him to
kill and eat of them, as of the herbs and fruits of the earth, except
the blood, the use of which was prohibited. After the deluge Noah lived
three hundred and fifty years; and the whole time of his life having
been nine hundred and fifty years, he died, A. M. 2006. According to
common opinion, he divided the earth among his three sons, Shem, Ham,
and Japheth. To Shem he gave Asia, to Ham Africa, and to Japheth Europe.
Some will have it, that beside these three sons he had several others.
St. Peter calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, because before the
deluge he was incessantly preaching and declaring to men, not only by
his discourses, but by the building of the ark, in which he was employed
a hundred and twenty years, that the cloud of divine vengeance was about
to burst upon them. But his faithful ministry produced no effect, since,
when the deluge came, it found mankind practising their usual
enormities, Matt. xxiv, 37. Several learned men have observed that the
Heathens confounded Saturn, Deucalion, Ogyges, the god Cœlus or
Ouranus, Janus, Protheus, Prometheus, &c, with Noah. The fable of
Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha is manifestly drawn from the history of
Noah. The rabbins pretend that God gave Noah and his sons certain
general precepts, which contain, according to them, the natural duties
which are common to all men indifferently, and the observation of which
alone will be sufficient to save them. After the law of Moses was given,
the Hebrews would not suffer any stranger to dwell in their country,
unless he would conform to the precepts of Noah. In war, they put to
death without quarter all who were ignorant of them. These precepts are
seven in number: the first was against the worship of idols; the second,
against blasphemy, and required to bless the name of God; the third,
against murder; the fourth, against incest and all uncleanness; the
fifth, against theft and rapine; the sixth required the administration
of justice; the seventh was against eating flesh with life. But the
antiquity of these precepts is doubted, since no mention of them is made
in the Scripture, or in the writings of Josephus, or in Philo; and none
of the ancient fathers knew any thing of them.

NOD, LAND OF, the country to which Cain withdrew after the murder of
Abel. As the precise situation of this country cannot possibly be known,
so it has given rise to much ingenious speculation. All that we are told
of it is, that it was on the east of Eden,” or, as it may be rendered,
before Eden;” which very country of Eden is no sure guide for us, as the
situation of that also is disputed. But, be it on the higher or lower
Euphrates, (see _Eden_,) the land of Nod which stood before it with
respect to the place where Moses wrote, may still preserve the curse of
barrenness passed on it for Cain’s sake, namely, in the deserts of Syria
or Arabia. The Chaldee interpreters render the word Nod, not as the
proper name of a country, but as an appellative applied to Cain himself,
signifying a vagabond or fugitive, and read, He dwelt a fugitive in the
land.” But the Hebrew reads expressly, He dwelt in the land of Nod.”

NONCONFORMISTS, dissenters from the church of England; but the term
applies more particularly to those ministers who were ejected from their
livings by the Act of Uniformity in 1662; the number of whom, according
to Dr. Calamy, was nearly two thousand; and to the laity who adhered to
them. The celebrated Mr. Locke says, Bartholomew-day (the day fixed by
the Act of Uniformity) was fatal to our church and religion, by throwing
out a very great number of worthy, learned, pious, and orthodox divines,
who could not come up to this and other things in that act. And it is
worth your knowledge, that so great was the zeal in carrying on this
church affair, and so blind was the obedience required, that if you
compare the time of passing the act with the time allowed for the clergy
to subscribe the book of Common Prayer thereby established, you shall
plainly find, it could not be printed and distributed, so as one man in
forty could have seen and read the book before they did so perfectly
assent and consent thereto.”

By this act, the clergy were required to subscribe, _ex animo_,
[sincerely,] their assent and consent to all and every thing contained
in the book of Common Prayer,” which had never before been insisted on,
so rigidly as to deprive them of their livings and livelihood. Several
other acts were passed about this time, very oppressive both to the
clergy and laity. In the preceding year 1661, the Corporation Act
incapacitated all persons from offices of trust and honour in a
corporation, who did not receive the sacrament in the established
church. The Conventicle Act, in 1663 and 1670, forbade the attendance at
conventicles; that is, at places of worship other than the
establishment, where more than five adults were present beside the
resident family; and that under penalties of fine and imprisonment by
the sentence of magistrates without a jury. The Oxford Act of 1665
banished nonconforming ministers five miles from any corporate town
sending members to parliament, and prohibited them from keeping or
teaching schools. The Test Act of the same year required all persons,
accepting any office under government, to receive the sacrament in the
established church.

Such were the dreadful consequences of this intolerant spirit, that it
is supposed that near eight thousand died in prison in the reign of
Charles II. It is said that Mr. Jeremiah White had carefully collected a
list of those who had suffered between Charles II. and the revolution,
which amounted to sixty thousand. The same persecutions were carried on
in Scotland; and there, as well as in England, numbers, to avoid the
persecution, left their country. But, notwithstanding all these dreadful
and furious attacks upon the dissenters, they were not extirpated. Their
very persecution was in their favour. The infamous character of their
informers and persecutors; their piety, zeal, and fortitude, no doubt,
had influence on considerate minds; and, indeed, they had additions from
the established church, which several clergymen in this reign deserted
as a persecuting church, and took their lot among them. King William
coming to the throne, the famous Toleration Act passed, by which they
were exempted from suffering the penalties above mentioned, and
permission was given them to worship God according to the dictates of
their own consciences. In the reign of George III., the Act for the
Protection of Religious Worship superseded the Act of Toleration, by
still more liberal provisions in favour of religious liberty; and in the
last reign the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed.

NOPH, Memphis, a celebrated city of Egypt, and, till the time of the
Ptolemies, who removed to Alexandria, the residence of the ancient kings
of Egypt. It stood above the dividing of the river Nile, where the Delta
begins. Toward the south of this city stood the famous pyramids, two of
which were esteemed the wonders of the world; and in this city was fed
the ox Apis, which Cambyses slew, in contempt of the Egyptians who
worshipped it as a deity. The kings of Egypt took much pleasure in
adorning this city; and it continued in all its beauty till the Arabians
made a conquest of Egypt under the Caliph Omar. The general who took it
built another city near it, named Fustal, merely because his tent had
been a long time set up in that place; and the Fatimite caliphs, when
they became masters of Egypt, added another to it, which is known to us
at this day by the name of Grand Cairo. This occasioned the utter decay
of Memphis, and led to the fulfilment of the prophecy, that it should be
waste and without inhabitant.” The prophets often speak of this city,
and foretel the miseries it was to suffer from the kings of Chaldea and
Persia, Isaiah xix, 13; Jer. xliv, 1; xlvi, 14, 19; Hosea ix, 6; Ezek.
xxx, 13, 16.

NOVATIANS, the followers of Novatian, a priest of Rome, and of Novatus,
a priest of Carthage, in the third century. They were distinguished
merely by their discipline; for their religious and doctrinal tenets do
not appear to be at all different from those of the church. They
condemned second marriages, and for ever excluded from their communion
all those who after baptism had fallen into sin. They affected very
superior purity; and, though they conceived that the worst might
possibly hope for eternal life, they absolutely refused to reädmit into
their communion any who had lapsed into sin. They separated from the
church of Rome, because the members of it admitted into their communion
many who had, during a season of persecution, rejected the Christian
faith.

NUMBERS, a canonical book of the Old Testament, being the fourth of the
Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; and receives its denomination from
the numbering of the families of Israel by Moses and Aaron, who mustered
the tribes, and marshalled the army, of the Hebrews in their passage
through the wilderness. A great part of this book is historical,
relating several remarkable events which happened in that journey, and
also mentioning various of their journeyings in the wilderness. This
book comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years, though the
greater part of the things recorded fell out in the first and last of
those years; and it does not appear when those things were done which
are recorded in the middle of the book. See PENTATEUCH.

NURSE. The nurse in an eastern family is always an important personage.
Modern travellers inform us, that in Syria she is considered as a sort
of second parent, whether she has been foster-mother or otherwise. She
always accompanies the bride to her husband’s house, and ever remains
there an honoured character. Thus it was in ancient Greece. This will
serve to explain Genesis xxiv, 59: And they sent away Rebekah their
sister, and her nurse.” In Hindostan the nurse is not looked upon as a
stranger, but becomes one of the family, and passes the remainder of her
life in the midst of the children she has suckled, by whom she is
honoured and cherished as a second mother. In many parts of Hindostan
are mosques and mausoleums, built by the Mohammedan princes, near the
sepulchres of their nurses. They are excited by a grateful affection to
erect these structures in memory of those who with maternal anxiety
watched over their helpless infancy: thus it has been from time
immemorial.


OAK. The religious veneration paid to this tree, by the original natives
of our island in the time of the Druids, is well known to every reader
of British history. We have reason to think that this veneration was
brought from the east; and that the Druids did no more than transfer the
sentiments their progenitors had received in oriental countries. It
should appear that the Patriarch Abraham resided under an oak, or a
grove of oaks, which our translators render the plain of Mamre; and that
he planted a grove of this tree, Gen. xiii, 18. In fact, since in hot
countries nothing is more desirable than shade, nothing more refreshing
than the shade of a tree, we may easily suppose the inhabitants would
resort for such enjoyment to

                Where’er the oak’s thick branches spread
                  A deeper, darker shade.

Oaks, and groves of oaks, were esteemed proper places for religious
services; altars were set up under them, Joshua xxiv, 26; and, probably,
in the east as well as in the west, appointments to meet at conspicuous
oaks were made, and many affairs were transacted or treated of under
their shade, as we read in Homer, Theocritus and other poets. It was
common among the Hebrews to sit under oaks, Judges vi, 11; 1 Kings xiii,
14. Jacob buried idolatrous images under an oak, Gen. xxxv, 4; and
Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried under one of these trees, Genesis
xxxv, 8. See 1 Chron. x, 12. Abimelech was made king under an oak,
Judges ix, 6. Idolatry was practised under oaks, Isaiah i, 29; lvii, 5;
Hosea iv, 13. Idols were made of oaks, Isa. xliv, 14.

OATH, a solemn invocation of a superior power, admitted to be acquainted
with all the secrets of our hearts, with our inward thoughts as well as
our outward actions, to witness the truth of what we assert, and to
inflict his vengeance upon us if we assert what is not true, or promise
what we do not mean to perform. Almost all nations, whether savage or
civilized, whether enjoying the light of revelation or led only by the
light of reason, knowing the importance of truth, and willing to obtain
a barrier against falsehood, have had recourse to oaths, by which they
have endeavoured to make men fearful of uttering lies, under the dread
of an avenging Deity. Among Christians, an oath is a solemn appeal for
the truth of our assertions, the sincerity of our promises, and the
fidelity of our engagements, to the one only God, the Judge of the whole
earth, who is every where present, and sees, and hears, and knows,
whatever is said, or done, or thought in any part of the world. Such is
that Being whom Christians, when they take an oath, invoke to bear
testimony to the truth of their words, and the integrity of their
hearts. Surely, then, if oaths be a matter of so much moment, it well
behoves us not to treat them with levity, nor ever to take them without
due consideration. Hence we ought, with the utmost vigilance, to abstain
from mingling oaths in our ordinary discourse, and from associating the
name of God with low or disgusting images, or using it on trivial
occasions, as not only a profane levity in itself, but tending to
destroy that reverence for the supreme Majesty which ought to prevail in
society, and to dwell in our own hearts.

The forms of oaths,” says Dr. Paley, like other religious ceremonies,
have in all ages been various; consisting, however, for the most part of
some bodily action, and of a prescribed form of words.” Among the Jews,
the juror held up his right hand toward heaven, Psalm cxliv, 8; Rev. x,
5. The same form is retained in Scotland still. Among the Jews, also, an
oath of fidelity was taken by the servant’s putting his hand under the
thigh of his lord, Genesis xxiv, 2. Among the Greeks and Romans, the
form varied with the subject and occasion of the oath: in private
contracts, the parties took hold of each other’s hands, while they swore
to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose
divinity they swore: upon more solemn occasions, it was the custom to
slay a victim; and the beast being struck down with certain ceremonies
and invocations, gave birth to the expression, _ferire pactum_; and to
our English phrase, translated from this, of striking a bargain.” The
form of oaths in Christian countries is also very different; but in no
country in the world worse contrived, either to convey the meaning or
impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror with us,
after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to
confirm, adds, So help me God;” or, more frequently, the substance of
the oath is repeated to the juror by the magistrate, who adds in the
conclusion, So help you God.” The energy of this sentence resides in the
particle _so_: So, that is, _hâc lege_, upon condition of my speaking
the truth, or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help
me! The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds
his right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the Gospels, and
at the conclusion kisses the book. This obscure and elliptical form,
together with the levity and frequency of them, has brought about a
general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths, which, both in a
religious and political view, is much to be lamented; and it merits
public consideration, whether the requiring of oaths upon so many
frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification
for petty offices, has any other effect than to make such sanctions
cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly
from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at
least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office,
namely, that of an oath, is required from a churchwarden and an
archbishop; from a petty constable and the chief justice of England.
Oaths, however, are lawful; and, whatever be the form, the signification
is the same. Historians have justly remarked, that when the reverence
for an oath began to diminish among the Romans, and the loose epicurean
system, which discarded the belief of providence, was introduced, the
Roman honour and prosperity from that period began to decline. The
Quakers refuse to swear upon any occasion, founding their scruples
concerning the lawfulness of oaths upon our Saviour’s prohibition, Swear
not at all,” Matt. v, 34. But it seems our Lord there referred to the
vicious, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, and not
to judicial oaths; for he himself answered, when interrogated, upon
oath, Matt. xxvi, 63, 64; Mark xiv, 61. The Apostle Paul also makes use
of expressions which contain the nature of oaths, Romans i, 9; 1 Cor.
xv, 31; 2 Cor. i, 18; Gal. i, 20; Heb. vi, 13–17. The administration of
oaths supposes that God will punish false swearing with more severity
than a simple lie, or breach of promise; for which belief there are the
following reasons: 1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation. 2. It
violates a superior confidence. 3. God directed the Israelites to swear
by his name, Deut. vi, 13; x, 20; and was pleased to confirm his
covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which, it is probable,
he would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having
some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise.

OBADIAH the prophet is thought to have been the same as the governor of
Ahab’s house, 1 Kings xviii, 3, &c; and some are of opinion, he was that
Obadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple, 2 Chron.
xxxiv, 12. Indeed, the age in which this prophet lived is very
uncertain. Some think that he was contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and
Joel; while others are of opinion that he lived in the time of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, and that he delivered his prophecy about B. C. 585, soon
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. His book, which
consists of a single chapter, is written with great beauty and elegance,
and contains predictions of the utter destruction of the Edomites, and
of the future restoration and prosperity of the Jews.

OBED-EDOM, son of Jeduthun, a Levite, 1 Chron. xvi, 38, and the father
of Shemaiah and others, 1 Chron. xvi, 5. We learn that the Lord blessed
this man exceedingly, on account of the ark resting under his roof, 2
Sam. vi, 10, 11. David having removed the ark to the place he had
previously prepared for its reception, Obed-Edom and his sons were
appointed to be keepers of the doors of the temple, 1 Chron. xv, 18, 21.
Obed-Edom is called the Gittite, probably because he was of Gathrimmon,
a city of the Levites beyond Jordan, Joshua xxi, 24, 25.

ODED, a prophet of the Lord, who, being at Samaria when the Israelites
of the ten tribes returned from the war with their King Pekah, together
with two hundred thousand of the people of Judah, whom they had taken
captive, went out to meet them; and through his remonstrances the
captives were liberated, 2 Chron. xxviii. This circumstance is all that
is recorded concerning Oded.

OFFERINGS. Among the Jews, under the Mosaic law, a variety of offerings
of different kinds were appointed, which are accurately and fully
described in the beginning of the book of Leviticus.

Burnt-offerings, or holocausts, sacrifices in which the victims were
wholly consumed, were expiatory, and more ancient than any others, and
were, for that reason, held in special honour. It was in consideration
of these circumstances that Moses gave precepts in regard to this kind
of sacrifices first, Lev. i, 3. Holocausts might be offered by means of
the Hebrew priests, when brought by the Heathen, or those who had
originated from another nation; such persons being unable to offer sin
or trespass-offerings, since this sort of sacrifices had particular
reference to some neglect or violation of the Mosaic law, by whose
authority they did not acknowledge themselves bound. Holocausts were
expiatory, and we accordingly find that they were offered sometimes for
the whole people; for instance, the morning and the evening sacrifices;
and sometimes by an individual for himself alone, either from the free
impulse of his feelings, or in fulfilment of a vow, Psalm li, 19; lxvi,
13, 14. They were required to be offered under certain combinations of
circumstances pointed out in the Mosaic laws; namely, by a Nazarite, who
had been unexpectedly rendered unclean, or who had completed the days of
his separation, Num. vi, 11–16; by those who had been healed of leprosy;
and by women after child-birth, Lev. xii, 6, 8. The victims immolated at
a holocaust were bullocks of three years old, goats and lambs of a year
old, turtle doves, and young pigeons. Not only the parts which were
expressly destined for the altar, but also the other parts of the
victims, were burned. A libation of wine was poured out upon the altar.
It was the practice among the Gentile nations, (an allusion to which
occurs in Phil. ii, 17, and 2 Tim. iv, 6,) to pour the wine out between
the horns of the victims which they immolated to their idols. The priest
partially wrung or cut off the heads of the turtle doves and young
pigeons, sprinkled the blood on the side of the altar, plucked out the
feathers and the crop, and cast them to the east of the altar into the
place for the reception of ashes, and placed the remainder, after having
cleft or broken the wings, upon the fire, Lev. i, 3–17.

Drink-offerings. With a bullock, half a hin of wine, with three-tenth
deals of flour, and half a hin of oil. With a ram, one-third of a hin of
wine, with two-tenth deals of flour, and one-third of a hin of oil. With
a lamb or a kid of the goats, one quarter of a hin of wine, one-tenth
deal of flour, and one quarter of a hin of oil. With a sheaf of the
first-fruits, one quarter of a hin of wine, one-tenth deal of flour,
with oil.

Meat-offerings. These, like the drink-offerings, were appendages to the
sacrifices. They were of thin cakes or wafers. In some instances they
were offered alone.

Heave-offerings. So called from the sacrifice being lifted up toward
heaven, in token of its being devoted to Jehovah.

Peace-offerings. Bullocks, heifers, goats, rams, and sheep, were the
only animals sacrificed on these occasions, Lev. iii, 1–17; vii, 23–27.
These sacrifices, which were offered as an indication of gratitude, were
accompanied with unleavened cakes, covered with oil, by pouring it upon
them; with thin cakes or wafers, likewise unleavened, and besmeared with
oil; also with another kind of cakes, made of fine meal, and kneaded
with oil. The priest, who sprinkled the blood, presented one of each of
these kinds of cakes as an offering, Lev. vii, 11–14, 28–35. The
remainder of the animal substance and of the cakes was converted by the
person who made the offering into an entertainment, to which widows,
orphans, the poor, slaves, and Levites were invited. What was not eaten
on the day of the offering might be reserved till the succeeding; but
that which remained till the third was to be burned: a regulation which
was made in order to prevent the omission or putting off of the season
of this benevolence and joy, Lev. vii, 15–21; Deut. xii, 18. This feast
could be celebrated beyond the limits of the tabernacle, or temple, but
not beyond the city.

Sin-offerings were for expiation of particular sins, or legal
imperfections, called therefore sin-offerings: the first sort were for
sins of ignorance or surprise, either from the high priest, or body of
the community, from the rulers, or any one of the common people. The
other sort of sin-offerings were for voluntary sins; but as to the more
capital violations of the moral law, as murder, adultery, or the worship
of idols, no expiatory sacrifice was admitted.

Trespass-offerings were not required of the people as a body. They were
to be offered by individuals, who, through ignorance, mistake, or want
of reflection, had neglected some of the ceremonial precepts of Moses,
or some of those natural laws, which had been introduced into his code,
and sanctioned with the penalty of death; and who were subsequently
conscious of their error. The person who, being sworn as a witness,
concealed the truth by keeping silent; the man who, having become
contaminated without knowing it, had omitted purification, but had
afterward become acquainted with the fact; the person who had rashly
sworn to do a thing, and had not done it; all these delinquents offered
a lamb or kid, or, in case of poverty, two doves or young pigeons, the
one for a trespass, the other for a sin-offering. In case the person was
unusually poor, he was required to offer merely the tenth part of an
ephah of fine meal, without oil or frankincense, Lev. iii, 1–16. Whoever
appropriated to himself any thing consecrated, or any thing that was
promised, or found, or stolen, or deposited in his possession for
keeping; whoever swore falsely, or omitted to restore the goods that
belonged to another, or injured him in any other way, presented for his
trespass a ram, which had been submitted to the estimation of the
priest, and not only made restitution, but allowed an additional amount
of a fifth part by way of indemnification. He who had committed
fornication with a betrothed bondmaid, previously to her being redeemed
from servitude, offered a ram for the trespass, Lev. xix, 20–22.
Nazarites, who had been unexpectedly rendered unclean, presented a lamb
of a year old, Num. vi, 11. Finally, lepers, when restored to health,
and purified, sacrificed a ram, Lev. xiv, 10–14. The ceremonies were the
same as in the sin-offerings.

Wave-offering. It was so called, because it was waved up and down, and
toward the east, west, north, and south, to signify, that he to whom it
was offered was Lord of the universe, the God who fills all space, and
to whom all things of right belong. See SACRIFICES>.

OG, a king of Bashan; being a giant of the race of the Rephaim. Moses
records the conquest of Og, and his destruction. After which his country
was given to the tribe of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh,
Num. xxi, 33. See GIANTS.

OIL, שמן. The invention and use of oil is of the highest antiquity. It
is said that Jacob poured oil upon the pillar which he erected at
Bethel, Gen. xxviii, 18. The earliest kind was that which is extracted
from olives. Before the invention of mills, this was obtained by
pounding them in a mortar, Exod. xxvii, 20; and sometimes by treading
them with the feet in the same manner as were grapes, Deut. xxxiii, 24;
Micah vi, 15. The Hebrews used common oil with their food, in their
meat-offerings, for burning in their lamps, &c. As vast quantities of
oil were made by the ancient Jews, it became an article of exportation.
The great demand for it in Egypt led the Jews to send it thither. The
Prophet Hosea thus upbraids his degenerate nation with the servility and
folly of their conduct: Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the
east wind; he daily increaseth falsehood and vanity: and a league is
made with Assyria, and oil carried into Egypt,” Hosea xii, 1. The
Israelites, in the decline of their national glory, carried the produce
of their olive plantations into Egypt as a tribute to their ancient
oppressors, or as a present to conciliate their favour, and obtain their
assistance in the sanguinary wars which they were often compelled to
wage with the neighbouring states. There was an unguent, very precious
and sacred, used in anointing the priests, the tabernacle, and
furniture. This was compounded of spicy drugs; namely, myrrh, sweet
cinnamon, sweet calamus, and cassia, mixed with oil olive.

OLIVE TREE, וית, ἐλαία, Matt. xxi, 1; Rom. xi, 17, 24; James iii, 12;
ἀγριέλαιος, _oleaster_, the wild olive, Rom. xi, 17, 24. Tournefort
mentions eighteen kinds of olives; but in the Scripture we only read of
the cultivated and wild olive. The cultivated olive is of a moderate
height, and thrives best in a sunny and warm soil. Its trunk is knotty;
its bark is smooth, and of an ash colour; its wood is solid, and
yellowish; its leaves are oblong, and almost like those of the willow,
of a dark green colour on the upper side, and a whitish below. In the
month of June it puts forth white flowers, growing in bunches, each of
one piece, and widening toward the top, and dividing into four parts.
After this flower succeeds the fruit, which is oblong and plump. It is
first green, then pale, and, when quite ripe, becomes black. Within it
is enclosed a hard stone, filled with oblong seeds. The wild olives were
of a less kind. Canaan much abounded with olives. It seems almost every
proprietor, whether kings or subjects, had their olive yards. The olive
branch was, from most ancient times, used as the symbol of
reconciliation and peace.

OLIVES. The Mount of Olives was situated to the east of Jerusalem, and
divided from the city only by the brook Kidron, and by the valley of
Jehoshaphat, which stretches out from the north to the south. It was
upon this mount that Solomon built temples to the gods of the Ammonites,
1 Kings xi, 7, and the Moabites, out of complaisance to his wives of
those nations. Hence it is that the Mount of Olives is called the
mountain of corruption, 2 Kings xxiii, 13. The Mount of Olives forms
part of a ridge of limestone hills, extending to the north and the south
west. Pococke describes it as having four summits. On the lowest and
most northerly of these, which, he tells us, is called Sulman Tashy, the
stone of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulchre, and several other
Mohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the north-east
of the city, he describes as very gradual, through pleasant corn fields,
planted with olive trees. The second summit is that which overlooks the
city: the path to it rises from the ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which
occupy part of the valley. About half way up the ascent is a ruined
monastery, built, as the monks tell us, on the spot where our Saviour
wept over Jerusalem. From this point, the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the
best view of the holy city. On reaching the summit, an extensive view is
obtained toward the east, embracing the fertile plain of Jericho,
watered by the Jordan, and the Dead Sea, enclosed by mountains of
considerable grandeur. Here there is a small village, surrounded by some
tolerable corn land. This summit is not relatively high, and would more
properly be termed a hill than a mountain: it is not above two miles
distant from Jerusalem. At a short distance from the summit is shown the
supposed print of our Saviour’s left foot; Chateaubriand says the mark
of the right was once visible, and Bernard de Breidenbach saw it in
1483! This is the spot fixed upon by the mother of Constantine, as that
from which our Lord ascended, and over which she accordingly erected a
church and monastery, the ruins of which still remain. Pococke describes
the building which was standing in his time, as a small Gothic chapel,
round within, and octagonal without, and tells us that it was converted
into a mosque. The Turks, for a stipulated sum, permit the Christian
pilgrims to take an impression of the foot print in wax or plaster, to
carry home. Twice,” says Dr. Richardson, I visited this memorable spot;
and each time it was crowded with devout pilgrims, taking casts of the
holy vestige. They had to purchase permission of the Turks; but, had it
not been in the possession of the Turks, they would have had to purchase
it from the more mercenary and not less merciless Romans or Greeks.” On
ascension eve, the Christians come and encamp in the court, and that
night they perform the offices of the ascension. Here, however, as with
regard to Calvary and almost all the supposed sacred places,
superstition has blindly followed the blind. That this is not the place
of the ascension, is certain from the words of St. Luke, who says that
our Lord led out his disciples as far as Bethany, and lifted up his
hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he
was parted from them, and carried up to heaven,” Acts i. Bethany is a
small village to the east of the Mount of Olives, on the road to
Jericho, not farther from Jerusalem than the pinnacle of the hill. There
are two roads to it; one passes over the Mount of Olives; the other,
which is the shorter and easier, winds round the eastern end, having the
greater part of the hill on the north or left hand, and on the right the
elevation called by some writers the Mount of Offence, which is,
however, very little above the valley of Jehoshaphat. The village of
Bethany is small and poor, and the cultivation of the soil is much
neglected; but it is a pleasant and somewhat romantic spot, sheltered by
Mount Olivet on the north, and abounding with trees and long grass. The
inhabitants are Arabs.

The olive is still found growing in patches at the foot of the mount to
which it gives its name; and as a spontaneous produce, uninterruptedly
resulting from the original growth of this part of the mountain, it is
impossible,” says Dr. E. D. Clarke, to view even these trees with
indifference.” Titus cut down all the wood in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem; but there would seem to have been constantly springing up a
succession of these hardy trees. It is truly a curious and interesting
fact,” adds the learned traveller, that, during a period of little more
than two thousand years, Hebrews, Assyrians, Romans, Moslems, and
Christians, have been successively in possession of the rocky mountains
of Palestine; yet, the olive still vindicates its paternal soil, and is
found, at this day, upon the same spot which was called by the Hebrew
writers Mount Olivet and the Mount of Olives, eleven centuries before
the Christian era,” 2 Sam. xv, 30; Zech. xiv, 4.

OMEGA, the last letter in the Greek alphabet, Rev. i, 8; a title of
Christ.

OMNIPOTENCE. See ALMIGHTY.

OMNIPRESENCE, that attribute of God by which he is present in all
places. The statement of this doctrine in the inspired records, like
that of all the other attributes of God, is made in their own peculiar
tone and emphasis of majesty and sublimity. Whither shall I go from thy
Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up to
heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there;
if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of
the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall
hold me. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?
Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord? Am I a God at hand,
saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?” “Thus saith the Lord, Behold,
heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” Behold, heaven, and
the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee.” “Though he dig into hell,
thence shall my hand take him; though he climb up into heaven, thence
will I bring him down; and though he hide himself in the top of Carmel,
I will search and take him out from thence.” In him we live, and move,
and have our being.” “He filleth all things.”

Some striking passages on the ubiquity of the divine presence may be
found in the writings of some of the Greek philosophers, arising out of
this notion, that God was the soul of the world; but their very
connection with this speculation, notwithstanding the imposing phrase
occasionally adopted, strikingly marks the difference between their most
exalted views, and those of the Hebrew prophets on this subject. To a
large proportion of those who hold a distinguished rank among the
ancient theistical philosophers, the idea of the personality of the
Deity was in a great measure unknown. The Deity by them was considered
not so much an intelligent Being, as an animating power, diffused
throughout the world, and was introduced into their speculative system
to account for the motion of that passive mass of matter, which was
supposed coëval, and indeed coëxistent, with himself. These defective
notions are confessed by Gibbon, a writer not disposed to undervalue
their attainments: The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from
the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated,
however, on the divine nature, as a very curious and important
speculation; and, in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength
and weakness of the human understanding. Of the four most considerable
sects, the Stoics and the Platonicians endeavoured to reconcile the
jarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most
sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the First Cause; but
as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the
workman, in the Stoic philosophy, was not sufficiently distinguished
from the work; while, on the contrary, the spiritual god of Plato and
his disciples resembled more an idea than a substance.”

Similar errors have been revived in the infidel philosophy of modern
times, from Spinoza down to the later offspring of the German and French
schools. The same remark applies also to the oriental philosophy, which
presents at this day a perfect view of the boasted wisdom of ancient
Greece, which was brought to nought” by the foolishness” of apostolic
preaching. But in the Scriptures there is nothing confused in the
doctrine of the divine ubiquity. God is every where, but he is not every
thing. All things have their being in him, but he is distinct from all
things; he fills the universe, but is not mingled with it. He is the
intelligence which guides, and the power which sustains; but his
personality is preserved, and he is independent of the works of his
hands, however vast and noble. So far is his presence from being bounded
by the universe itself, that, as we are taught in the passage above
quoted from the Psalms, were it possible for us to wing our way into the
immeasurable depths and breadths of space, God would there surround us,
in as absolute a sense as that in which he is said to be about our bed
and our path in that part of the world where his will has placed us.

On this, as on all similar subjects, the Scriptures use terms which are
taken in their common-sense acceptation among mankind; and though the
vanity of the human mind disposes many to seek a philosophy in the
doctrine thus announced deeper than that which its popular terms convey,
we are bound to conclude, if we would pay but a common respect to an
admitted revelation, that, where no manifest figure of speech occurs,
the truth of the doctrine lies in the tenor of the terms by which it is
expressed. Otherwise there would be no revelation, we do not say of the
_modus_, [manner,] (for that is confessedly incomprehensible,) but of
the fact. In the case before us, the terms _presence_ and _place_ are
used according to common notions; and must be so taken, if the
Scriptures are intelligible. Metaphysical refinements are not Scriptural
doctrines, when they give to the terms chosen by the Holy Spirit an
acceptation out of their general and proper use, and make them the signs
of a perfectly distinct class of ideas; if, indeed, all distinctness of
idea is not lost in the attempt. It is therefore in the popular and
just, because Scriptural, manner, that we are to conceive of the
omnipresence of God. If we reflect upon ourselves, we may observe that
we fill but a small space, and that our knowledge or power reaches but a
little way. We can act at one time in one place only, and the sphere of
our influence is narrow at largest. Would we be witnesses to what is
done at any distance from us, or exert there our active powers, we must
remove ourselves thither. For this reason we are necessarily ignorant of
a thousand things which pass around us, incapable of attending and
managing any great variety of affairs, or performing at the same time
any number of actions, for our own good, or for the benefit of others.
Although we feel this to be the present condition of our being, and the
limited state of our intelligent and active powers, yet we can easily
conceive there may exist beings more perfect, and whose presence may
extend far and wide: any one of whom, present in what are to us various
places, at the same time, may know at once what is done in all these,
and act in all of them; and thus be able to regard and direct a variety
of affairs at the same instant: and who farther being qualified, by the
purity and activity of their nature, to pass from one place to another,
with great ease and swiftness, may thus fill a large sphere of action,
direct a great variety of affairs, confer a great number of benefits,
and observe a multitude of actions at the same time, or in so swift a
succession as to us would appear but one instant. Thus perfect we may
readily believe the angels of God.

We can farther conceive this extent of presence, and of ability for
knowledge and action, to admit of degrees of ascending perfection
approaching to infinite. And when we have thus raised our thoughts to
the idea of a being, who is not only present throughout a large empire,
but throughout our world; and not only in every part of our world, but
in every part of all the numberless suns and worlds which roll in the
starry heavens,--who is not only able to enliven and actuate the plants,
animals, and men who live upon this globe, but countless varieties of
creatures every where in an immense universe,--yea, whose presence is
not confined to the universe, immeasurable as that is by any finite
mind, but who is present every where in infinite space; and who is
therefore able to create still new worlds, and fill them with proper
inhabitants, attend, supply, and govern them all,--when we have thus
gradually raised and enlarged our conceptions, we have the best idea we
can form of the universal presence of the great Jehovah, who filleth
heaven and earth. There is no part of the universe, no portion of space,
uninhabited by God; none wherein this Being of perfect power, wisdom,
and benevolence is not essentially present. Could we with the swiftness
of a sun beam dart ourselves beyond the limits of the creation, and for
ages continue our progress in infinite space, we should still be
surrounded with the divine presence; nor ever be able to reach that
space where God is not. His presence also penetrates every part of our
world; the most solid parts of the earth cannot exclude it; for it
pierces as easily the centre of the globe as the empty air. All
creatures live and move and have their being in him. And the inmost
recesses of the human heart can no more exclude his presence, or conceal
a thought from his knowledge, than the deepest caverns of the earth.

The illustrations and confirmatory proofs of this doctrine which the
material world furnishes, are numerous and striking. It is a most
evident and acknowledged truth that a being cannot act where it is not:
if, therefore, actions and effects, which manifest the highest wisdom,
power, and goodness in the author of them, are continually produced
every where, the author of these actions, or God, must be continually
present with us, and wherever he thus acts. The matter which composes
the world is evidently lifeless and thoughtless: it must therefore be
incapable of moving itself, or designing or producing any effects which
require wisdom or power. The matter of our world, or the small parts
which constitute the air, the earth, and the waters, is yet continually
moved, so as to produce effects of this kind; such are the innumerable
herbs, and trees, and fruits which adorn the earth, and support the
countless millions of creatures who inhabit it. There must therefore be
constantly present, all over the earth, a most wise, mighty, and good
Being, the author and director of these motions.

We cannot, it is true, see him with our bodily eyes, because he is a
pure Spirit; yet this is not any proof that he is not present. A
judicious discourse, a series of kind actions, convince us of the
presence of a friend, a person of prudence and benevolence. We cannot
see the present mind, the seat and principle of these qualities; yet the
constant regular motion of the tongue, the hand, and the whole body,
(which are the instruments of our souls, as the material universe and
all the various bodies in it are the instruments of the Deity,) will not
suffer us to doubt that there is an intelligent and benevolent principle
within the body which produces all these skilful motions and kind
actions. The sun, the air, the earth, and the waters, are no more able
to move themselves, and produce all that beautiful and useful variety of
plants, and fruits, and trees, with which our earth is covered, than the
body of a man, when the soul hath left it, is able to move itself, form
an instrument, plough a field, or build a house. If the laying out
judiciously and well cultivating a small estate, sowing it with proper
grain at the best time of the year, watering it in due season and
quantities, and gathering in the fruits when ripe, and laying them up in
the best manner,--if all these effects prove the estate to have a
manager, and the manager possessed of skill and strength,--certainly the
enlightening and warming the whole earth by the sun, and so directing
its motion and the motion of the earth as to produce in a constant
useful succession day and night, summer and winter, seed time and
harvest; the watering the earth continually by the clouds, and thus
bringing forth immense quantities of herbage, grain, and
fruits,--certainly all these effects continually produced, must prove
that a Being of the greatest power, wisdom, and benevolence is
continually present throughout our world, which he thus supports, moves,
actuates, and makes fruitful.

The fire which warms us knows nothing of its serviceableness to this
purpose, nor of the wise laws according to which its particles are moved
to produce this effect. And that it is placed in such a part of the
house, where it may be greatly beneficial and no way hurtful, is
ascribed without hesitation to the contrivance and labour of a person
who knew its proper place and uses. And if we came daily into a house
wherein we saw this was regularly done, though we never saw an
inhabitant in it, we could not doubt that the house was occupied by a
rational inhabitant. That huge globe of fire in the heavens, which we
call the sun, and on the light and influences of which the fertility of
our world, and the life and pleasure of all animals, depend, knows
nothing of its serviceableness to these purposes, nor of the wise laws
according to which its beams are dispensed, nor what place or motions
were requisite for these beneficial purposes. Yet its beams are darted
constantly in infinite numbers, every one according to those well chosen
laws, and its proper place and motion are maintained. Must not, then,
its place be appointed, its motion regulated, and beams darted, by
almighty wisdom and goodness, which prevent the sun’s ever wandering in
the boundless spaces of the heavens, so as to leave us in disconsolate
cold and darkness, or coming so near, or emitting his rays in such a
manner, as to burn us up? Must not the great Being who enlightens and
warms us by the sun, his instrument, who raises and sends down the
vapours, brings forth and ripens the grain and fruits, and who is thus
ever acting around us for our benefit, be always present in the sun,
throughout the air, and all over the earth, which he thus moves and
actuates?

This earth is in itself a dead, motionless mass, and void of all
counsel; yet proper parts of it are continually raised through the small
pipes which compose the bodies of plants and trees, and are made to
contribute to their growth, to open and shine in blossoms and leaves,
and to swell and harden into fruit. Could blind, thoughtless particles
thus continually keep on their way, through numberless windings, without
once blundering, if they were not guided by an unerring hand? Can the
most perfect human skill from earth and water form one grain, much more
a variety of beautiful and relishing fruits? Must not the directing
mind, who does all this constantly, be most wise, mighty, and
benevolent? Must not the Being who thus continually exerts his skill and
energy around us, for our benefit, be confessed to be always present and
concerned for our welfare? Can these effects be ascribed to any thing
below an all-wise and almighty cause? And must not this cause be present
wherever he acts? Were God to speak to us every month from heaven, and
with a voice loud as thunder declare that he observes, provides for, and
governs us; this would not be a proof, in the judgment of sound reason,
by many degrees so valid: since much less wisdom and power are required
to form such sounds in the air, than to produce these effects; and to
give, not merely verbal declarations, but substantial evidences of his
presence and care over us. In every part and place of the universe, with
which we are acquainted, we perceive the exertion of a power, which we
believe, mediately or immediately, to proceed from the Deity. For
instance: in what part or point of space, that has ever been explored,
do we not discover attraction? In what regions do we not find light? In
what accessible portion of our globe do we not meet with gravity,
magnetism, electricity; together with the properties also and powers of
organized substances, of vegetable or of animated nature? Nay, farther,
what kingdom is there of nature, what corner of space, in which there is
any thing that can be examined by us, where we do not fall upon
contrivance and design? The only reflection, perhaps, which arises in
our minds from this view of the world around us, is, that the laws of
nature every where prevail; that they are uniform and universal. But
what do we mean by the laws of nature, or by any law? Effects are
produced by power, not by laws. A law cannot execute itself. A law
refers us to an agent.

The usual argument _a priori_, on this attribute of the divine nature,
has been stated as follows; but, amidst such a mass of demonstration of
a much higher kind, it cannot be of any great value:--The First Cause,
the supreme all-perfect Mind, as he could not derive his being from any
other cause, must be independent of all other, and therefore unlimited.
He exists by an absolute necessity of nature; and as all the parts of
infinite space are exactly uniform and alike, for the same reason that
he exists in any one part he must exist in all. No reason can be
assigned for excluding him from one part, which would not exclude him
from all. But that he is present in some parts of space, the evident
effects of his wisdom, power, and benevolence continually produced,
demonstrate beyond all rational doubt. He must therefore be alike
present every where, and fill infinite space with his infinite Being.

Among metaphysicians, it has been matter of dispute, whether God is
present every where by an infinite extension of his essence. This is the
opinion of Newton, Dr. S. Clarke, and their followers; others have
objected to this notion, that it might then be said, God is neither in
heaven nor in earth, but only a part of God in each. The former opinion,
however, appears most in harmony with the Scriptures; though the term
extension, through the inadequacy of language, conveys too material an
idea. The objection just stated is wholly grounded on notions taken from
material objects, and is therefore of little weight, because it is not
applicable to an immaterial substance. It is best to confess with one
who had thought deeply on the subject, There is an incomprehensibleness
in the manner of every thing about which no controversy can or ought to
be concerned.” That we cannot comprehend how God is fully, and
completely, and undividedly present every where, need not surprise us,
when we reflect that the manner in which our own minds are present with
our bodies is as incomprehensible as the manner in which the supreme
Mind is present with every thing in the universe.

OMNISCIENCE. This attribute of God is constantly connected in Scripture
with his omnipresence, and forms a part of almost every description of
that attribute; for, as God is a Spirit, and therefore intelligent, if
he is every where, if nothing can exclude him, not even the most solid
bodies, nor the minds of intelligent beings, then are all things naked
and opened to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Where he acts, he
is; and where he is, he perceives. He understands and considers things
absolutely, and as they are in their own natures, powers, properties,
differences, together with all the circumstances belonging to them.
Known unto him are all his works from the beginning of the world,”
rather, απ αιωνος, _from, all eternity_; known, before they were made,
in their possible, and known, now they are made, in their actual,
existence. Lord, thou hast searched me and known me; thou knowest my
down-sitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all
my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou
knowest it altogether. The darkness hideth not from thee; but the night
shineth as the day. The ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and
he pondereth all his goings; he searcheth their hearts, and
understandeth every imagination of their thoughts.” Nor is this perfect
knowledge to be confined to men or angels; it reaches into the state of
the dead, and penetrates the regions of the damned. Hell,” _hades_, is
naked before him; and destruction,” the seats of destruction, hath no
covering.” No limits at all are to be set to this perfection: Great is
the Lord, his understanding is infinite.”

In Psalm xciv, the knowledge of God is argued from the communication of
it to men: Understand, ye brutish among the people; and, ye fools, when
will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that
formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the Heathen, shall
not he correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” This
argument is as easy as it is conclusive, obliging all who acknowledge a
First Cause, to admit his perfect intelligence, or to take refuge in
atheism itself. It fetches not the proof from a distance, but refers us
to our bosoms for the constant demonstration that the Lord is a God of
knowledge, and that by him actions are weighed. We find in ourselves
such qualities as thought and intelligence, power and freedom, &c, for
which we have the evidence of consciousness as much as for our own
existence. Indeed, it is only by our consciousness of these, that our
existence is known to ourselves. We know, likewise, that these are
perfections, and that to have them is better than to be without them. We
find also that they have not been in us from eternity. They must,
therefore, have had a beginning, and consequently some cause, for the
very same reason that a being beginning to exist in time requires a
cause. Now this cause, as it must be superior to its effect, must have
those perfections in a superior degree; and if it be the First Cause it
must have them in an infinite or unlimited degree, since bounds or
limitations, without a limiter, would be an effect without a cause. If
God gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to men of understanding; if
he communicates this perfection to his creatures, the inference must be
that he himself is possessed of it in a much more eminent degree than
they; that his knowledge is deep and intimate, reaching to the very
essence of things, theirs but slight and superficial; his clear and
distinct, theirs confused and dark; his certain and infallible, theirs
doubtful and liable to mistake; his easy and permanent, theirs obtained
with much pains, and soon lost again by the defects of memory or age;
his universal and extending to all objects, theirs short and narrow,
reaching only to some few things, while that which is wanting cannot be
numbered; and therefore, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so,
as the prophet has told us, are his ways above our ways, and his
thoughts above our thoughts.

But his understanding is infinite; a doctrine which the sacred writers
not only authoritatively announce, but confirm by referring to the
wisdom displayed in his works. The only difference between wisdom and
knowledge is, that the former always supposes action, and action
directed to an end. But wherever there is wisdom there must be
knowledge; and as the wisdom of God in the creation consists in the
formation of things which, by themselves, or in combination with others,
shall produce certain effects, and that in a variety of operation which
is to us boundless, the previous knowledge of the possible qualities and
effects inevitably supposes a knowledge which can have no limit. For as
creation out of nothing argues a power which is omnipotent; so the
knowledge of the possibilities of things which are not, (a knowledge
which, from the effect, we are sure must exist in God,) argues that such
a Being must be omniscient. For all things being not only present to
him, but also entirely depending upon him, and having received both
their being itself, and all their powers and faculties from him; it is
manifest that, as he knows all things that are, so he must likewise know
all possibilities of things, that is, all effects that can be. For,
being himself alone self-existent, and having alone given to all things
all the powers and faculties they are endued with; it is evident he must
of necessity know perfectly what all and each of those powers and
faculties, which are derived wholly from himself, can possibly produce:
and seeing, at one boundless view, all the possible compositions and
divisions, variations and changes, circumstances and dependencies of
things; all their possible relations one to another, and their
dispositions or fitnesses to certain and respective ends, he must,
without possibility of error, know exactly what is best and properest in
every one of the infinite possible cases or methods of disposing things;
and understand perfectly how to order and direct the respective means,
to bring about what he so knows to be, in its kind, or in the whole, the
best and fittest in the end. This is what we mean by infinite wisdom.

On the subject of the divine omniscience, many fine sentiments are to be
found in the writings of Pagans; for an intelligent First Cause being in
any sense admitted, it was most natural and obvious to ascribe to him a
perfect knowledge of all things. They acknowledge that nothing is hid
from God, who is intimate to our minds, and mingles himself with our
very thoughts; nor were they all unaware of the practical tendency of
such a doctrine, and of the motive it affords to a cautious and virtuous
conduct. But among them it was not held, as by the sacred writers, in
connection with other right views of the divine nature, which are
essential to give to this its full moral effect. Not only on this
subject does the manner in which the Scriptures state the doctrine far
transcend that of the wisest Pagan theists; but the moral of the
sentiment is infinitely more comprehensive and impressive. With them it
is connected with man’s state of trial; with a holy law, all the
violations of which, in thought, word, and deed, are both infallibly
known, and strictly marked; with promises of grace, and of a mild and
protecting government as to all who have sought and found the mercy of
God in forgiving their sins and admitting them into his family. The
wicked are thus reminded, that their hearts are searched, and their sins
noted; that the eyes of the Lord are upon their ways; and that their
most secret works will be brought to light in the day when God the
witness shall become God the judge. But as to the righteous, the eyes of
the Lord are said to be over them; that they are kept by him who never
slumbers or sleeps; that he is never far from them; that his eyes run to
and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in their
behalf; that foes, to them invisible, are seen by his eye, and
controlled by his arm; and that this great attribute, so appalling to
wicked men, affords to them, not only the most influential reason for a
perfectly holy temper and conduct, but the strongest motive to trust,
and joy, and hope, amidst the changes and afflictions of the present
life. Socrates, as well as other philosophers, could express themselves
well, so long as they expressed themselves generally, on this subject.
The former could say, Let your own frame instruct you. Does the mind
inhabiting your body dispose and govern it with ease? Ought you not then
to conclude, that the universal Mind with equal ease actuates and
governs universal nature; and that, when you can at once consider the
interest of the Athenians at home, in Egypt, and in Sicily, it is not
too much for the divine wisdom to take care of the universe? These
reflections will soon convince you, that the greatness of the divine
mind is such, as at once to see all things, hear all things, be present
every where, and direct all the affairs of the world.” These views are
just, but they wanted that connection with others relative both to the
divine nature and government, which we see only in the Bible, to render
them influential; they neither gave correct moral distinctions nor led
to a virtuous practice, no, not in Socrates, who, on some subjects, and
especially on the personality of the Deity, and his independence on
matter, raised himself far above the rest of his philosophic brethren,
but in moral feeling and practice was perhaps as censurable as they. See
PRESCIENCE.

ON, or AVEN, a city of Egypt, situated in the land of Goshen, on the
east of the Nile, and about five miles from the modern Cairo. It was
called Heliopolis by the Greeks, and Bethshemeth by the Hebrews, Jer.
xliii, 13; both of which names, as well as its Egyptian one of On, imply
the city or house of the sun. The inhabitants of this city are
represented by Herodotus as the wisest of the Egyptians; and here Moses
resided, and received that education which made him learned in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians.” But notwithstanding its being the seat of the
sciences, such were its egregious idolatries, that it was nicknamed
Aven, or Beth-Aven, the house of vanity,” or idolatry, by the Jews. A
village standing on part of its site, at the present day, is called
Matarea; while the spring of excellent water, or fountain of the sun,
which is supposed to have given rise to the city, is still called Ain
Shems, or fountain of the sun, by the Arabs. This is one of the most
ancient cities of the world of which any distinct vestige can now be
traced. It was visited eighteen hundred and fifty years ago by Strabo,
whose description proves it to have been nearly as desolate then as now.
Most of the ruins of this once famous city, described by that
geographer, are buried in the accumulation of the soil: but that which
marks its site, and is, perhaps, the most ancient work at this time
existing in the world, in a perfect state, is a column of red granite,
seventy feet high, and covered with hieroglyphics. Dr. E. D. Clarke has
given a very good representation of this column; to whom, also, the
curious reader is referred for a learned dissertation on the characters
engraved upon it.

The city On, according to Josephus, was given to the Israelites to dwell
in, when they first went into Egypt; and it was a daughter of a priest
of the temple of the sun at this place, who was given in marriage to
Joseph by Pharaoh. Here, also, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
leave was obtained of that king by Onias, high priest of the Jews, to
build a temple, when dispossessed of his office by Antiochus; which was
long used by the Hellenist Jews. It was predicted by Jeremiah, xliii,
13, and by Ezekiel, xxx, 17, that this place, with its temples and
inhabitants, should be destroyed; which was probably fulfilled by
Nebuchadnezzar. See NOPH.

ONESIMUS was a Phrygian by nation, a slave to Philemon, and a disciple
of the Apostle Paul. Onesimus having run away from his master, and also
having robbed him, Philemon v, 18, went to Rome while St. Paul was there
in prison the first time. As Onesimus knew him by repute, (his master
Philemon being a Christian,) he sought him out. St. Paul brought him to
a sense of the greatness of his crime, instructed him, baptized him, and
sent him back to his master Philemon with a letter, inserted among St.
Paul’s epistles, which is universally acknowledged as canonical. This
letter had all the good success he could desire. Philemon not only
received Onesimus as a faithful servant, but rather as a brother and a
friend. A little time after, he sent him back to Rome to St. Paul, that
he might continue to be serviceable to him in his prison. And we see
that after this Onesimus was employed to carry such epistles as the
Apostle wrote at that time. He carried, for example, that which was
written to the Colossians, while St. Paul was yet in his bonds.

ONESIPHORUS is mentioned, 2 Tim. i, 16, 17, and highly commended by St.
Paul.

ONION, בצל, Num. xi, 5; a well known garden plant with a bulbous root.
Onions and garlics were highly esteemed in Egypt; and not without
reason, this country being admirably adapted to their culture. The
_allium cepa_, called by the Arabs _basal_, Hasselquist thinks one of
the species of onions for which the Israelites longed. He would infer
this from the quantities still used in Egypt, and their goodness.
Whoever has tasted onions in Egypt,” says he, “must allow that none can
be had better in any part of the universe. Here they are sweet; in other
countries they are nauseous and strong. Here they are soft; whereas in
the northern and other parts they are hard, and their coats so compact
that they are difficult of digestion. Hence they cannot in any place be
eaten with less prejudice, and more satisfaction, than in Egypt.” The
Egyptians are reproached with swearing by the leeks and onions of their
gardens. Juvenal ridicules some of these superstitious people who did
not dare to eat leeks, garlic, or onions, for fear of injuring their
gods:--

        _Quis nescit, Volusi Bythynice, qualia demens
        Ægyptus portenta colit?
        Porrum et cepe nefas violare aut frangere morsu;
        O sanctas gentes quibus hæc nascuntur in hortis Numina!_
                                             _Sat._ xv.

          “How Egypt, mad with superstition grown,
          Makes gods of monsters, but too well is known.
          ’Tis mortal sin an onion to devour;
          Each clove of garlic has a sacred power.
          Religious nation, sure! and blest abodes,
          Where ev’ry garden is o’errun with gods!”

So Lucian in his Jupiter, where he is giving an account of the different
deities worshipped by the several inhabitants of Egypt, says,
Πηλουσίωταις δὲ κρόμμυον, those of Pelusium worship the onion.” Hence
arises a question, how the Israelites durst venture to violate the
national worship, by eating those sacred plants. We may answer, in the
first place, that whatever might be the case of the Egyptians in later
ages, it is not probable that they were arrived at such a pitch of
superstition in the time of Moses; for we find no indications of this in
Herodotus, the most ancient of the Greek historians: secondly, the
writers here quoted appear to be mistaken in imagining these plants to
have been generally the objects of religious worship. The priests,
indeed, abstained from the use of them, and several other vegetables;
and this might give rise to the opinion of their being reverenced as
divinities: but the use of them was not prohibited to the people, as is
plain from the testimonies of ancient authors, particularly of Diodorus
Siculus.

ONYX, שהם, Gen. ii, 12; Exod. xxv, 7; xxviii, 9, 20; xxxv, 27; xxxix, 6;
1 Chron. xxix, 2; Job xxviii, 16; Ezekiel xxviii, 13. A precious stone,
so called from the Greek ὅνυξ, _the nail_, to the colour of which it
nearly approaches. It is first mentioned with the gold and bdellium of
the river Pison in Eden; but the meaning of the Hebrew word is not
easily determined. The Septuagint render it, in different places, the
_sardius_, _beryl_, _sapphire_, _emerald_, &c. Such names are often
ambiguous, even in Greek and Latin, and no wonder if they are more so in
Hebrew. In Exodus xxviii, 9, 10, a direction is given that two onyx
stones should be fastened on the ephod of the high priest, on which were
to be graven the names of the children of Israel, like the engravings on
a signet; six of the names on one stone, and six on the other. In 1
Chron. xxix, 2, onyx stones are among the things prepared by David for
the temple. The author of Scripture Illustrated” observes, upon this
passage, that “the word _onyx_ is equivocal; signifying, first, a
precious stone or gem; and, secondly, a marble called in Greek
_onychites_, which Pliny mentions as a stone of Caramania. Antiquity
gave both these stones this name, because of their resemblance to the
nail of the fingers. The onyx of the high priest’s pectoral was, no
doubt, the gem onyx; the stone prepared by David was the marble onyx, or
rather _onychus_; for one would hardly think that gems of any kind were
used externally in such a building, but variegated marble may readily be
admitted.”

OPHIR, a place or country remote from Judea, to which the ships of
Solomon traded. There has been much discussion respecting the situation
of this place; some supposing it to have been the island of Socotora,
without the straits of Babelmandel; others, that anciently called
Tabrobana, which is supposed by some to have been Ceylon, and by others
Sumatra; while others fix its situation on the continent of India. M.
Huet and, after him, Bruce, place Ophir at Sofala, in South Africa,
where mines of gold and silver have been found, which show marks of
having been very anciently and extensively worked. The latter says,
also, that the situation of this place explains the period of three
years which the Ophir ships were absent, from the different courses of
the monsoons and trade winds, which they would have to encounter going
and returning. Ruins of ancient buildings have also been found in the
neighbourhood of these mines. In confirmation of this opinion, Bruce
says there was a place called Tarshish near Melinda.

In the same direction with Ophir lay Tarshish; the voyage to both places
being accomplished under one, and always, as it would seem, in the same
space of time, three years; by which it may be inferred that,
notwithstanding the imperfect navigation of the times, they must be at a
considerable distance from the ports of Judea. But the true situation of
these places must ever remain matter of conjecture; and all that can be
considered as certain respecting them is, that from the articles
imported from them, namely, gold, silver, ivory, apes, peacocks, and
precious stones, they must have been situated in the tropical parts of
either Africa or Asia.

ORACLE denotes something delivered by supernatural wisdom; and the term
is also used in the Old Testament to signify the most holy place from
whence the Lord revealed his will to ancient Israel, 1 Kings vi, 5,
19–21, 23. But when the word occurs in the plural number, as it mostly
does, it denotes the revelations contained in the sacred writings of
which the nation of Israel were the depositaries. So Moses is said by
Stephen to have received the lively oracles” to give unto the
Israelites. These oracles contained the law, both moral and ceremonial,
with all the types and promises relating to the Messiah which are to be
found in the writings of Moses. They also contained all the intimations
of the divine mind which he was pleased to communicate by means of the
succeeding prophets who prophesied beforehand of the coming and of the
sufferings of the Messiah with the glory that should follow. The Jews
were a highly privileged people in many and various respects, Rom. ix,
4, 5; but the Apostle Paul mentions it as their chief advantage that
unto them were committed the oracles of God,” Romans iii, 2. What
nation,” says Moses, is there that hath statutes and judgments so
righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?” Deut. iv, 8.
The psalmist David enumerates their excellent properties under various
epithets; such as the law of the Lord, his testimony, his statutes, his
commandments, his judgments, &c. Their properties are extolled as
perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous altogether; more
to be desired than much fine gold; sweeter than honey and the honey
comb. Their salutary effects are all mentioned; such as their converting
the soul, making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the
eyes; and the keeping of them is connected with a great reward, Psalm
xix. The hundred and nineteenth Psalm abounds with praises of the lively
oracles, the word of the living God; it abounds with the warmest
expressions of love to it, of delight in it, and the most fervent
petitions for divine illumination in the knowledge of it. Such was the
esteem and veneration which the faithful entertained for the lively
oracles under the former dispensation, when they had only Moses and the
prophets; how, then, ought they to be prized by Christians, who have
also Christ and his Apostles!

Among the Heathen the term _oracle_ is usually taken to signify an
answer, generally couched in very dark and ambiguous terms, supposed to
be given by demons of old, either by the mouths of their idols, or by
those of their priests, to the people, who consulted them on things to
come. _Oracle_ is also used for the demon who gave the answer, and the
place where it was given. Seneca defines oracles to be enunciations by
the mouths of men of the will of the gods; and Cicero simply calls them,
_deorum oratio_, the language of the gods. Among the Pagans they were
held in high estimation; and they were consulted on a variety of
occasions pertaining to national enterprises and private life. When they
made peace or war, enacted laws, reformed states, or changed the
constitution, they had in all these cases recourse to the oracle by
public authority. Also, in private life, if a man wished to marry, if he
proposed to take a journey, or to engage in any business of importance,
he repaired to the oracle for counsel. Mankind have had always a
propensity to explore futurity; and conceiving that future events were
known to their gods, who possessed the gift of prophecy, they sought
information and advice from the oracles, which, in their opinion, were
supernatural and divine communications. The institution of oracles
seemed to gratify the prevalent curiosity of mankind, and proved a
source of immense wealth, as well as authority and influence, to those
who had the command of them. Accordingly, every nation, in which
idolatry has subsisted, had its oracles, by means of which imposture
practised on superstition and credulity. The principal oracles of
antiquity are, that of Abæ, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Amphiaraus,
at Oropus in Macedonia; that of the Branchidæ at Didymeum; that of the
camps at Lacedæmon; that of Dodona; that of Jupiter Ammon; that of
Nabarca in the country of the Anariaci, near the Caspian Sea; that of
Trophonius, mentioned by Herodotus; that of Chrysopolis; that of Claros,
in Ionia; that of Amphilochus at Mallos; that of Petarea; that of Pella
in Macedonia; that of Phaselides in Cilicia; that of Sinope in
Paphlagonia; that of Orpheus’s head at Lesbos, mentioned by
Philostratus. But of all oracles, the oracle of Apollo Pythius at Delphi
was the most celebrated; this was consulted in the dernier resort by
most of the princes of those ages.

Most of the Pagan deities had their appropriate oracles. Apollo had the
greatest number: such as those of Claros, of the Branchidæ, of the
suburbs of Daphne at Antioch, of Delos, of Argos, of Troas, Æolis, &c,
of Baiæ in Italy, and others in Cilicia, in Egypt, in the Alps, in
Thrace, at Corinth, in Arcadia, in Laconia, and in many other places
enumerated by Van Dale. Jupiter, beside that of Dodona and some others,
the honour of which he shared with Apollo, had one in Bœotia under
the name of Jupiter the Thunderer, and another in Elis, one at Thebes
and at Meroe, one near Antioch, and several others. Æsculapius was
consulted in Cilicia, at Apollonia, in the isle of Cos, at Epidaurus,
Pergamos, Rome, and elsewhere. Mercury had oracles at Patras, upon
Hæmon, and in other places; Mars, in Thrace, Egypt, and elsewhere;
Hercules, at Cadiz, Athens, in Egypt, at Tivoli, in Mesopotamia, where
he issued his oracles by dreams, whence he was called Somnialis. Isis,
Osiris, and Serapis delivered in like manner their oracles by dreams, as
we learn from Pausanias, Tacitus, Arrian, and other writers; that of
Amphilochus was also delivered by dreams; the ox Apis had also his
oracle in Egypt. The gods, called Cabiri, had their oracle in Bœotia.
Diana, the sister of Apollo, had several oracles in Egypt, Cilicia,
Ephesus, &c. Those of fortune at Præneste, and of the lots at Antium are
well known. The fountains also delivered oracles, for to each of them a
divinity was ascribed: such was the fountain of Castalia at Delphi,
another of the same name in the suburbs of Antioch, and the prophetic
fountain near the temple of Ceres in Achaia. Juno had several oracles:
one near Corinth, one at Nysa, and others at different places. Latona
had one at Butis in Egypt; Leucothea had one in Colchis; Memnon in
Egypt; Machaon at Gerania in Laconia; Minerva had one in Egypt, in
Spain, upon mount Ætna, at Mycenæ and Colchis, and in other places.
Those of Neptune were at Delphos, at Calauria, near Neocesarea, and
elsewhere. The nymphs had theirs in the cave of Corycia. Pan had
several, the most famous of which was that in Arcadia. That of the
Palici was in Sicily. Pluto had one at Nysa. Saturn had oracles in
several places, but the most famous were those of Cumæ in Italy, and of
Alexandria in Egypt. Those of Venus were dispersed in several places, at
Gaza, upon Mount Libanus, at Paphos, in Cyprus, &c. Serapis had one at
Alexandria, consulted by Vespasian. Venus Aphacite had one at Aphaca
between Heliopolis and Byblus. Geryon, the three-headed monster slain by
Hercules, had an oracle in Italy near Padua, consulted by Tiberius; that
of Hercules was at Tivoli, and was given by lots, like those of Præneste
and Antium. The demi-gods and heroes had likewise their oracles, such
were those of Castor and Pollux at Lacedæmon, of Amphiaraus, of Mopsus
in Cilicia, of Ulysses, Amphilochus, Sarpedon in Troas, Hermione in
Macedonia, Pasiphäe in Laconia, Chalcas in Italy, Aristæus in Bœotia,
Autolycus at Sinope, Phryxus among the Colchi, Zamolxis among the Getæ,
Hephæstion the minion of Alexander, and Antinous, &c.

The responses of oracles were delivered in a variety of ways: at Delphi,
they interpreted and put into verse what the priestess pronounced in the
time of her furor. Mr. Bayle observes that at first this oracle gave its
answers in verse; and that it fell at length to prose, upon the people’s
beginning to laugh at the poorness of its versification. The Epicureans
made this the subject of their jests, and said, in raillery, it was
surprising enough, that Apollo, the god of poetry, should be a much
worse poet than Homer, whom he himself had inspired. By the railleries
of these philosophers, and particularly by those of the Cynics and
Peripatetics, the priests were at length obliged to desist from the
practice of versifying the responses of the Pythia, which, according to
Plutarch, was one of the principal causes of the declension of the
oracle of Delphos. At the oracle of Ammon, the priests pronounced the
response of their god; at Dodona, the response was issued from the
hollow of an oak; at the cave of Trophonius, the oracle was inferred
from what the suppliant said before he recovered his senses; at Memphis,
they drew a good or bad omen, according as the ox Apis received or
rejected what was presented to him, which was also the case with the
fishes of the fountain of Limyra. The suppliants, who consulted the
oracles, were not allowed to enter the sanctuaries where they were
given; and, accordingly, care was taken that neither the Epicureans nor
Christians should come near them. In several places, the oracles were
given by letters sealed up, as in that of Mopsus, and at Mallus in
Cilicia. Oracles were frequently given by lot, the mode of doing which
was as follows: the lots were a kind of dice, on which were engraven
certain characters or words, whose explanations they were to seek on
tables made for the purpose. The way of using these dice for knowing
futurity, was different, according to the places where they were used.
In some temples, the person threw them himself; in others, they were
dropped from a box; whence came the proverbial expression, The lot is
fallen.” This playing with dice was always preceded by sacrifices and
other customary ceremonies. The ambiguity of the oracles in their
responses, and their double meaning, contributed to their support.

Ablancourt observes, that the study or research of the meaning of
oracles was but a fruitless thing; and that they were never understood
till after their accomplishment. Historians relate, that Crœsus was
tricked by the ambiguity and equivocation of the oracle:

              Κροισος Ἁλυν διαβας μεγαλην αρχην καταλυσει.

Thus rendered in Latin:

    _Crœsus Halym superans magnam pervertet opum vim._”

    [If Crœsus cross the Halys he will overthrow a great empire.]

Thus, if the Lydian monarch had conquered Cyrus, he overthrew the
Assyrian empire; if he himself was routed, he overturned his own. That
delivered to Pyrrhus, which is comprised in this Latin verse,

   _Credo equidem Æacidas Romanos vincere posse_,”

   [I believe indeed that the sons of Æacus the Romans will conquer,]

had the same advantage; for, according to the rules of syntax, either of
the two accusatives may be governed by the verb, and the verse be
explained, either by saying the Romans shall conquer the Æacidæ, of whom
Pyrrhus was descended, or those shall conquer the Romans. When Alexander
fell sick at Babylon, some of his courtiers who happened to be in Egypt,
or who went thither on purpose, passed the night in the temple of
Serapis, to inquire if it would not be proper to bring Alexander to be
cured by him. The god answered, it was better that Alexander should
remain where he was. This in all events was a very prudent and safe
answer. If the king recovered his health, what glory must Serapis have
gained by saving him the fatigue of the journey! If he died, it was but
saying he died in a favourable juncture after so many conquests; which,
had he lived, he could neither have enlarged nor preserved. This is
actually the construction they put upon the response; whereas had
Alexander undertaken the journey, and died in the temple, or by the way,
nothing could have been said in favour of Serapis. When Trajan had
formed the design of his expedition against the Parthians, he was
advised to consult the oracle of Heliopolis, to which he had no more to
do but send a note under a seal. That prince, who had no great faith in
oracles, sent thither a blank note; and they returned him another of the
same kind. By this Trajan was convinced of the divinity of the oracle.
He sent back a second note to the god, in which he inquired whether he
should return to Rome after finishing the war he had in view. The god,
as Macrobius tells the story, ordered a vine, which was among the
offerings of his temple, to be divided into pieces, and brought to
Trajan. The event justified the oracle; for the emperor dying in that
war, his bones were carried to Rome, which had been represented by that
broken vine. As the priests of that oracle knew Trajan’s design, which
was no secret, they happily devised that response, which, in all events,
was capable of a favourable interpretation, whether he routed and cut
the Parthians in pieces, or if his army met with the same fate.
Sometimes the responses of the oracles were mere banter, as in the case
of the man who wished to know by what means he might become rich, and
who received for answer from the god, that he had only to make himself
master of all that lay between Sicyon and Corinth. Another, wanting a
cure for the gout, was answered by the oracle, that he was to drink
nothing but cold water.

There are two points in dispute on the subject of oracles; namely,
whether they were human, or diabolical machines; and whether or not they
ceased upon the publication or preaching of the Gospel. Most of the
fathers of the church supposed that the devil issued oracles; and looked
on it as a pleasure he took to give dubious and equivocal answers, in
order to have a handle to laugh at them. Vossius allows that it was the
devil who spoke in oracles; but thinks that the obscurity of his answers
was owing to his ignorance as to the precise circumstances of events.
That artful and studied obscurity in which the answers were couched,
says he, showed the embarrassment the devil was under; as those double
meanings they usually bore provided for their accomplishment. Where the
thing foretold did not happen accordingly, the oracle, forsooth, was
misunderstood. Eusebius has preserved some fragments of a philosopher,
called Œnomaus; who, out of resentment for his having been so often
fooled by the oracles, wrote an ample confutation of all their
impertinencies: When we come to consult thee,” says he to Apollo, “if
thou seest what is in futurity, why dost thou use expressions that will
not be understood? Dost thou not know, that they will not be understood?
If thou dost, thou takest pleasure in abusing us; if thou dost not, be
informed of us, and learn to speak more clearly. I tell thee, that if
thou intendest an equivoque, the Greek word whereby thou affirmedst that
Crœsus should overthrow a great empire was ill chosen; and that it
could signify nothing but Crœsus’s conquering Cyrus. If things must
necessarily come to pass, why dost thou amuse us with thy ambiguities?
What doest thou, wretch as thou art, at Delphi? employed in muttering
idle prophecies!” But Œnomaus is still more out of humour with the
oracle, for the answer which Apollo gave the Athenians, when Xerxes was
about to attack Greece with all the strength of Asia. The Pythian
declared, that Minerva, the protectress of Athens, had endeavoured in
vain to appease the wrath of Jupiter; yet that Jupiter, in complaisance
to his daughter, was willing the Athenians should save themselves within
wooden walls; and that Salamis should behold the loss of a great many
children, dear to their mothers, either when Ceres was spread abroad, or
gathered together. Here Œnomaus loses all patience with the god of
Delphi. This contest,” says he, “between father and daughter is very
becoming the deities! It is excellent, that there should be contrary
inclinations and interests in heaven. Poor wizard, thou art ignorant
whose the children are that Salamis shall see perish; whether Greeks or
Persians. It is certain they must be either one or the other; but thou
needest not to have told so openly, that thou knewest not which. Thou
concealest the time of the battle under those fine poetical expressions,
‘either when Ceres is spread abroad, or gathered together;’ and wouldest
thou cajole us with such pompous language? Who knows not, that if there
be a sea fight, it must either be in seed time or harvest? It is certain
it cannot be in winter. Let things go how they will, thou wilt secure
thyself by this Jupiter, whom Minerva is endeavouring to appease. If the
Greeks lose the battle, Jupiter proved inexorable to the last; if they
gain it, why then Minerva at length prevailed.”

It is a very general opinion among the more learned, that oracles were
all mere cheats and impostures; either calculated to serve the
avaricious ends of the Heathen priests, or the political views of the
princes. Bayle says positively, they were mere human artificers, in
which the devil had no hand. He was strongly supported by Van Dale and
Fontenelle, who have written expressly on the subject. Father Balthus, a
Jesuit, wrote a treatise in defence of the fathers with regard to the
origin of oracles; but without denying the imposture of the priests,
often blended with the oracles. He maintains the intervention of the
devil in some predictions, which could not be ascribed to the cheats of
the priests alone. The Abbé Banier espouses the same side of the
question, and objects that oracles would not have lasted so long, and
supported themselves with so much splendour and reputation, if they had
been merely owing to the forgeries of the priests. Bishop Sherlock, in
his Discourses concerning the Use and Intent of Prophecy,” expresses his
opinion, that it is impious to disbelieve the Heathen oracles, and to
deny them to have been given out by the devil; to which assertion, Dr.
Middleton, in his Examination,” &c, replies, that he is guilty of this
impiety, and that he thinks himself warranted to pronounce from the
authority of the best and wisest of the Heathens themselves, and the
evidence of plain facts, which are recorded of those oracles, as well as
from the nature of the thing itself, that they were all mere imposture,
wholly invented and supported by human craft, without any supernatural
aid or interposition whatsoever. He alleges, that Cicero, speaking of
the Delphic oracle, the most revered of any in the Heathen world,
declares, that nothing was become more contemptible, not only in his
days, but long before him; that Demosthenes, who lived about three
hundred years earlier, affirmed of the same oracle, in a public speech
to the people of Athens, that it was gained to the interests of King
Philip, an enemy to that city; that the Greek historians tell us, how,
on several other occasions, it had been corrupted by money, to serve the
views of particular persons and parties, and the prophetess sometimes
had been deposed for bribery and lewdness; that there were some great
sects of philosophers, who, on principle, disavowed the authority of all
oracles; agreeably to all which Strabo tells us, that divination in
general and oracles had been in high credit among the ancients, but in
his days were treated with much contempt; lastly, that Eusebius also,
the great historian of the primitive church, declares, that there were
six hundred writers among the Heathens themselves who had publicly
written against the reality of them. Plutarch has a treatise on the
ceasing of some oracles; and Van Dale, a Dutch physician, has a volume
to prove they did not cease at the coming of Christ; but that many of
them ceased long before, and that others held till the fall of Paganism,
under the empire of Theodosius the Great, when Paganism being
dissipated, these institutions could no longer subsist. Van Dale was
answered by a German, one Mœbius, professor of theology at Leipsic,
in 1685. Fontenelle espoused Van Dale’s system, and improved upon it in
his History of Oracles;” and showed the weakness of the argument used by
many writers in behalf of Christianity, drawn from the ceasing of
oracles. Cicero says, the oracles became dumb in proportion as people,
growing less credulous, began to suspect them for cheats. Plutarch
alleges two reasons for the ceasing of oracles: the one was Apollo’s
chagrin; who, it seems, took it in dudgeon to be interrogated about so
many trifles. The other was, that in proportion as the genii, or demons,
who had the management of the oracles, died, and became extinct, the
oracles must necessarily cease. He adds a third and more natural cause
for the ceasing of oracles; namely, the forlorn state of Greece, ruined
and desolated by wars; for, hence, the smallness of the gains let the
priests sink into a poverty and contempt too bare to cover the fraud.
That the oracles were silenced about or soon after the time of our
Saviour’s advent, may be proved, says Dr. Leland, in the first volume of
his learned work on The Necessity and Advantage of Revelation,” &c, from
express testimonies, not only of Christian but of Heathen authors.
Lucan, who wrote his Pharsalia” in the reign of Nero, scarcely thirty
years after our Lord’s crucifixion, laments it as one of the greatest
misfortunes of that age, that the Delphian oracle, which he represents
as one of the choicest gifts of the gods, was become silent.

                                   _Non ullo sæcula dono
             Nostra carent majore Deum, quam Delphica sedes
             Quod sileat._
                                  _Pharsal._ lib. v, 111.

             Of all the wants with which the age is curst,
             The Delphic silence surely is the worst.”
                                               ROWE.

In like manner, Juvenal says,

                           _Delphis oracula cessant,
             Et genus humanum damnat caligo futuri._
                                           _Sat._ vi, 554.

             Since Delphi now, if we may credit fame,
             Gives no responses, and a long dark night
             Conceals the future hour from mortal sight.”
                                           GIFFORD.

Lucian says, that when he was at Delphi, the oracle gave no answer, nor
was the priestess inspired. This likewise appears from Plutarch’s
treatise, why the oracles cease to give answers, already cited; whence
it is also manifest, that the most learned Heathens were very much at a
loss how to give a tolerable account of it. Porphyry, in a passage cited
from him by Eusebius, says, The city of Rome was overrun with sickness,
Æsculapius and the rest of the gods having withdrawn their converse with
men; because since Jesus began to be worshipped, no man had received any
public help or benefit from the gods.” With respect to the origin of
oracles, they were probably imitations, first, of the answers given to
the holy patriarchs from the divine presence or Shechinah, and secondly,
of the responses to the Jewish high priest from the mercy seat: for all
Paganism is a parody of the true religion.

ORDINATION, the act of conferring holy orders, or of initiating a person
into the ministry of the Gospel, by prayer and with or without the
laying on of hands. In the church of England, ordination has always been
esteemed the principal prerogative of bishops; and bishops still retain
the function as a mark of their spiritual sovereignty in their diocess.
Without ordination no person can receive any benefice, parsonage,
vicarage, &c. A person must be twenty-three years of age, or near it,
before he can be ordained deacon, or have any share in the ministry; and
full twenty-four before he can be ordained priest, and by that means be
permitted to administer the holy communion. A bishop, on the ordination
of clergymen, is to examine them in the presence of the ministers, who
in the ordination of priests, but not of deacons, assist him at the
imposition of hands; but this is only done as a mark of assent, not
because it is thought necessary. In case any crime, as drunkenness,
perjury, forgery, &c, is alleged against any one that is to be ordained,
either priest or deacon, the bishop ought to desist from ordaining him.
The person to be ordained is to bring a testimonial of his life and
doctrine to the bishop, and to give an account of his faith in Latin;
and both priests and deacons are obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine
articles. In the ancient discipline there was no such thing as a vague
and absolute ordination; but every one was to have a church, whereof he
was to be ordained clerk or priest. In the twelfth century the bishops
grew more remiss, and ordained without any title or benefice. The
council of Trent, however, restored the ancient discipline, and
appointed that none should be ordained but those who were provided with
a benefice; which practice still obtains in the church of England.

The reformed held the call of the people the only thing essential to the
validity of the ministry; and teach, that ordination is only a ceremony,
which renders the call more august and authentic. Accordingly the
Protestant churches of Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, Germany,
Poland, Hungary, Denmark, &c, have no episcopal ordination. For Luther,
Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, and all the first reformers and founders
of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were themselves
presbyters, and no other. And though in some of these churches there are
ministers called superintendents, or bishops, yet these are only _primi
inter pares_, the first among equals; not pretending to any superiority
of orders. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters
gave them, or what was given them as presbyters, they can convey no
other to those they ordain. On this ground the Protestant Dissenters
plead that their ordination, though not episcopal, is the same with that
of all the illustrious Protestant churches abroad; and object, that a
priest ordained by a popish bishop should be received into the church of
England as a valid minister, rightfully ordained; while the orders of
another, ordained by the most learned religious presbyter, which any
foreign country can boast, are pronounced not valid, and he is required
to submit to be ordained afresh. In opposition to episcopal ordination,
they urge that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery, 1 Tim. iv, 14; that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by
certain prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, and not by any
bishop presiding in that city, Acts xiii, 1–3; and that it is a well
known fact, that presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even
their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages
of Christianity. They farther argue, that bishops and presbyters are in
Scripture the same, and not denominations of distinct orders or offices
in the church, referring to Phil. i, 1; Titus i, 5, 7; Acts xx, 27, 28;
1 Peter v, 1, 2. To the same purpose they maintain, that the superiority
of bishops to presbyters is not pretended to be of divine, but of human,
institution; not grounded on Scripture, but only upon the custom or
ordinances of this realm, by the first reformers and founders of the
church of England; nor by many of its most learned and eminent doctors
since. See Stillingfleet’s _Irenicum_, in which the learned author
affirms and shows this to be the sentiment of Cranmer, and other chief
reformers both in Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth’s reign, of Archbishop
Whitgift, Bishop Bridges, Lee, Hooker, Sutcliff, Hales, Chillingworth,
&c. Moreover, the book entitled, the Institution of a Christian Man,”
subscribed by the clergy in convocation, and confirmed by parliament,
owns bishops and presbyters by Scripture to be the same. Beside, the
Protestant Dissenters allege, that if episcopal ordination be really
necessary to constitute a valid minister, it does not seem to be
enjoined by the constitution of the church of England; because the power
of ordination which the bishops exercise in this kingdom, is derived
entirely and only from the civil magistrate; and he authoritatively
prescribes how, and to whom ordination is to be given: that if an
ordination should be conducted in other manner and form than that
prescribed by him, such ordination would be illegal, and of no authority
in the church. Accordingly the bishop at the ordination of the candidate
asks, Are you called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the due order of this realm?” The constitution and law of England seem
to know nothing of uninterrupted lineal descent, but considers the king
vested, by act of parliament, or the suffrage of the people, with a
fulness of all power ecclesiastical in these realms, as empowering and
authorizing bishops to ordain: and this power of ordination was once
delegated to Cromwell, a layman, as vicegerent to the king. They farther
think it strange, that the validity of orders and ministrations should
be derived, as some have contended, from a succession of popish bishops;
bishops of a church, which, by the definition of the nineteenth article
of the church, can be no part of the true visible church of Christ, and
bishops, likewise, who consider the Protestant clergy, although ordained
by Protestant bishops, as mere common unconsecrated laymen.

On reviewing the whole of this controversy, says Dr. Watts, that since
there are some texts in the New Testament, wherein single persons,
either Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in the
churches, or evangelists, as Timothy and Titus; and since other missions
or ordinations are intimated to be performed by several persons, namely,
prophets, teachers, elders, or a presbytery, Acts xiii, 1; 1 Timothy iv,
14; since there is sometimes mention made of the imposition of hands in
the mission of a minister, and sometimes no mention is made of it; and
since it is evident that in some cases popular ordinations are and must
be valid without any bishop or elder,--I think none of these differences
should be made a matter of violent contest among Christians; nor ought
any words to be pronounced against each other by those of the episcopal,
presbyterian, or independent way. Surely all may agree thus far, that
various forms or modes, seeming to be used in the mission or ordination
of ministers in primitive times, may give a reasonable occasion or
colour for sincere and honest searchers after truth to follow different
opinions on this head, and do therefore demand our candid and charitable
sentiments concerning those who differ from us. Among the Wesleyan
Methodists, the ordination of their ministers is in the annual
conference, with a president at its head, and is by prayer without
imposition of hands. The latter they hold to be a circumstance of
ordination, not an essential. They sometimes therefore use it, and at
others omit it. The missionaries sent out by that body, if not
previously ordained by the conference, are set apart by a few senior
ministers; and ordinarily in this case, the service of the church of
England, with some alterations, is used, with imposition of the hands of
the ministers present.

OSSIFRAGE, פרס, Lev. xi, 13; Deut. xiv, 12. Interpreters are not agreed
on this bird; some read vulture,” others the black eagle,” others the
falcon.” The name _peres_, by which it is called in Hebrew, denotes to
crush, to break;” and this name agrees with our version, which implies
the bone-breaker,” which name is given to a kind of eagle, from the
circumstance of its habit of breaking the bones of its prey, after it
has eaten the flesh: some say also, that he even swallows the bones thus
broken. Onkelos uses a word which signifies naked,” and leads us to the
vulture: indeed, if we were to take the classes of birds in any thing
like a natural order in the passages here referred to, the vulture
should follow the eagle as an unclean bird. The Septuagint interpreter
also renders vulture; and so do Munster, Schindler, and the Zurick
versions.

OSTRICH, יענה; in Arabic _neamah_; in Greek ϛρȣθοκάμηλος, _the camel
bird_; and still in the east, says Niebuhr, it is called _thar
edsjammel_, the camel bird,” Lev. xi, 16; Deut. xiv, 15; Job xxx, 29;
Isaiah xiii, 21; xxxiv, 13; xliii, 20; Jer. 1, 39; Lam. iv, 3; Micah i,
8; רננים, Job xxxix, 13. The first name in the places above quoted is,
by our own translators, generally rendered owls.” “Now it should be
recollected,” says the author of Scripture Illustrated,” “that the owl
is not a desert bird, but rather resides in places not far from
habitations, and that it is not the companion of serpents; whereas, in
several of these passages, the _joneh_ is associated with deserts, dry,
extensive, thirsty deserts, and with serpents, which are their natural
inhabitants. Our ignorance of the natural history of the countries which
the ostrich inhabits has undoubtedly perverted the import of the above
passages; but let any one peruse them afresh, and exchange the owl for
the ostrich, and he will immediately discover a vigour of description,
and an imagery much beyond what he had formerly perceived.” The Hebrew
phrase בת היענה, means the daughter בת היענה of vociferation,” and is
understood to be the female ostrich, probably so called from the noise
which this bird makes. It is affirmed by travellers of good credit, that
ostriches make a fearful, screeching, lamentable noise.

Ostriches are inhabitants of the deserts of Arabia, where they live
chiefly upon vegetables; lead a social and inoffensive life, the male
assorting with the female with connubial fidelity. Their eggs are very
large, some of them measuring above five inches in diameter, and
weighing twelve or fifteen pounds. These birds are very prolific, laying
forty or fifty eggs at a clutch. They will devour leather, grass, hair,
stones, metals, or any thing that is given to them; but those substances
which the coats of the stomach cannot act upon pass whole. It is so
unclean an animal as to eat its own ordure as soon as it voids it. This
is a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be
reputed unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited. The
ostrich,” says M. Buffon, was known in the remotest ages, and mentioned
in the most ancient books. How indeed could an animal so remarkably
large, and so wonderfully prolific, and peculiarly suited to the climate
as is the ostrich, remain unknown in Africa, and part of Asia, countries
peopled from the earliest ages, full of deserts indeed, but where there
is not a spot which has not been traversed by the foot of man? The
family of the ostrich, therefore, is of great antiquity. Nor in the
course of ages has it varied or degenerated from its native purity. It
has always remained on its paternal estate; and its lustre has been
transmitted unsullied by foreign intercourse. In short, it is among the
birds what the elephant is among the quadrupeds, a distinct race, widely
separated from all the others by characters as striking as they are
invariable.” “On the least noise,” says Dr. Shaw, “or trivial occasion,
she forsakes her eggs, or her young ones; to which perhaps she never
returns; or if she does, it may be too late either to restore life to
the one, or to preserve the lives of the others. Agreeably to this
account the Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs
undisturbed: some of them are sweet and good, others are addle and
corrupted; others again have their young ones of different growth,
according to the time, it may be presumed, they have been forsaken of
the dam. The Arabs often meet with a few of the little ones no bigger
than well grown pullets, half starved, straggling and moaning about like
so many distressed orphans for their mother. In this manner the ostrich
may be said to be hardened against her young ones as though they were
not hers; her labour, in hatching and attending them so far, being vain,
without fear, or the least concern of what becomes of them afterward.
This want of affection is also recorded, Lam. iv, 3, ‘the daughter of my
people is become cruel, like ostriches in the wilderness;’ that is, by
apparently deserting their own, and receiving others in return.” Natural
affection and sagacious instinct are the grand instruments by which
providence continues the race of other animals: but no limits can be set
to the wisdom and power of God. He preserveth the breed of the ostrich
without those means, and even in a penury of all the necessaries of
life. Notwithstanding the stupidity of this animal, its Creator hath
amply provided for its safety, by endowing it with extraordinary
swiftness, and a surprising apparatus for escaping from its enemy. They,
when they raise themselves up for flight, laugh at the horse and his
rider.” They afford him an opportunity only of admiring at a distance
the extraordinary agility and the stateliness likewise of their motions,
the richness of their plumage, and the great propriety there was in
ascribing to them an expanded quivering wing. Nothing certainly can be
more entertaining than such a sight, the wings, by their rapid but
unwearied vibrations, equally serving them for sails and oars; while
their feet, no less assisting in conveying them out of sight, seem to be
insensible of fatigue.

[Illustration:

  MAP OF
  PALESTINE.
  _Illustrating the_
  NEW TESTAMENT.
]

OWL. There are several varieties of this species, all too well known to
need a particular description. They are nocturnal birds of prey, and
have their eyes better adapted for discerning objects in the evening or
twilight than in the glare of day. 1. כוס, Lev. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 16;
Psalm cii, 6, is in our version rendered the little owl.” Aquila,
Theodotion, Jerom, Kimchi, and most of the older interpreters, are
quoted to justify this rendering. Michaëlis, at some length, supports
the opinion that it is the horned owl. Bochart, though with some
hesitation, suspected it to be the _onocrotalus_, a kind of pelican,
because the Hebrew name signifies _cup_, and the pelican is remarkable
for a pouch or bag under the lower jaw; but there are good reasons for
supposing that bird to be the קאת of the next verse. Dr. Geddes thinks
this bird the cormorant; and as it begins the list of water fowl, and is
mentioned always in the same contexts with קאת, confessedly a water
bird, his opinion may be adopted. 2. קאת, Lev. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 16;
Isaiah xxxiv, 11. In the two first places our translators render this
the great owl,” which is strangely placed after the little owl, and
among water birds. Our translators,” says the author of Scripture
Illustrated,” “seem to have thought the owl a convenient bird, as we
have three owls in two verses.” Some critics think it means a species of
night bird, because the word may be derived from נשף, which signifies
_the twilight_, the time when owls fly about. But this interpretation,
says Parkhurst, seems very forced; and since it is mentioned among water
fowls, and the LXX. have, in the first and last of those texts, rendered
it by ἴβις, _the ibis_, we are disposed to adopt it here, and think the
evidence strengthened by this, that in a Coptic version of Lev. xi, 17,
it is called _ip_ or _hip_, which, with a Greek termination, would very
easily make ιβις. 3. קפון, which occurs only in Isaiah xxxiv, 15, is in
our version rendered the great owl.” 4. לילית, Isa. xxxiv, 14, in our
version the screech owl.” The root signifies _night_; and as undoubtedly
a bird frequenting dark places and ruins is referred to, we must admit
some kind of owl.

             A place of lonely desolation, where
               The screeching tribe and pelicans abide,
             And the dun ravens croak mid ruins drear,
               And moaning owls from man the farthest hide.

OX, בקר, in Arabic _bœkerre_ and _bykar_, the male of horned cattle
of the beeve kind, at full age, when fit for the plough. Younger ones
are called bullocks. Michaëlis, in his elaborate work on the laws of
Moses, has proved that castration was never practised. The rural economy
of the Israelites led them to value the ox as by far the most important
of domestic animals, from the consideration of his great use in all the
operations of farming. In the patriarchal ages, the ox constituted no
inconsiderable portion of their wealth. Thus Abraham is said to be very
rich in cattle, Gen. xxiv, 35. Men of every age and country have been
much indebted to the labours of this animal. So early as in the days of
Job, who was probably contemporary with Isaac, the oxen were ploughing,
and the asses were feeding beside them,” when the Sabeans fell upon
them, and took them away. In times long posterior, when Elijah was
commissioned to anoint Elisha, the son of Shaphat, prophet in his stead,
he found him ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen, 1 Kings xix, 19. For
many ages the hopes of oriental husbandmen depended entirely on their
labours. This was so much the case in the time of Solomon, that he
observes, in one of his proverbs, Where no oxen are, the crib is clean,”
or rather empty; but much increase is by the strength of the ox,” Prov.
xiv, 4. The ass, in the course of ages was compelled to bend his
stubborn neck to the yoke, and share the labours of the ox; but still
the preparation of the ground in the time of spring depended chiefly on
the more powerful exertions of the latter. When this animal was employed
in bringing home the produce of the harvest, he was regaled with a
mixture of chaff, chopped straw, and various kinds of grain, moistened
with acidulated water. But among the Jews, the ox was best fed when
employed in treading out the corn; for the divine law, in many of whose
precepts the benevolence of the Deity conspicuously shines, forbad to
muzzle him, and, by consequence, to prevent him from eating what he
would of the grain he was employed to separate from the husks. The ox
was also compelled to the labour of dragging the cart or wagon. The
number of oxen commonly yoked to one cart appears to have been two, Num.
vii, 3, 7, 8; 1 Sam. vi, 7; 2 Sam. vi, 3, 6.

The _wild ox_, תאן, Deut. xiv, 5, is supposed to be the oryx of the
Greeks, which is a species of large stag.


PADAN-ARAM, called also Sedan-Aram in Hosea; both names denoting _Aram_
or _Syria the fruitful_, or _cultivated_, and apply to the northern part
of Mesopotamia, in which Haran or Charran was situated. See MESOPOTAMIA.

PAGANS, Heathens, and particularly those who worship idols. The term
came into use after the establishment of Christianity, the cities and
great towns affording the first converts. The Heathens were called
Pagans, from _pagus_, a village,” because they were then found chiefly
in remote country places; but we use the term commonly for all who do
not receive the Jewish, Christian, or Mohammedan religions.

PAINTING THE FACE, 2 Kings ix, 30. See EYES.

PALESTINE, taken in a limited sense, denotes the country of the
Philistines or Palestines, including that part of the land of promise
which extended along the Mediterranean Sea, from Gaza south to Lydda
north. The LXX. were of opinion that the word _Philistiim_, which they
generally translate _Allophyli_, signified strangers,” or men of another
tribe. Palestine, taken in a more general sense, signifies the whole
country of Canaan, the whole land of promise, as well beyond as on this
side Jordan, though pretty frequently it is restrained to the country on
this side that river; so that in later times the words Judea and
Palestine were synonymous. We find, also, the name of Syria Palestina
given to the land of promise, and even sometimes this province is
comprehended in Cœlo-Syria, or the Lower Syria. Herodotus is the most
ancient writer we know that speaks of Syria Palestina. He places it
between Phenicia and Egypt. See CANAAN.

PALM TREE, תמר, Exodus xv, 27, &c. This tree, sometimes called the date
tree, grows plentifully in the east. It rises to a great height. The
stalks are generally full of rugged knots, which are the vestiges of the
decayed leaves; for the trunk of this tree is not solid, like other
trees, but its centre is filled with pith, round which is a tough bark
full of strong fibres when young, which, as the tree grows old, hardens
and becomes ligneous. To this bark the leaves are closely joined, which
in the centre rise erect; but, after they are advanced above the vagina
which surrounds them, they expand very wide on every side the stem; and,
as the older leaves decay, the stalk advances in height. The leaves,
when the tree has grown to a size for bearing fruit, are six or eight
feet long, are very broad when spread out, and are used for covering the
tops of houses, &c. The fruit, which is called date, grows below the
leaves in clusters and is of a sweet and agreeable taste. The learned
Kæmpfer, as a botanist, an antiquary, and a traveller, has exhausted the
whole subject of palm trees. The diligent natives,” says Mr. Gibbon,
celebrated, either in verse or prose, the three hundred and sixty uses
to which the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the juice, and the fruit,
were skilfully applied.” “The extensive importance of the date tree,”
says Dr. E. D. Clarke, is one of the most curious subjects to which a
traveller can direct his attention. A considerable part of the
inhabitants of Egypt, of Arabia, and Persia, subsist almost entirely
upon its fruit. They boast also of its medicinal virtues. Their camels
feed upon the date stone. From the leaves they make couches, baskets,
bags, mats, and brushes; from the branches, cages for their poultry, and
fences for their gardens; from the fibres of the boughs, thread, ropes,
and rigging; from the sap is prepared a spirituous liquor; and the body
of the tree furnishes fuel. It is even said that from one variety of the
palm tree, the _phœnix farinifera_, meal has been extracted, which is
found among the fibres of the trunk, and has been used for food.”

In the temple of Solomon were pilasters made in the form of palm trees,
1 Kings vi, 29. It was under a tree of this kind that Deborah dwelt
between Ramah and Bethel, Judges iv, 5. To the fair, flourishing, and
fruitful condition of this tree, the psalmist very aptly compares the
votary of virtue, Psalm xcii, 12, 13, 14:--

            The righteous shall flourish like a palm tree.
            Those that are planted in the house of Jehovah,
            In the courts of our God, shall flourish;
            In old age they shall still put forth buds,
            They shall be full of sap and vigorous.

The palm tree is crowned at its top with a large tuft of spiring leaves
about four feet long, which never fall off, but always continue in the
same flourishing verdure. The tree, as Dr. Shaw was informed, is in its
greatest vigour about thirty years after it is planted, and continues in
full vigour seventy years longer; bearing all this while, every year,
about three or four hundred pounds’ weight of dates. The trunk of the
tree is remarkably straight and lofty. Jeremiah, speaking of the idols
that were carried in procession, says they were upright as the palm
tree, Jer. x, 5. And for erect stature and slenderness of form, the
spouse, in Canticles vii, 7, is compared to this tree:--

                 How framed, O my love, for delights!
                 Lo, thy stature is like a palm tree,
                 And thy bosom like clusters of dates.

On this passage Mr. Good observes, that “the very word _tamar_, here
used for the palm tree, and whose radical meaning is ‘straight,’ or
‘upright,’ (whence it was afterward applied to pillars or columns, as
well as to the palm,) was also a general name among the ladies of
Palestine, and unquestionably adopted in honour of the stature they had
already acquired, or gave a fair promise of attaining.”

A branch of palm was a signal of victory, and was carried before
conquerors in the triumphs. To this, allusion is made, Rev. vii, 9: and
for this purpose were they borne before Christ in his way to Jerusalem,
John xii, 13. From the inspissated sap of the tree, a kind of honey, or
dispse, as it is called, is produced, little inferior to that of bees.
The same juice, after fermentation, makes a sort of wine much used in
the east. It is once mentioned as wine, Num. xxviii, 7; Exodus xxix, 40;
and by it is intended the strong drink, Isaiah v, 11; xxiv, 9. Theodoret
and Chrysostom, on these places, both Syrians, and unexceptionable
witnesses in what belongs to their own country, confirm this
declaration. This liquor,” says Dr. Shaw, which has a more luscious
sweetness than honey, is of the consistence of a thin syrup, but quickly
grows tart and ropy, acquiring an intoxicating quality, and giving by
distillation an agreeable spirit, or _arâky_, according to the general
name of these people for all hot liquors, extracted by the alembic.” Its
Hebrew name is שכר, the σικερα of the Greeks; and from its sweetness,
probably, the _saccharum_ of the Romans. Jerom informs us that in Hebrew
any inebriating liquor is called _sicera_, whether made of grain, the
juice of apples, honey, dates, or any other fruit.”

This tree was formerly of great value and esteem among the Israelites,
and so very much cultivated in Judea, that, in after times, it became
the emblem of that country, as may be seen in a medal of the Emperor
Vespasian upon the conquest of Judea. It represents a captive woman
sitting under a palm tree, with this inscription, _Judea capta_;” [Judea
captivated;] and upon a Greek coin, likewise, of his son Titus, struck
upon the like occasion, we see a shield suspended upon a palm tree, with
a Victory writing upon it. Pliny also calls Judea _palmis inclyta_,
renowned for palms.” Jericho, in particular, was called the city of
palms,” Deut. xxxiv, 3; 2 Chron. xxviii, 15; because, as Josephus,
Strabo, and Pliny, have remarked, it anciently abounded in palm trees.
And so Dr. Shaw remarks, that, though these trees are not now either
plentiful or fruitful in other parts of the holy land, yet there are
several of them at Jericho, where there is the conveniency they require
of being often watered; where, likewise, the climate is warm, and the
soil sandy, such as they thrive and delight in. Tamar, a city built in
the desert by Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 18; Ezekiel xlvii, 19; xlviii, 28,
was probably so named from the palm trees growing about it; as it was
afterward by the Romans called Palmyra, or rather Palmira, on the same
account, from _palma_, a palm tree.”

PALMER WORM, גום, Joel i, 4; Amos iv, 9. Bochart says that it is a kind
of locust, furnished with very sharp teeth, with which it gnaws off
grass, corn, leaves of trees, and even their bark. The Jews support this
idea by deriving the word from גוז or גזן, _to cut_, _to shear_, or
_mince_. Notwithstanding the unanimous sentiments of the Jews that this
is a locust, yet the LXX. read κάμπη, and the Vulgate _eruca_, a
caterpillar;” which rendering is supported by Fuller. Michaëlis agrees
with this opinion, and thinks that the sharp cutting teeth of the
caterpillar, which, like a sickle, clear away all before them, might
give name to this insect. Caterpillars also begin their ravages before
the locust, which seems to coincide with the nature of the creature here
intended.

PALSY. See DISEASES.

PAMPHYLIA, a province of Asia Minor which gives name to that part of the
Mediterranean Sea which washes its coast, Acts xxvii, 5. To the south it
is bounded by the Mediterranean, and to the north by Pisidia; having
Lycia to the west, and Cilicia to the east. Paul and Barnabas preached
at Perga, in Pamphylia, Acts xiii, 13; xiv, 24.

PANTHEISM, a doctrine into which some of the sages of antiquity fell by
revolting at the monstrous absurdities of Polytheism. Not knowing the
true God as an infinite and personal subsistence, a cause above and
distinct from all effects, they believed that God was every thing, and
every thing God. This monstrous, and in its effects immoral, notion, is
still held by the Brahmins of India.

PAPER REED, גמא, Exod. ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7.
When the outer skin, or bark, is taken off, there are several films, or
inner pellicles, one within another. These, when separated from the
stalk, were laid on a table artfully matched and flatted together, and
moistened with the water of the Nile, which, dissolving the glutinous
juices of the plant, caused them to adhere closely together. They were
afterward pressed, and then dried in the sun, and thus were prepared
sheets or leaves for writing upon in characters marked by a coloured
liquid passing through a hollow reed. The best papyrus was called
ἱερατικὴ, or paper of the priests. On this the sacred documents of Egypt
were written. Ancient books were written on papyrus, and those of the
New Testament among the rest. In the fourth century however these sacred
writings are found on skins. This was preferred for durability; and many
decayed copies of the New Testament, belonging to libraries, were early
transferred to parchment. Finally came paper, the name of which was
taken from the Egyptian reed; but the materials of which it was
fabricated were cotton and linen. See BULRUSH and BOOK.

PAPHOS, a celebrated city of Cyprus, lying on the western coast of the
island, where Venus (who from hence took the name of Paphia) had her
most ancient and most famous temple; and here the Roman proconsul,
Sergius Paulus, resided, whom St. Paul converted to Christianity, Acts
xiii, 6.

PARABLE, ϖαραβολή, formed from ϖαραβάλλειν, _to oppose_ or _compare_, an
allegorical instruction, founded on something real or apparent in nature
or history, from which a moral is drawn, by comparing it with some other
thing in which the people are more immediately concerned. (See
_Allegory_.) Aristotle defines parable, a similitude drawn from form to
form. Cicero calls it a collation; others, a simile. F. de Colonia calls
it a rational fable; but it may be founded on real occurrences, as many
parables of our Saviour were. The Hebrews call it משל, from a word which
signifies either _to predominate_ or _to assimilate_; the Proverbs of
Solomon are by them also called >משלים, _parables_, or _proverbs_.

Parable, according to the eminently learned Bishop Lowth, is that kind
of allegory which consists of a continued narration of a fictitious or
accommodated event, applied to the illustration of some important truth.
The Greeks call these αἶνοι, _allegories_, or _apologues_; the Latins,
_fabulæ_, or fables;” and the writings of the Phrygian sage, or those
composed in imitation of him, have acquired the greatest celebrity. Nor
has our Saviour himself disdained to adopt the same method of
instruction; of whose parables it is doubtful whether they excel most in
wisdom and utility, or in sweetness, elegance, and perspicuity. As the
appellation of parable has been applied to his discourses of this kind,
the term is now restricted from its former extensive signification to a
more confined sense. But this species of composition occurs very
frequently in the prophetic poetry, and particularly in that of Ezekiel.
If to us they should sometimes appear obscure, we must remember, that,
in those early times when the prophetical writings were indited, it was
universally the mode throughout all the eastern nations to convey sacred
truths under mysterious figures and representations. In order to our
forming a more certain judgment upon this subject, Dr. Lowth has briefly
explained some of the primary qualities of the poetic parables; so that,
by considering the general nature of them, we may decide more accurately
on the merits of particular examples.

It is the first excellence of a parable to turn upon an image well known
and applicable to the subject, the meaning of which is clear and
definite; for this circumstance will give it perspicuity, which is
essential to every species of allegory. If the parables of the sacred
prophets are examined by this rule, they will not be found deficient.
They are in general founded upon such imagery as is frequently used, and
similarly applied by way of metaphor and comparison in the Hebrew
poetry. Examples of this kind occur in the parable of the deceitful
vineyard, Isaiah v, 1–7, and of the useless vine, Ezek. xv; xix, 10–14;
for under this imagery the ungrateful people of God are more than once
described; Ezek. xix, 1–9; xxxi; xvi; xxiii. Moreover, the image must
not only be apt and familiar, but it must be also elegant and beautiful
in itself; since it is the purpose of a poetic parable, not only to
explain more perfectly some proposition, but frequently to give it some
animation and splendour. As the imagery from natural objects is in this
respect superior to all others, the parables of the sacred poets consist
chiefly of this kind of imagery. It is also essential to the elegance of
a parable, that the imagery should not only be apt and beautiful, but
that all its parts and appendages should be perspicuous and pertinent.
Of all these excellencies, there cannot be more perfect examples than
the parables that have been just specified; to which we may add the well
known parable of Nathan, 2 Sam. xii, 1–4, although written in prose, as
well as that of Jotham, Judges ix, 7–15, which appears to be the most
ancient extant, and approaches somewhat nearer to the poetical form. It
is also the criterion of a parable, that it be consistent throughout,
and that the literal be never confounded with the figurative sense; and
in this respect it materially differs from that species of allegory,
called the continued metaphor, Isaiah v, 1–7. It should be considered,
that the continued metaphor and the parable have a very different view.
The sole intention of the former is to embellish a subject, to represent
it more magnificently, or at the most to illustrate it, that, by
describing it in more elevated language, it may strike the mind more
forcibly; but the intent of the latter is to withdraw the truth for a
moment from our sight, in order to conceal whatever it may contain
ungrateful or reproving, and to enable it secretly to insinuate itself,
and obtain an ascendency as it were by stealth. There is, however, a
species of parable, the intent of which is only to illustrate the
subject; such is that remarkable one of the cedar of Lebanon, Ezek.
xxxi; than which, if we consider the imagery itself, none was ever more
apt or more beautiful; or the description and colouring, none was ever
more elegant or splendid; in which, however, the poet has occasionally
allowed himself to blend the figurative with the literal description,
verses 11, 14–17; whether he has done this because the peculiar nature
of this kind of parable required it, or whether his own fervid
imagination alone, which disdained the stricter rules of composition,
was his guide, our learned author can scarcely presume to determine.

In the New Testament, the word parable is used variously: in Luke iv,
23, for a proverb, or adage; in Matt. xv, 15, for a thing darkly and
figuratively expressed; in Heb. ix, 9, &c, for a type; in Luke xiv, 7,
&c, for a special instruction; in Matt. xxiv, 32, for a similitude or
comparison.

PARADISE, according to the original meaning of the term, whether it be
of Hebrew, Chaldee, or Persian derivation, signifies, a place enclosed
for pleasure and delight.” The LXX., or Greek translators of the Old
Testament, make use of the word paradise, when they speak of the garden
of Eden, which Jehovah planted at the creation, and in which he placed
our first parents. There are three places in the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament where this word is found, namely, Neh. ii, 8; Cant. iv, 13;
Eccles. ii, 5. The term paradise is obviously used in the New Testament,
as another word for heaven; by our Lord, Luke xxiii, 43; by the Apostle
Paul, 2 Cor. xii, 4; and in the Apocalypse, ii, 7. See EDEN.

PARAN, DESERT OF, a great and terrible wilderness” which the children of
Israel entered after leaving Mount Sinai, Num. x, 12; Deut. i, 19; and
in which thirty-eight of their forty years of wandering were spent. It
extended from Mount Sinai on the south, to the southern border of the
land of Canaan on the north; having the desert of Shur, with its
subdivisions, the deserts of Etham and Sin, on the west, and the eastern
branch of the Red Sea, the desert of Zin and Mount Seir, on the east.
Burckhardt represents this desert, which he entered from that of Zin, or
valley of El Araba, about the parallel of Suez, as a dreary expanse of
calcareous soil, covered with black flints.

PARTRIDGE, קדא, 1 Samuel xxvi, 20; Jer. xvii, 11; ϖέρδιξ, Ecclus. xi,
30. In the first of these places David says, The king of Israel is come
out to hunt a partridge on the mountains;” and in the second, The
partridge sitteth,” on eggs, and produceth,” or hatcheth, not; so he
that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of
his days, and at his end shall be contemptible.” This passage does not
necessarily imply that the partridge hatches the eggs of a stranger, but
only that she often fails in her attempts to bring forth her young. To
such disappointments she is greatly exposed from the position of her
nest on the ground, where her eggs are often spoiled by the wet, or
crushed by the foot. So he that broods over his ill-gotten gains will
often find them unproductive; or, if he leaves them, as a bird
occasionally driven from her nest, may be despoiled of their possession.
As to the hunting of the partridge, which, Dr. Shaw observes, is the
greater, or red-legged kind, the traveller says: The Arabs have another,
though a more laborious, method of catching these birds; for, observing
that they become languid and fatigued after they have been hastily put
up twice or thrice, they immediately run in upon them, and knock them
down with their _zerwattys_, or bludgeons as we should call them.”
Precisely in this manner Saul hunted David, coming hastily upon him,
putting him up incessantly, in hopes that at length his strength and
resources would fail, and he would become an easy prey to his pursuer.
Forskal mentions a partridge whose name in Arabic is _kurr_; and Latham
says, that, in the province of Andalusia in Spain, the name of the
partridge is _churr_; both taken, no doubt, like the Hebrew, from its
note.

[Illustration:

  Map of the
  _COUNTRIES_
  Travelled by the
  APOSTLES
  with the
  ROUTES OF ST. PAUL
  through
  _Asia & Europe_
]

PASSOVER, פסח, signifies _leap_, _passage_. The passover was a solemn
festival of the Jews, instituted in commemoration of their coming out of
Egypt; because the night before their departure the destroying angel
that slew the first-born of the Egyptians passed over the houses of the
Hebrews without entering them, because they were marked with the blood
of the lamb, which, for this reason, was called the paschal lamb. The
following is what God ordained concerning the passover: the month of the
coming out of Egypt was after this to be the first month of the sacred
or ecclesiastical year; and the fourteenth day of this month, between
the two evenings, that is, between the sun’s decline and its setting, or
rather, according to our reckoning, between three o’clock in the
afternoon and six in the evening, at the equinox, they were to kill the
paschal lamb, and to abstain from leavened bread. The day following,
being the fifteenth, reckoned from six o’clock of the preceding evening,
was the grand feast of the passover, which continued seven days; but
only the first and seventh days were peculiarly solemn. The slain lamb
was to be without defect, a male, and of that year. If no lamb could be
found, they might take a kid. They killed a lamb or a kid in each
family; and if the number of the family was not sufficient to eat the
lamb, they might associate two families together. With the blood of the
lamb they sprinkled the door posts and lintel of every house, that the
destroying angel at the sight of the blood might pass over them. They
were to eat the lamb the same night, roasted, with unleavened bread, and
a sallad of wild lettuces, or bitter herbs. It was forbid to eat any
part of it raw, or boiled; nor were they to break a bone; but it was to
be eaten entire, even with the head, the feet, and the bowels. If any
thing remained to the day following it was thrown into the fire, Exod.
xii, 46; Num. ix, 12; John xix, 36. They who ate it were to be in the
posture of travellers, having their reins girt, shoes on their feet,
staves in their hands, and eating in a hurry. This last part of the
ceremony was but little observed; at least, it was of no obligation
after that night when they came out of Egypt. During the whole eight
days of the passover no leavened bread was to be used. They kept the
first and last day of the feast; yet it was allowed to dress victuals,
which was forbidden on the Sabbath day. The obligation of keeping the
passover was so strict, that whoever should neglect it was condemned to
death, Num. ix, 13. But those who had any lawful impediment, as a
journey, sickness, or uncleanness, voluntary or involuntary, for
example, those who had been present at a funeral, &c, were to defer the
celebration of the passover till the second month of the ecclesiastical
year, the fourteenth day of the month Jair, which answers to April and
May. We see an example of this postponed passover under Hezekiah, 2
Chron. xxx, 2, 3, &c.

The modern Jews observe in general the ceremonies practised by their
ancestors in the celebration of the passover. While the temple was in
existence, the Jews brought their lambs thither, and there sacrificed
them; and they offered their blood to the priest, who poured it out at
the foot of the altar. The paschal lamb was an illustrious type of
Christ, who became a sacrifice for the redemption of a lost world from
sin and misery; but resemblances between the type and antitype have been
strained by many writers into a great number of fanciful particulars. It
is enough for us to be assured, that as Christ is called our passover;”
and the Lamb of God,” without spot,” by the sprinkling of whose blood”
we are delivered from guilt and punishment; and as faith in him is
represented to us as eating the flesh of Christ,” with evident allusion
to the eating of the paschal sacrifice; so, in these leading
particulars, the mystery of our redemption was set forth. The paschal
lamb therefore prefigured the offering of the spotless Son of God, the
appointed propitiation for the sins of the whole world; by virtue of
which, when received by faith, we are delivered from the bondage of
guilt and misery; and nourished with strength for our heavenly journey
to that land of rest, of which Canaan, as early as the days of Abraham,
became the divinely instituted figure.

PATMOS, a small rocky island in the Ægean Sea, about eighteen miles in
circumference; which, on account of its dreary and desolate character,
was used by the Roman emperors as a place of confinement for criminals.
To this island St. John was banished by the Emperor Domitian; and here
he had his revelation, recorded in the Apocalypse.

PATRIARCHS. This name is given to the ancient fathers, chiefly those who
lived before Moses, as Adam, Lamech, Noah, Shem, &c, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, the sons of Jacob, and heads of the tribes. The Hebrews call them
princes of the tribes, or heads of the fathers. The name patriarch is
derived from the Greek _patriarcha_, head of a family.”

PAUL was born at Tarsus, the principal city of Cilicia, and was by birth
both a Jew and a citizen of Rome, Acts xxi, 39; xxii, 25. He was of the
tribe of Benjamin, and of the sect of the Pharisees, Phil. iii, 5. In
his youth he appears to have been taught the art of tent making, Acts
xviii, 3; but we must remember that among the Jews of those days a
liberal education was often accompanied by instruction in some
mechanical trade. It is probable that St. Paul laid the foundation of
those literary attainments, for which he was so eminent in the future
part of his life, at his native city of Tarsus; and he afterward studied
the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders, at Jerusalem, under
Gamaliel, a celebrated rabbi, Acts xxii, 4. St. Paul is not mentioned in
the Gospels; nor is it known whether he ever heard our Saviour preach,
or saw him perform any miracle. His name first occurs in the account
given in the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, A. D. 34, to which he
is said to have consented, Acts viii, 1: he is upon that occasion called
a young man; but we are no where informed what was then his precise age.
The death of St. Stephen was followed by a severe persecution of the
church at Jerusalem, and St. Paul became distinguished among its enemies
by his activity and violence, Acts viii, 3. Not contented with
displaying his hatred to the Gospel in Judea, he obtained authority from
the high priest to go to Damascus, and to bring back with him bound any
Christians whom he might find in that city. As he was upon his journey
thither, A. D. 35, his miraculous conversion took place, the
circumstances of which are recorded in Acts ix, and are frequently
alluded to in his epistles, 1 Cor. xv, 9; Gal. i, 13; 1 Tim. i, 12, 13.

Soon after St. Paul was baptized at Damascus, he went into Arabia; but
we are not informed how long he remained there. He returned to Damascus;
and being supernaturally qualified to be a preacher of the Gospel, he
immediately entered upon his ministry in that city. The boldness and
success with which he enforced the truths of Christianity so irritated
the unbelieving Jews, that they resolved to put him to death, Acts ix,
23; but, this design being known, the disciples conveyed him privately
out of Damascus, and he went to Jerusalem, A. D. 38. The Christians of
Jerusalem, remembering St. Paul’s former hostility to the Gospel, and
having no authentic account of any change in his sentiments or conduct,
at first refused to receive him; but being assured by Barnabas of St.
Paul’s real conversion, and of his exertions at Damascus, they
acknowledged him as a disciple, Acts ix, 27. He remained only fifteen
days among them, Gal. i, 18; and he saw none of the Apostles except St.
Peter and St. James. It is probable that the other Apostles were at this
time absent from Jerusalem, exercising their ministry at different
places. The zeal with which St. Paul preached at Jerusalem had the same
effect as at Damascus: he became so obnoxious to the Hellenistic Jews,
that they began to consider how they might kill him, Acts ix, 29; which
when the brethren knew, they thought it right that he should leave the
city. They accompanied him to Cæsarea, and thence he went into the
regions of Syria and Cilicia, where he preached the faith which once he
destroyed, Gal. i, 21, 23.

Hitherto the preaching of St. Paul, as well as of the other Apostles and
teachers, had been confined to the Jews; but the conversion of
Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, A. D. 40, having convinced all the
Apostles that to the Gentiles, also, God had granted repentance unto
life,” St. Paul was soon after conducted by Barnabas from Tarsus, which
had probably been the principal place of his residence since he left
Jerusalem, and they both began to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles at
Antioch, A. D. 42, Acts xi, 25. Their preaching was attended with great
success. The first Gentile church was now established at Antioch; and in
that city, and at this time, the disciples were first called Christians,
Acts xi, 26. When these two Apostles had been thus employed about a
year, a prophet called Agabus predicted an approaching famine, which
would affect the whole land of Judea. Upon the prospect of this
calamity, the Christians of Antioch made a contribution for their
brethren in Judea, and sent the money to the elders at Jerusalem by St.
Paul and Barnabas, A. D. 44, Acts xi, 28, &c. This famine happened soon
after, in the fourth or fifth year of the Emperor Claudius. It is
supposed that St. Paul had the vision, mentioned in Acts xxii, 17, while
he was now at Jerusalem this second time after his conversion.

St. Paul and Barnabas, having executed their commission, returned to
Antioch; and soon after their arrival in that city they were separated,
by the express direction of the Holy Ghost, from the other Christian
teachers and prophets, for the purpose of carrying the glad tidings of
the Gospel to the Gentiles of various countries, Acts xiii, 1. Thus
divinely appointed to this important office, they set out from Antioch,
A. D. 45, and preached the Gospel successively at Salamis and Paphos,
two cities of the isle of Cyprus, at Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in
Pisidia, and at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, three cities of Lycaonia.
They returned to Antioch in Syria, A. D. 47, nearly by the same route.
This first apostolical journey of St. Paul, in which he was accompanied
and assisted by Barnabas, is supposed to have occupied about two years;
and in the course of it many, both Jews and Gentiles, were converted to
the Gospel.

Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch a considerable time; and while
they were there, a dispute arose between them and some Jewish Christians
of Judea. These men asserted, that the Gentile converts could not obtain
salvation through the Gospel, unless they were circumcised; Paul and
Barnabas maintained the contrary opinion, Acts xv, 1, 2. This dispute
was carried on for some time with great earnestness; and it being a
question in which not only the present but all future Gentile converts
were concerned, it was thought right that St. Paul and Barnabas, with
some others, should go up to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles and
elders concerning it. They passed through Phenicia and Samaria, and upon
their arrival at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, a council was assembled for the
purpose of discussing this important point, Gal. ii, 1. St. Peter and
St. James the less were present, and delivered their sentiments, which
coincided with those of St. Paul and Barnabas; and after much
deliberation it was agreed, that neither circumcision, nor conformity to
any part of the ritual law of Moses, was necessary in Gentile converts;
but that it should be recommended to them to abstain from certain
specified things prohibited by that law, lest their indulgence in them
should give offence to their brethren of the circumcision, who were
still very zealous for the observance of the ceremonial part of their
ancient religion. This decision which was declared to have the sanction
of the Holy Ghost, was communicated to the Gentile Christians of Syria
and Cilicia by a letter written in the name of the Apostles, elders, and
whole church at Jerusalem, and conveyed by Judas and Silas, who
accompanied St. Paul and Barnabas to Antioch for that purpose.

St. Paul, having preached a short time at Antioch, proposed to Barnabas
that they should visit the churches which they had founded in different
cities, Acts xv, 36. Barnabas readily consented; but while they were
preparing for the journey, there arose a disagreement between them,
which ended in their separation. In consequence of this dispute with
Barnabas, St. Paul chose Silas for his companion, and they set out
together from Antioch, A. D. 50. They travelled through Syria and
Cilicia, confirming the churches, and then came to Derbe and Lystra,
Acts xvi. Thence they went through Phrygia and Galatia; and, being
desirous of going into Asia Propria, or the Proconsular Asia, they were
forbidden by the Holy Ghost. They therefore went into Mysia; and, not
being permitted by the Holy Ghost to go into Bithynia as they had
intended, they went to Troas. While St. Paul was there, a vision
appeared to him in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed
him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” St. Paul knew this
vision to be a command from Heaven, and in obedience to it immediately
sailed from Troas to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis, a city
of Thrace; and thence he went to Philippi, the principal city of that
part of Macedonia. St. Paul remained some time at Philippi, preaching
the Gospel; and several occurrences which took place in that city, are
recorded in Acts xvii. Thence he went through Amphipolis and Apollonia
to Thessalonica, Acts xvii, where he preached in the synagogues of the
Jews on three successive Sabbath days. Some of the Jews, and many of the
Gentiles of both sexes, embraced the Gospel; but the unbelieving Jews,
moved with envy and indignation at the success of St. Paul’s preaching,
excited a great disturbance in the city, and irritated the populace so
much against him, that the brethren, anxious for his safety, thought it
prudent to send him to Berea, where he met with a better reception than
he had experienced at Thessalonica. The Bereans heard his instructions
with attention and candour, and having compared his doctrines with the
ancient Scriptures, and being satisfied that Jesus, whom he preached,
was the promised Messiah, they embraced the Gospel; but his enemies at
Thessalonica, being informed of his success at Berea, came thither, and,
by their endeavours to stir up the people against him, compelled him to
leave that city also. He went thence to Athens, where he delivered that
discourse recorded in Acts xvii. From Athens, Paul went to Corinth, Acts
xviii, A. D. 51, and lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, two
Jews, who, being compelled to leave Rome in consequence of Claudius’s
edict against the Jews, had lately settled at Corinth. St. Paul was
induced to take up his residence with them, because, like himself, they
were tent makers. At first he preached to the Jews in their synagogue;
but upon their violently opposing his doctrine, he declared that from
that time he would preach to the Gentiles only; and, accordingly, he
afterward delivered his instructions in the house of one Justus, who
lived near the synagogue. Among the few Jews who embraced the Gospel,
were Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his family; and many of
the Gentile Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” St. Paul
was encouraged in a vision to persevere in his exertions to convert the
inhabitants of Corinth; and although he met with great opposition and
disturbance from the unbelieving Jews, and was accused by them before
Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaia, he continued there a year and six
months, teaching the word of God.” During this time he supported himself
by working at his trade of tent making, that he might not be burdensome
to the disciples. From Corinth St. Paul sailed into Syria, and thence he
went to Ephesus: thence to Cæsarea; and is supposed to have arrived at
Jerusalem just before the feast of pentecost. After the feast he went to
Antioch, A. D. 53; and this was the conclusion of his second apostolical
journey, in which he was accompanied by Silas; and in part of it, Luke
and Timothy were also with him.

Having made a short stay at Antioch, St. Paul set out upon his third
apostolical journey. He passed through Galatia, and Phrygia, A. D. 54,
confirming the Christians of those countries; and thence, according to
his promise, he went to Ephesus, Acts xix. He found there some
disciples, who had only been baptized with John’s baptism: he directed
that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, and then he
communicated to them the Holy Ghost. He preached for the space of three
months in the synagogue; but the Jews being hardened beyond conviction,
and speaking reproachfully of the Christian religion before the
multitude, he left them; and from that time he delivered his
instructions in the school of a person called Tyrannus, who was probably
a Gentile. St. Paul continued to preach in this place about two years,
so that all the inhabitants of that part of Asia Minor heard the word of
the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.” He also performed many miracles
at Ephesus; and not only great numbers of people were converted to
Christianity, but many also of those who in this superstitious city used
incantations and magical arts, professed their belief in the Gospel, and
renounced their former practices by publicly burning their books.
Previous to the disturbance raised by Demetrius, Paul had intended to
continue at Ephesus till Titus should return, whom he had sent to
inquire into the state of the church at Corinth, 2 Cor. xii, 18. He now
thought it prudent to go from Ephesus immediately, Acts xx, A. D. 56;
and having taken an affectionate leave of the disciples, he set out for
Troas, 2 Cor. ii, 12, 13, where he expected to meet Titus. Titus,
however, from some cause which is not known, did not come to Troas; and
Paul was encouraged to pass over into Macedonia, with the hope of making
converts. St. Paul, after preaching in Macedonia, receiving from the
Christians of that country liberal contributions for their poor brethren
in Judea, 2 Cor. viii, 1, went to Corinth, A. D. 57, and remained there
about three months. The Christians also of Corinth, and of the rest of
Achaia, contributed to the relief of their brethren in Judea. St. Paul’s
intention was to have sailed from Corinth into Syria; but being informed
that some unbelieving Jews, who had discovered his intention, lay in
wait for him, he changed his plan, passed through Macedonia, and sailed
from Philippi to Troas in five days, A. D. 58. He stayed at Troas seven
days, and preached to the Christians on the first day of the week, the
day on which they were accustomed to meet for the purpose of religious
worship. From Troas he went by land to Assos; and thence he sailed to
Mitylene; and from Mitylene to Miletus. Being desirous of reaching
Jerusalem before the feast of pentecost, he would not allow time to go
to Ephesus, and therefore he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church
to Miletus, and gave them instructions, and prayed with them. He told
them that he should see them no more, which impressed them with the
deepest sorrow. From Miletus he sailed by Cos, Rhodes, and Patara in
Lycia, to Tyre, Acts xxi. Finding some disciples at Tyre, he stayed with
them several days, and then went to Ptolemais, and thence to Cæsarea.
While St. Paul was at Cæsarea, the Prophet Agabus foretold by the Holy
Ghost, that St. Paul, if he went to Jerusalem, would suffer much from
the Jews. This prediction caused great uneasiness to St. Paul’s friends,
and they endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention of going
thither. St. Paul, however, would not listen to their entreaties, but
declared that he was ready to die at Jerusalem, if it were necessary,
for the name of the Lord Jesus. Seeing him thus resolute, they desisted
from their importunities, and accompanied him to Jerusalem, where he is
supposed to have arrived just before the feast of pentecost, A. D. 58.
This may be considered as the end of St. Paul’s third apostolical
journey.

St. Paul was received by the Apostles and other Christians at Jerusalem
with great joy and affection; and his account of the success of his
ministry, and of the collections which he had made among the Christians
of Macedonia and Achaia, for the relief of their brethren in Judea,
afforded them much satisfaction; but not long after his arrival at
Jerusalem, some Jews of Asia, who had probably in their own country
witnessed St. Paul’s zeal in spreading Christianity among the Gentiles,
seeing him one day in the temple, endeavoured to excite a tumult, by
crying out that he was the man who was aiming to destroy all distinction
between Jew and Gentile; who taught things contrary to the law of Moses;
and who had polluted the holy temple, by bringing into it uncircumcised
Heathens. This representation did not fail to enrage the multitude
against St. Paul; they seized him, dragged him out of the temple, beat
him, and were upon the point of putting him to death, when he was
rescued out of their hands by Lysias, a Roman tribune, and the principal
military officer then at Jerusalem. What followed,--his defence before
Felix and Agrippa,--his long detention at Cæsarea, and his appeal to the
emperor, which occasioned his voyage to Rome, are all circumstantially
stated in the latter chapters of the Acts. Upon his arrival at Rome, St.
Paul was committed to the care of the captain of the guard, A. D. 61.
The Scriptures do not inform us whether he was ever tried before Nero,
who was at this time emperor of Rome; and the learned are much divided
in their opinion upon that point. St. Luke only says, Paul was suffered
to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. And Paul dwelt two
whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto
him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which
concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding
him.” During his confinement he converted some Jews resident at Rome,
and many Gentiles, and, among the rest, several persons belonging to the
emperor’s household, Phil. iv, 22.

The Scripture history ends with the release of St. Paul from his two
years’ imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 63; and no ancient author has left us
any particulars of the remaining part of this Apostle’s life. It seems
probable, that, immediately after he recovered his liberty, he went to
Jerusalem; and that afterward he travelled through Asia Minor, Crete,
Macedonia, and Greece, confirming his converts, and regulating the
affairs of the different churches which he had planted in those
countries. Whether at this time he also preached the Gospel in Spain, as
some have imagined, is very uncertain. It was the unanimous tradition of
the church, that St. Paul returned to Rome, that he underwent a second
imprisonment there, and at last was put to death by the Emperor Nero.
Tacitus and Suetonius have mentioned a dreadful fire which happened at
Rome in the time of Nero. It was believed, though probably without any
reason, that the emperor himself was the author of that fire; but to
remove the odium from himself, he chose to attribute it to the
Christians; and, to give some colour to that unjust imputation, he
persecuted them with the utmost cruelty. In this persecution St. Peter
and Paul suffered martyrdom, probably, A. D. 65; and if we may credit
Sulpitius Severus, a writer of the fifth century, the former was
crucified, and the latter beheaded.

St. Paul was a person of great natural abilities, of quick apprehension,
strong feelings, firm resolution, and irreproachable life. He was
conversant with Grecian and Jewish literature; and gave early proofs of
an active and zealous disposition. If we may be allowed to consider his
character independent of his supernatural endowments, we may pronounce
that he was well qualified to have risen to distinction and eminence,
and that he was by nature peculiarly adapted to the high office to which
it pleased God to call him. As a minister of the Gospel, he displayed
the most unwearied perseverance and undaunted courage. He was deterred
by no difficulty or danger, and endured a great variety of persecutions
with patience and cheerfulness. He gloried in being thought worthy of
suffering for the name of Jesus, and continued with unabated zeal to
maintain the truth of Christianity against its bitterest and most
powerful enemies. He was the principal instrument under Providence of
spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles; and we have seen that his
labours lasted through many years, and reached over a considerable
extent of country. Though emphatically styled the great Apostle of the
Gentiles, he began his ministry, in almost every city, by preaching in
the synagogue of the Jews; and though he owed by far the greater part of
his persecutions to the opposition and malice of that proud and
obstinate people, whose resentment he particularly incurred by
maintaining that the Gentiles were to be admitted to an indiscriminate
participation of the benefits of the new dispensation, yet it rarely
happened in any place, that some of the Jews did not yield to his
arguments, and embrace the Gospel. He watched with paternal care over
the churches which he had founded; and was always ready to strengthen
the faith, and regulate the conduct of his converts, by such directions
and advice as their circumstances might require.

The exertions of St. Paul in the cause of Christianity were not confined
to personal instruction: he also wrote fourteen epistles to individuals
or churches which are now extant, and form a part of our canon. These
letters furnish evidence of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment.
His caution in distinguishing between the occasional suggestions of
inspiration, and the ordinary exertions of his natural understanding, is
without example in the history of enthusiasm. His morality is every
where calm, pure, and rational; adapted to the condition, the activity,
and the business of social life, and of its various relations; free from
the overscrupulousness and austerities of superstition, and from, what
was more perhaps to be apprehended, the abstractions of quietism, and
the soarings or extravagancies of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a
hesitating conscience, his opinion of the moral indifferency of many
actions, yet of the prudence and even the duty of compliance, where
non-compliance would produce evil effects upon the minds of the persons
who observed it, are all in proof of the calm and discriminating
character of his mind; and the universal applicability of his precepts
affords strong presumption of his inspiration. What Lord Lyttleton has
remarked of the preference ascribed by St. Paul to rectitude of
principle above every other religious accomplishment, is weighty: Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I
am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal,” &c, 1 Cor. xiii,
1–3. Did ever enthusiast prefer that universal benevolence, meant by
charity here, (which, we may add, is attainable by every man,) to faith,
and to miracles, to those religious opinions which he had embraced, and
to those supernatural graces and gifts which he imagined he had
acquired, nay, even to the merit of martyrdom? Is it not the genius of
enthusiasm to set moral virtues infinitely below the merit of faith; and
of all moral virtues to value that least which is most particularly
enforced by St. Paul, a spirit of candour, moderation, and peace?
Certainly, neither the temper nor the opinions of a man subject to
fanatic delusions are to be found in this passage. His letters, indeed,
every where discover great zeal and earnestness in the cause in which he
was engaged; that is to say, he was convinced of the truth of what he
taught; he was deeply impressed, but not more so than the occasion
merited, with a sense of its importance. This produces a corresponding
animation and solicitude in the exercise of his ministry. But would not
these considerations, supposing them to have been well founded, have
holden the same place, and produced the same effect, in a mind the
strongest and the most sedate? Here, then, we have a man of liberal
attainments, and in other respects of sound judgment, who had addicted
his life to the service of the Gospel. We see him in the prosecution of
his purpose, travelling from country to country, enduring every species
of hardship, encountering every extremity of danger, assaulted by the
populace, punished by the magistrates, scourged, beaten, stoned, left
for dead; expecting, wherever he came, a renewal of the same treatment,
and the same dangers; yet, when driven from one city, preaching in the
next; spending his whole time in the employment; sacrificing to it his
pleasures, his ease, his safety; persisting in this course to old age,
unaltered by the experience of perverseness, ingratitude, prejudice,
desertion; unsubdued by anxiety, want, labour, persecutions; unwearied
by long confinement; undismayed by the prospect of death. Such was St.
Paul; and such were the proofs of Apostleship found in him.”

The following remarks of Hug on the character of this Apostle are
equally just and eloquent: This most violent man, having such terrible
propensities, whose turbulent impulses rendered him of a most
enterprising character, would have become nothing better than a John of
Gishala, a blood-intoxicated zealot, εμπνεων απειλης και φονου,
breathing out threatenings and slaughter, Acts ix, 1, had not his whole
soul been changed. The harsh tone of his mind inclined him to the
principles of Pharisaism, which had all the appearance of severity, and
was the predominant party among the Jews. Nature had not withholden from
him the external endowments of eloquence, although he afterward spoke
very modestly of them. At Lystra he was deemed the tutelar god of
eloquence. This character, qualified for great things, but, not master
of himself from excess of internal power, was an extreme of human
dispositions, and, according to the natural course, was prone to
absolute extremities. His religion was a destructive zeal, his anger was
fierceness, his fury required victims. A ferocity so boisterous did not
psychologically qualify him for a Christian nor a philanthropist; but,
least of all, for a quietly enduring man. He, nevertheless, became all
this on his conversion to Christianity, and each bursting emotion of his
mind subsided directly into a well regulated and noble character.
Formerly hasty and irritable, now only spirited and resolved; formerly
violent, now full of energy and enterprising: once ungovernably
refractory against every thing which obstructed him, now only
persevering; once fanatical and morose, now only serious; once cruel,
now only firm; once a harsh zealot, now fearing God; formerly
unrelenting, deaf to sympathy and commiseration, now himself acquainted
with tears, which he had seen without effect in others. Formerly the
friend of none, now the brother of mankind, benevolent, compassionate,
sympathizing; yet never weak, always great; in the midst of sadness and
sorrow manly and noble; so he showed himself at his deeply moving
departure from Miletus, Acts xx: it is like the departure of Moses, like
the resignation of Samuel, sincere and heart-felt, full of
self-recollection, and in the midst of pain full of dignity. His
writings are a true expression of this character, with regard to the
tone predominant in them. Severity, manly seriousness, and sentiments
which ennoble the heart, are interchanged with mildness, affability, and
sympathy: and their transitions are such as nature begets in the heart
of a man penetrated by his subject, noble and discerning. He exhorts,
reproaches, and consoles again; he attacks with energy, urges with
impetuosity, then again he speaks kindly to the soul; he displays his
finer feelings for the welfare of others, his forbearance and his fear
of afflicting any body: all as the subject, time, opposite dispositions,
and circumstances require. There prevails throughout in them an
importuning language, an earnest and lively communication. Rom. i,
26–32, is a comprehensive and vigorous description of morals. His
antithesis, Rom. ii, 21–24; 2 Cor. iv, 8–12; vi, 9–11; ix, 22–30; his
enumerations, 1 Cor. xiii, 4–10; 2 Cor. vi, 4–7; 2 Tim. iii, 1–5; Eph.
iv, 4–7; v, 3–6; his gradations, Romans viii, 29, 30; Titus iii, 3, 4;
the interrogations, exclamations, and comparisons, sometimes animate his
language even so as to give a visible existence to it. That, however,
which we principally perceive in Paul, and from which his whole actions
and operations become intelligible, is the peculiar impression which the
idea of a universal religion has wrought upon his mind. This idea of
establishing a religion for the world had not so profoundly engrossed
any soul, no where kindled so much vigour, and projected it into such a
constant energy. In this he was no man’s scholar; this he had
immediately received from the Spirit of his Master; it was a spark of
the divine light which enkindled him. It was this which never allowed
him to remain in Palestine and in Syria, which so powerfully impelled
him to foreign parts. The portion of some others was Judea and its
environs: but his mission was directed to the nations, and his allotment
was the whole of the Heathen world. Thus he began his career among the
different nations of Asia Minor, and when this limit also became too
confined for him, he went with equal confidence to Europe, among other
nations, ordinances, sciences, and customs; and here likewise he finally
with the same indefatigable spirit circulated his plans, even to the
pillars of Hercules. In this manner Paul prepared the overthrow of two
religions, that of his ancestors, and that of the Heathens.

PEACOCK, תוכיים, 1 Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 21; a bird distinguished by
the length of its tail, and the brilliant spots with which it is
adorned; which displays all that dazzles in the sparkling lustre of
gems, and all that astonishes in the rainbow. The peacock is a bird
originally of India; thence brought into Persia and Media. Aristophanes
mentions Persian peacocks; and Suidas calls the peacock the Median bird.
From Persia it was gradually dispersed into Judea, Egypt, Greece, and
Europe. If the fleet of Solomon visited India, they might easily procure
this bird, whether from India itself, or from Persia; and certainly the
bird by its beauty was likely to attract attention, and to be brought
among other rarities of natural history by Solomon’s servants, who would
be instructed to collect every curiosity in the countries they visited.

PEARL, a hard, white, shining body, usually roundish, found in a shell
fish resembling an oyster. The oriental pearls have a fine polished
gloss, and are tinged with an elegant blush of red. They are esteemed in
the east beyond all other jewels.

PELAGIANS, a sect that arose in the fifth century. Pelagius was a
British monk, of some rank, and very exalted reputation. He, with his
friend Celestius, travelled to Rome, where they resided very early in
the fifth century, and opposed with warmth certain received notions
respecting original sin, and the necessity of divine grace. What
reception their doctrines met with at Rome does not appear; but their
virtue excited general approbation. On the approach of the Goths, they
retired to Africa, where Celestius remained, with a view of gaining
admittance as a presbyter into the church of Carthage. Pelagius
proceeded to Palestine, where he enjoyed the favour and protection of
John, bishop of Jerusalem. But his friend and his opinions met with a
very different reception from St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of
Hippo. Whatever parts were visited by these unorthodox friends, they
still asserted their peculiar opinions; and they were gradually engaged
in a warm contest, in the course of which they were probably led to
advance more than had originally occurred to them. In contending for the
truth of their doctrines, they are said to have asserted, that mankind
derived no injury from the sin of Adam; that we are now as capable of
obedience to the will of God as he was; that, otherwise, it would have
been cruel and absurd to propose to mankind the performance of certain
duties, with the sanction of rewards, and the denunciation of
punishments; and that, consequently, men are born without vice, as well
as without virtue.” Pelagius is charged also with having maintained,
that it is possible for men, provided they fully employ the powers and
faculties with which they are endued, to live without sin;” and though
he did not deny that external grace, or the doctrines and motives of the
Gospel, are necessary, yet he is said to have rejected the necessity of
internal grace, or the aids of the divine Spirit. He acknowledged, that
the power we possess of obeying the will of God, is a divine gift;” but
asserted, that the direction of this power depends upon ourselves; that
natural death is not a consequence of the sin of Adam, but of the frame
of man; and that Adam would have died, though he had not sinned.”
Isidore, Chrysostom, and Augustine strenuously opposed these opinions;
and the latter procured their condemnation in a synod held at Carthage
in 412. They were, however, favourably received at Rome, and Pope
Zozimus was at the head of the Pelagian party: but his decision against
the African bishops, who had opposed Pelagianism, was disregarded by
them, and the pontiff yielded at length to their reasonings and
remonstrances, and condemned the men whom he had before honoured with
his approbation. The council of Ephesus likewise condemned the opinions
of Pelagius and Celestius; and the Emperor Honorius, in 418, published
an edict, which ordained that the leaders of the sect should be expelled
from Rome, and their followers exiled. Some of the Pelagians taught that
Christ was a mere man, and that men might lead sinless lives, because
Christ did so; that Jesus became Christ after his baptism, and God after
his resurrection; the one arising from his unction, the other from the
merit of his passion. The Pelagian controversy, which began with the
doctrines of grace and original sin, was extended to predestination, and
excited continual discord and division in the church. It must however be
recollected, that we are acquainted with the sentiments of Pelagius only
through the medium of his opponents; and that it is probable that they
were much misrepresented. See AUGUSTINE.

The followers of the truly evangelical Arminius, or those who hold the
tenet of general redemption with its concomitants, have often been
greatly traduced, by the ignorant among their doctrinal opponents, as
Pelagians, or at least as Semi-Pelagians. It may therefore serve the
cause of truth to exhibit the appropriate reply which the Dutch
Arminians gave to this charge when urged against them at the synod of
Dort, and which they verified and maintained by arguments and
authorities that were unanswerable. In their concluding observations
they say, “From all these remarks a judgment may easily be formed at
what an immense distance our sentiments stand from the dogmatical
assertions of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians _on the grace of God in
the conversion of man_. Pelagius, in the first instance, attributed all
things to nature: but we acknowledge nothing but grace. When Pelagius
was blamed for not acknowledging grace, he began indeed to speak of it,
but it is evident that by _grace_ he understood the power of nature as
created by God, that is, _the rational will_: but by grace we understand
_a supernatural gift_. Pelagius, when afterward pressed with passages of
Scripture, also admitted this supernatural grace; but he placed it
solely in the external teaching of the law: though we affirm that God
offers his word to men, yet we likewise affirm that he inwardly causes
the understanding to believe. Subsequently Pelagius joined to this
external grace _that by which sins are pardoned_: we acknowledge not
only the grace by which sins are forgiven, but also that by which men
are assisted to refrain from the commission of sin. In addition to his
previous concessions Pelagius granted, that _the grace of Christ_ was
requisite beside the two kinds which he had enumerated; but he
attributed it entirely to the doctrine and example of Christ that we are
aided in our endeavours not to commit sin: we likewise admit that the
doctrine and example of Christ afford us some aid in refraining from
sin, but in addition to their influence we also place the gift of the
Holy Spirit with which God endues us, and which enlightens our
understandings, and confers strength and power upon our will to abstain
from sinning. When Pelagius afterward owned the assistance of divine
power inwardly working in man by the Holy Spirit, he placed it solely in
the enlightening of the understanding: but we believe, that it is not
only necessary for us to know or understand what we ought to do, but
that it is also requisite for us to implore the aid of the Holy Spirit
that we may be rendered capable of performing, and may delight in the
performance of, that which it is our duty to do. Pelagius admitted
grace,--but it has been a question with some whether he meant only
illumination, or, beside this, a power communicated to the will;--he
admitted grace, but he did this only to show that by means of it man can
_with greater ease_ act aright: we, on the contrary, affirm that grace
is bestowed, not that we may be able with greater ease to act aright,
(which is as though we can do this even without grace,) but that grace
is absolutely necessary to enable us to act at all aright. Pelagius
asserted, that man, so far from requiring the aid of grace for the
performance of good actions, is, through the powers implanted in him at
the time of his creation, capable of fulfilling the whole law, of loving
God, and of overcoming all temptations: we, on the contrary, assert that
the grace of God is required for the performance of every act of piety.
Pelagius declared, that by the works of nature man renders himself
worthy of grace: but we, in common with the church universal, condemn
this dogma. When Pelagius afterward himself condemned this tenet, he
understood by _grace_, partly natural grace, which is antecedent to all
merit, and partly remission of sins, which he acknowledged to be
gratuitous; but he added, that through works performed by the powers of
nature alone, at least through the desire of good and the imperfect
longing after it, men merit that spiritual grace by which they are
assisted in good works: but we declare, that men will that which is good
on account of God’s prevenience or going before them by his grace, and
exciting within them a longing after good; otherwise grace would no
longer be grace, because it would not be _gratuitously_ bestowed, but
only _on account of the merit of man_.” That many who have held some
tenets in common with the true Arminians have been, in different
degrees, followers of Pelagius is well known; but the original Arminians
were in truth as far from Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian errors, granting the
opinions of Pelagius to be fairly reported by his adversaries, as the
Calvinists themselves. This is also the case with the whole body of
Wesleyan Methodists, and of the cognate societies to which they have
given rise, both in Great Britain and America.

PELICAN, קאת, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 17; Psa. cii, 7; Isa. xxxiv, 11;
Zeph. ii, 14; a very remarkable aquatic bird, of the size of a large
goose. Its colour is a grayish white, except that the neck looks a
little yellowish, and the middle of the back feathers are blackish. The
bill is long, and hooked at the end, and has under it a lax membrane,
extended to the throat, which makes a bag or sack, capable of holding a
very large quantity. Feeding her young from this bag has so much the
appearance of feeding them with her own blood, that it caused this
fabulous opinion to be propagated, and made the pelican an emblem of
paternal, as the stork had been before chosen, more justly, of filial
affection. The voice of this bird is harsh and dissonant, which some say
resembles that of a man grievously complaining. David compares his
groaning to it, Psalm cii, 7.

PENTATEUCH. This word, which is derived from the Greek Πεντάτευχος, from
ϖέντε, _five_, and τεῦχος, _a volume_, signifies the collection of the
five books of Moses, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. That the Jews have acknowledged the authenticity of the
Pentateuch, from the present time back to the era of their return from
the Babylonish captivity, a period of more than two thousand three
hundred years, admits not a possibility of doubt. The five books of
Moses have been during that period constantly placed at the head of the
Jewish sacred volume, and divided into fixed portions, one of which was
read and explained in their synagogues, not only every Sabbath with the
other Scriptures, but in many places twice a week, and not unfrequently
every evening, when they alone were read. They have been received as
divinely inspired by every Jewish sect, even by the Sadducees, who
questioned the divinity of the remaining works of the Old Testament. In
truth, the veneration of the Jews for their Scriptures, and above all
for the Pentateuch, seems to have risen almost to a superstitious
reverence. Extracts from the Mosaic law were written on pieces of
parchment, and placed on the borders of their garments, or round their
wrists and foreheads: nay, they at a later period counted, with the
minutest exactness, not only the chapters and paragraphs, but the words
and letters, which each book of their Scriptures contains. Thus also the
translation, first of the Pentateuch, and afterward of the remaining
works of the Old Testament, into Greek, for the use of the Alexandrian
Jews, disseminated this sacred volume over a great part of the civilized
world, in the language most universally understood, and rendered it
accessible to the learned and inquisitive in every country; so as to
preclude all suspicion that it could be materially altered by either
Jews or Christians, to support their respective opinions as to the
person and character of the Messiah; the substance of the text being, by
this translation, fixed and authenticated at least two hundred and
seventy years before the appearance of our Lord.

But, long previous to the captivity, two particular examples, deserving
peculiar attention, occur in the Jewish history, of the public and
solemn homage paid to the sacredness of the Mosaic law as promulgated in
the Pentateuch; and which, by consequence, afford the fullest testimony
to the authenticity of the Pentateuch itself: the one in the reign of
Hezekiah, while the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel still
subsisted; and the other in the reign of his great grandson Josiah,
subsequent to the captivity of Israel. In the former we see the pious
monarch of Judah assembling the priests and Levites and the rulers of
the people; to deplore with him the trespasses of their fathers against
the divine law, to acknowledge the justice of those chastisements which,
according to the prophetic warnings of that law, had been inflicted upon
them; to open the house of God which his father had impiously shut, and
restore the true worship therein according to the Mosaic ritual, 2 Kings
xviii; 2 Chron. xxix; xxx; with the minutest particulars of which he
complied, in the sin-offerings and the peace-offerings which, in
conjunction with his people, he offered for the kingdom and the
sanctuary and the people, to make atonement to God for them and for all
Israel; restoring the service of God as it had been performed in the
purest times. And Hezekiah,” says the sacred narrative, rejoiced, and
all the people, that God had prepared the people; for the thing was done
suddenly,” 2 Chron. xxix, 36; immediately on the king’s accession to the
throne, on the first declaration of his pious resolution. How clear a
proof does this exhibit of the previous existence and clearly
acknowledged authority of those laws which the Pentateuch contains!

But a yet more remarkable part of this transaction still remains. At
this time Hoshea was king of Israel, and so far disposed to countenance
the worship of the true God, that he appears to have made no opposition
to the pious zeal of Hezekiah; who, with the concurrence of the whole
congregation which he had assembled, sent out letters and made a
proclamation, not only to his own people of Judah, 2 Chron. xxx, 1, but
to Ephraim and Manasseh and all Israel, from Beersheba even unto Dan,
that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the
passover unto the Lord God of Israel; saying, Ye children of Israel,
turn again to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he will
return to the remnant of you who are escaped out of the hands of the
kings of Assyria; and be not ye like your fathers and your brethren,
which trespassed against the Lord God of their fathers, who therefore
gave them up to desolation as ye see. Now be ye not stiff-necked, as
your fathers were; but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into
his sanctuary which he hath sanctified for ever, and serve the Lord your
God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. So the
posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and
Manasseh even unto Zebulun,” 2 Chron. xxx, 6, &c.

Now, can we conceive that such an attempt as this could have been made,
if the Pentateuch containing the Mosaic code had not been as certainly
recognized through the ten tribes of Israel as in the kingdom of Judah?
The success was exactly such as we might reasonably expect if it were so
acknowledged; for, though many of the ten tribes laughed to scorn and
mocked the messengers of Hezekiah, who invited them to the solemnity of
the passover, from the impious contempt which through long disuse they
had conceived for it; Nevertheless,” says the sacred narrative, divers
of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to
Jerusalem; and there assembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the
feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great
congregation; and they killed the passover, and the priests and Levites
stood in their places after their manner, according to the law of Moses,
the man of God. So there was great joy in Jerusalem; for since the time
of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, there was not the like at
Jerusalem: and when all this was finished, all Israel that were present
went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut
down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of
all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had
utterly destroyed them all,” 2 Chronicles xxx, 11; xxxi. Can any clearer
proof than this be desired of the constant and universal acknowledgment
of the divine authority of the Pentateuch throughout the entire nation
of the Jews, notwithstanding the idolatries and corruptions which so
often prevented its receiving such obedience as that acknowledgment
ought to have produced? The argument from this certain antiquity of the
Pentateuch, a copy of which existed in the old Samaritan character as
well as in the modern Hebrew, is most conclusive as to the numerous
prophecies of Christ, and the future and present condition of the Jews
which it contains. These are proved to have been delivered many ages
before they were accomplished; they could be only the result of divine
prescience, and the uttering of them by Moses proves therefore the
inspiration and the authority of his writings. See LAW and MOSES.

PENTECOST, Πεντεκοϛὴ, a solemn festival of the Jews; so called, because
it was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the sixteenth of Nisan,
which was the second day of the passover. The Hebrews call it the feast
of weeks, because it was kept seven weeks after the passover. They then
offered the first fruits of the wheat harvest, which was then completed;
beside which, they presented at the temple seven lambs of that year, one
calf, and two rams for a burnt-offering; two lambs for a peace-offering;
and a goat for a sin-offering, Lev. xxiii, 15, 16; Exod. xxxiv, 22;
Deut. xvi, 9, 10. The feast of pentecost was instituted among the
Israelites, first, to oblige them to repair to the temple of the Lord,
there to acknowledge his absolute dominion over the whole country, by
offering him the first fruits of the harvest; and, secondly, to
commemorate and give thanks to God for the law which he had given them
from Sinai, on the fiftieth day after their coming out of Egypt. The
modern Jews celebrate the pentecost for two days. They deck the
synagogues, where the law is read, and their own houses, with garlands
of flowers. They hear an oration in praise of the law, and read from the
Pentateuch and prophets lessons which have a relation to this festival,
and accommodate their prayers to the same occasion. It was on the feast
of pentecost that the Holy Ghost descended in the miraculous manner
related, Acts ii.

PERGAMUS, a city of Troas, very considerable in the time of John the
evangelist, Rev. ii, 12, 13. This city was, for the space of one hundred
and fifty years, the capital of a kingdom of the same name founded by
Philetærus, B. C. 283; who treacherously made use of the treasures
committed to his care by Lysimachus after the battle of Ipsus, and,
seizing on Pergamus, established an independent kingdom. After
Philetærus were five kings of the same race; the last of whom, Attalus
Philopater, left his kingdom, which comprehended Mysia, Æolis, Ionia,
Lydia, and Caria, to the Roman empire; to which it belonged when the
first Christian church was established there. This church early became
corrupted by the Nicolaitans, for which it was reproved by St. John, and
charged quickly to repent, Rev. ii, 14–16. Pergamus, now called Bergamo,
like most other places which have been cursed by the presence of the
Turks, is reduced to comparative decay, containing a poor population,
who are too indolent or too oppressed to profit by the richness of their
soil and the beauty of the climate. The number of inhabitants, however,
is still said to amount to thirty thousand, of whom three thousand are
Greek Christians. Many remains of former magnificence are still to be
found; among which are those of several Christian churches. It is about
sixty miles north of Smyrna. The celebrated physician Galen was a native
of this place.

PERIZZITES. The ancient inhabitants of Palestine, mingled with the
Canaanites. There is also a great probability that they themselves were
Canaanites, but, having no fixed habitations, were wandering about here
and there, and scattered over all the country. Thus, in the time of
Abraham and Lot, the Canaanite and Perizzite were in the land, Gen.
xiii, 7; Josh. xvii, 15. Solomon subdued the remains of the Canaanites
and Perizzites, which the children of Israel had not rooted out, and
made them tributary to him, 1 Kings ix, 20, 21; 2 Chron. viii, 7. There
still remained some of this people as late as the time of Ezra, ix, 1.

PERSECUTION is any pain or affliction which a person designedly inflicts
upon another; and, in a more restrained sense, the sufferings of
Christians on account of their religion. The establishment of
Christianity was opposed by the powers of the world, and occasioned
several severe persecutions against Christians, during the reigns of
several Roman emperors. Though the absurdities of polytheism were openly
derided and exposed by the Apostles and their successors, yet it does
not appear that any public laws were enacted against Christianity till
the reign of Nero, A. D. 64, by which time it had acquired considerable
stability and extent. As far the greater number of the first converts to
Christianity were of the Jewish nation, one secondary cause for their
being so long preserved from persecution may probably be deduced from
their appearing to the Roman governors only as a sect of Jews, who had
seceded from the rest of their brethren on account of some opinion,
trifling in its importance, and perhaps difficult to be understood. Nor,
when their brethren were fully discovered to have cast off the religion
of the synagogue, did the Jews find it easy to infuse into the breasts
of the Roman magistrates that rancour and malice which they themselves
experienced. But the steady and uniform opposition made by the
Christians to Heathen superstition could not long pass unnoticed. Their
open attacks upon Paganism made them extremely obnoxious to the
populace, by whom they were represented as a society of atheists, who,
by attacking the religious constitution of the empire, merited the
severest animadversion of the civil magistrate. Horrid tales of their
abominations were circulated throughout the empire; and the minds of the
Pagans were, from all these circumstances, prepared to regard with
pleasure or indifference every cruelty which could be inflicted upon
this despised sect. Historians usually reckon ten general persecutions.

_First general persecution._--Nero selected the Christians as a grateful
sacrifice to the Roman people, and endeavoured to transfer to this hated
sect the guilt of which he was strongly suspected; that of having caused
and enjoyed the fire which had nearly desolated the city. (See _Nero_.)
This persecution was not confined to Rome: the emperor issued edicts
against the Christians throughout most of the provinces of the empire.
He was far, however, from obtaining the object of his hopes and
expectations; and the virtues of the Christians, their zeal for the
truth, and their constancy in suffering, must have considerably
contributed to make their tenets more generally known.

_Second general persecution._--From the death of Nero to the reign of
Domitian, the Christians remained unmolested and daily increasing; but
toward the close of the first century, they were again involved in all
the horrors of persecution. In this persecution many eminent Christians
suffered; but the death of Domitian soon delivered them from this
calamity.

_Third general persecution._--This persecution began in the third year
of the Emperor Trajan, A. D. 100. Many things contributed toward it; as
the laws of the empire, the emperor’s zeal for his religion, and
aversion to Christianity, and the prejudices of the Pagans, supported by
falsehoods and calumnies against the Christians. Under the plausible
pretence of their holding illegal meetings and societies, they were
severely persecuted by the governors and other officers; in which
persecution great numbers fell by the rage of popular tumult, as well as
by laws and processes. This persecution continued several years, with
different degrees of severity in many parts of the empire; and was so
much the more afflicting, because the Christians generally suffered
under the notion of malefactors and traitors, and under an emperor famed
for his singular justice and moderation. The most noted martyr in this
persecution was Clement, bishop of Rome. After some time the fury of
this persecution was abated, but did not cease during the whole reign of
Trajan. In the eighth year of his successor Adrian, it broke out with
new rage. This is by some called the fourth general persecution; but is
more commonly considered as a revival or continuance of the third.

_Fourth general persecution._--This took place under Antoninus the
philosopher; and at different places, with several intermissions, and
different degrees of severity, it continued the greater part of his
reign. Antoninus himself has been much excused as to this persecution.
As the character of the virtuous Trajan, however, is sullied by the
martyrdom of Ignatius, so the reign of the philosophic Marcus is for
ever disgraced by the sacrifice of the venerable Polycarp, bishop of
Smyrna, the friend and companion of St. John. A few days previous to his
death, he is said to have dreamed that his pillow was on fire. When
urged by the proconsul to renounce Christ, he replied, Fourscore and six
years have I served him, and he has never done me an injury: can I
blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” Several miracles are reported to have
happened at his death. The flames, as if unwilling to injure his sacred
person, are said to have arched over his head; and it is added, that at
length, being despatched with a sword, a dove flew out of the wound; and
that from the pile proceeded a most fragrant smell. It is obvious that
the arching of the flames might be an accidental effect, which the
enthusiastic veneration of his disciples might convert into a miracle;
and as to the story of the dove, &c, Eusebius himself apparently did not
credit it; since he has omitted it in his narrative of the transaction.
Among many other victims of persecution in this philosophic reign, we
must also record that of the excellent and learned Justin. But it was at
Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, that the most shocking scenes were acted.
Among many nameless sufferers, history has preserved from oblivion
Pothinus, the respectable bishop of Lyons, who was then more than ninety
years of age; Sanctus, a deacon of Vienne; Attalus, a native of
Pergamus; Maturus, and Alexander; some of whom were devoured by wild
beasts, and some of them tortured in an iron chair made red hot. Some
females, also, and particularly Biblias and Blandina, reflected honour
both upon their sex and religion by their constancy and courage.

_Fifth general persecution._--A considerable part of the reign of
Severus proved so far favourable to the Christians, that no additions
were made to the severe edicts already in force against them. For this
lenity they were probably indebted to Proculus, a Christian, who, in a
very extraordinary manner, cured the emperor of a dangerous distemper by
the application of oil. But this degree of peace, precarious as it was,
and frequently interrupted by the partial execution of severe laws, was
terminated by an edict, A. D. 197, which prohibited every subject of the
empire, under severe penalties, from embracing the Jewish or Christian
faith. This law appears, upon a first view, designed merely to impede
the farther progress of Christianity; but it incited the magistracy to
enforce the laws of former emperors, which were still existing, against
the Christians; and during seven years they were exposed to a rigorous
persecution in Palestine, Egypt, the rest of Africa, Italy, Gaul, and
other parts. In this persecution Leonidas, the father of Origen, and
Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, suffered martyrdom. On this occasion
Tertullian composed his Apology.” The violence of Pagan intolerance was
most severely felt in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria.

_Sixth general persecution._--This persecution began with the reign of
the Emperor Maximinus, A. D. 235, and seems to have arisen from that
prince’s hatred to his predecessor, Alexander, in whose family many
Christians had found shelter and patronage. Though this persecution was
very severe in some places, yet we have the names of only a few martyrs.
Origen at this time was very industrious in supporting the Christians
under these fiery trials.

_Seventh general persecution._--This was the most dreadful persecution
that ever had been known in the church. During the short reign of
Decius, the Christians were exposed to greater calamities than any they
had hitherto suffered. It has been said, and with some probability, that
the Christians were involved in this persecution by their attachment to
the family of the Emperor Philip. Considerable numbers were publicly
destroyed; several purchased safety by bribes, or secured it by flight;
and many deserted from the faith, and willingly consented to burn
incense on the altars of the gods. The city of Alexandria, the great
theatre of persecution, had even anticipated the edicts of the emperor,
and had put to death a number of innocent persons, among whom were some
women. The imperial edict for persecuting the Christians was published
A. D. 249; and shortly after, Fabianus, bishop of Rome, with a number of
his followers, was put to death. The venerable bishops of Jerusalem and
Antioch died in prison, the most cruel tortures were employed, and the
numbers that perished are by all parties confessed to have been very
considerable.

_Eighth general persecution._--The Emperor Valerian, in the fourth year
of his reign, A. D. 257, listening to the suggestions of Macrinus, a
magician of Egypt, was prevailed upon to persecute the Christians, on
pretence that by their wicked and execrable charms they hindered the
prosperity of the emperor. Macrinus advised him to perform many impious
rites, sacrifices, and incantations; to cut the throats of infants, &c;
and edicts were published in all places against the Christians, who were
exposed without protection to the common rage. We have the names of
several martyrs, among whom were the famous St. Laurence, archdeacon of
Rome, and the great St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage.

_Ninth general persecution._--This persecution took place under the
Emperor Aurelian, A. D. 274; but it was so small and inconsiderable,
that it gave little interruption to the peace of the church.

_Tenth general persecution._--The tenth and last general persecution of
the Christians began in the nineteenth year of the Emperor Diocletian,
A. D. 303. The most violent promoters of it were Hierocles the
philosopher, who wrote against the Christian religion, and Galerius,
whom Diocletian had declared Cæsar. This latter was excited not only by
his own cruelty and superstition, but likewise by his mother, who was a
zealous Pagan. Diocletian, contrary to his inclination, was prevailed
upon to authorize the persecution by his edicts. Accordingly, it began
in the city of Nicomedia, whence it spread into other cities and
provinces, and became at last universal. Great numbers of Christians
suffered the severest tortures in this persecution, though the accounts
given of it by succeeding historians are probably exaggerated. There is,
however, sufficient of well authenticated facts to assure us amply of
the cruel and intolerant disposition of the professors of Pagan
philosophy. The human imagination was, indeed, almost exhausted in
inventing a variety of tortures. Some were impaled alive; some had their
limbs broken, and in that condition were left to expire. Some were
roasted by slow fires; and some suspended by their feet with their heads
downward, and, a fire being placed under them, were suffocated by the
smoke. Some had melted lead poured down their throats, and the flesh of
some was torn off with shells, and others had splinters of reeds thrust
under the nails of their fingers and toes. The few who were not
capitally punished had their limbs and their features mutilated. It
would be endless to enumerate the victims of superstition. The bishops
of Nicomedia, of Tyre, of Sidon, of Emesa, several matrons and virgins
of the purest character, and a nameless number of plebians, arrived at
immortality through the flames of martyrdom. At last it pleased God that
the Emperor Constantine, who himself afterward became a Christian,
openly declared for the Christians, and published the first law in
favour of them. The death of Maximin, emperor of the east, soon after
put a period to all their troubles; and this was the great epoch when
Christianity triumphantly got possession of the thrones of princes.

The guilt of persecution has, however, been attached to professing
Christians. Had men been guided solely by the spirit and the precepts of
the Gospel, the conduct of its blessed Author, and the writings and
example of his immediate disciples, we might have boldly affirmed that
among Christians there could be no tendency to encroach upon freedom of
discussion, and no approach to persecution. The Gospel, in every page of
it, inculcates tenderness and mercy; it exhibits the most unwearied
indulgence to the frailties and errors of men; and it represents charity
as the badge of those who in sincerity profess it. In St. Paul’s
inimitable description of this grace he has drawn a picture of mutual
forbearance and kindness and toleration, upon which it is scarcely
possible to dwell, without being raised superior to every contracted
sentiment, and glowing with the most diffusive benevolence. In the
churches which he planted he had often to counteract the efforts of
teachers who had laboured to subvert the foundation which he had laid,
to misrepresent his motives, and to inculcate doctrines which, through
the inspiration that was imparted to him, he discerned to proceed from
the most perverted views, and to be inconsistent with the great designs
of the Gospel. These teachers he strenuously and conscientiously
opposed; he endeavoured to show the great importance of those to whom he
wrote being on their guard against them; and he evinced the most ardent
zeal in resisting their insidious purposes: but he never, in the most
distant manner, insinuated that they should be persecuted, adhering
always to the maxim which he had laid down, that the weapons of a
Christian’s warfare are not carnal but spiritual. He does, indeed,
sometimes speak of heretics; and he even exhorts that, after
expostulation with him, a heretic should be rejected, and not
acknowledged to be a member of the church to which he had once belonged.
But that precept of the Apostle has no reference to the persecution
which it has sometimes been conceived to sanction, and which has been
generally directed against men quite sincere in their belief, however
erroneous that belief may be esteemed.

Upon a subject thus enforced by precept and example, it is not to be
supposed that the first converts, deriving their notions of Christianity
immediately from our Lord or his Apostles, could have any opinion
different in theory, at least, from that which has been now established.
Accordingly, we find that the primitive fathers, although, in many
respects, they erred, unequivocally express themselves in favour of the
most ample liberty as to religious sentiment, and highly disapprove of
every attempt to control it. Passages from many of these writers might
be quoted to establish that this was almost the universal sentiment till
the age of Constantine. Lactantius in particular has, with great force
and beauty, delivered his opinion against persecution: There is no need
of compulsion and violence, because religion cannot be forced; and men
must be made willing, not by stripes, but by arguments. Slaughter and
piety are quite opposite to each other; nor can truth consist with
violence, or justice with cruelty. They are convinced that nothing is
more excellent than religion, and therefore think that it ought to be
defended with force; but they are mistaken, both in the nature of
religion, and in proper methods to support it; for religion is to be
defended, not by murder, but by persuasion; not by cruelty, but by
patience; not by wickedness, but by faith. If you attempt to defend
religion by blood, and torments, and evil, this is not to defend, but to
violate and pollute it; for there is nothing that should be more free
than the choice of religion, in which, if consent be wanting, it becomes
entirely void and ineffectual.”

The general conduct of Christians during the first three centuries was
in conformity with the admirable maxims now quoted. Eusebius has
recorded that Polycarp, after in vain endeavouring to persuade Anicetus,
who was bishop of Rome, to embrace his opinion as to some point with
respect to which they differed, gave him, notwithstanding, the kiss of
peace, while Anicetus communicated with the martyr; and Irenæus mentions
that although Polycarp was much offended with the Gnostic heretics, who
abounded in his days, he converted numbers of them, not by the
application of constraint or violence, but by the facts and arguments
which he calmly submitted for their consideration. It must be admitted,
however, that even during the second century some traces of persecution
are to be found. Victor, one of the early pontiffs, because the Asiatic
bishops differed from him about the rule for the observation of Easter,
excommunicated them as guilty of heresy; and he acted in the same manner
toward a person who held what he considered as erroneous notions
respecting the trinity. This stretch of authority was, indeed,
reprobated by the generality of Christians, and remonstrances against it
were accordingly presented. There was, however, in this proceeding of
Victor, too clear a proof that the church was beginning to deviate from
the perfect charity by which it had been adorned, and too sure an
indication that the example of one who held so high an office, when it
was in harmony with the corruption or with the worst passions of our
nature, would be extensively followed. But still there was, in the
excommunication rashly pronounced by the pope, merely an exertion of
ecclesiastical power, not interfering with the personal security, with
the property, or with the lives of those against whom it was directed;
and we may, notwithstanding this slight exception, consider the first
three centuries as marked by the candour and the benevolence implied in
the charity which judgeth not, and thinketh no evil.

It was after Christianity had been established as the religion of the
empire, and after wealth and honour had been conferred on its ministers,
that the monstrous evil of persecution acquired gigantic strength, and
threw its blasting influence over the religion of the Gospel. The causes
of this are apparent. Men exalted in the scale of society were eager to
extend the power which had been intrusted to them; and they sought to do
so by exacting from the people acquiescence in the peculiar
interpretations of tenets and doctrines which they chose to publish as
articles of faith. The moment that this was attempted, the foundation
was laid for the most inflexible intolerance; because reluctance to
submit was no longer regarded solely as a matter of conscience, but as
interfering with the interest and the dominion of the ruling party. It
was therefore proceeded against with all the eagerness which men so
unequivocally display when the temporal blessings that gratify their
ambition or add to their comfort are attempted to be wrested from them.
To other dictates than those of the word of God the members of the
church now listened; and opinions were viewed, not in reference to that
word, but to the effect which they might produce upon the worldly
advancement or prosperity of those by whom they were avowed. From the
era, then, of the conversion of Constantine we may date, if not
altogether the introduction, at least the decisive influence of
persecution.

PERSIA, an ancient kingdom of Asia, bounded on the north by Media, on
the west by Susiana, on the east by Carmania, and on the south by the
Persian Gulf. The Persians became very famous from the time of Cyrus,
the founder of the Persian monarchy. Their ancient name was Elamites,
and in the time of the Roman emperors they went by the name of
Parthians; but now Persians. See CYRUS; and for the religion of the
ancient Persians, MAGI.

PESTILENCE, or plague, generally is used by the Hebrews for all epidemic
or contagious diseases. The prophets usually connect together sword,
pestilence, and famine, being three of the most grievous inflictions of
the Almighty upon a guilty people. See DISEASES.

PETER, the great Apostle of the circumcision, was the son of Jona, and
born at Bethsaida, a town situated on the western shore of the lake of
Gennesareth, but in what particular year we are not informed, John i,
42, 43. His original name was Simon or Simeon, which his divine Master,
when he called him to the Apostleship, changed for that of Cephas, a
Syriac word signifying _a stone_ or _rock_; in Latin, _petra_, from
whence is derived the term Peter. He was a married man, and had his
house, his mother-in-law, and his wife, at Capernaum, on the lake of
Gennesareth, Matt. viii, 14; Mark i, 29; Luke iv, 38. He had also a
brother of the name of Andrew, who had been a disciple of John the
Baptist, and was called to the knowledge of the Saviour prior to
himself. Andrew was present when the venerable Baptist pointed his
disciples to Jesus, and added, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world;” and, meeting Simon shortly afterward, said, We
have found the Messiah,” and then brought him to Jesus, John i, 41. When
the two brothers had passed one day with the Lord Jesus, they took their
leave of him, and returned to their ordinary occupation of fishing. This
appears to have taken place in the thirtieth year of the Christian era.
Toward the end of the same year, as Jesus was one morning standing on
the shore of the lake of Gennesareth, he saw Andrew and Peter engaged
about their employment. They had been fishing during the whole night,
but without the smallest success; and, after this fruitless expedition,
were in the act of washing their nets, Luke v, 1–3. Jesus entered into
their boat, and bade Peter throw out his net into the sea, which he did;
and now, to his astonishment, the multitude of fishes was so immense
that their own vessel, and that of the sons of Zebedee, were filled with
them. Peter evidently saw there was something supernatural in this, and,
throwing himself at the feet of Jesus, he exclaimed, Depart from me, O
Lord, for I am a sinful man.” The miracle was no doubt intended for a
sign to the four disciples of what success should afterward follow their
ministry in preaching the doctrine of his kingdom; and therefore Jesus
said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men;” on which
they quitted their boats and nets, and thenceforth became the constant
associates of the Saviour, during the whole of his public ministry, Luke
xviii, 28.

From the instant of his entering upon the apostolic office, we find St.
Peter on almost every occasion evincing the strength of his faith in
Jesus as the Messiah, and the most extraordinary zeal in his service, of
which many examples are extant in the Gospels. When Jesus in private
asked his disciples, first, what opinion the people entertained of him;
next, what was their own opinion: Simon Peter answered and said, Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matt. xvi, 16. Having
received this answer, Jesus declared Peter blessed on account of his
faith; and in allusion to the signification of his name, added, Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and I will give thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth,” &c. Many think these things were spoken to St. Peter alone, for
the purpose of conferring on him privileges and powers not granted to
the rest of the Apostles. But others, with more reason, suppose that,
though Jesus directed his discourse to St. Peter, it was intended for
them all; and that the honours and powers granted to St. Peter by name
were conferred on them all equally. For no one will say that Christ’s
church was built upon St. Peter singly: it was built on the foundation
of all the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone. As little can any one say that the power of binding and
loosing was confined to St. Peter, seeing it was declared afterward to
belong to all the Apostles, Matt. xviii, 18; John xx, 23. To these
things add this, that as St. Peter made his confession in answer to a
question which Jesus put to all the Apostles, that confession was
certainly made in the name of the whole; and, therefore, what Jesus said
to him in reply was designed for the whole without distinction;
excepting this, which was peculiar to him, that he was to be the first
who, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, should preach the Gospel to
the Jews, and then to the Gentiles: an honour which was conferred on St.
Peter in the expression, I will give thee the keys,” &c.

St. Peter was one of the three Apostles whom Jesus admitted to witness
the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter, and before whom he was
transfigured, and with whom he retired to pray in the garden the night
before he suffered. He was the person who in the fervour of his zeal for
his Master cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave, when the armed
band came to apprehend him. Yet this same Peter, a few hours after that,
denied his Master three different times in the high priest’s palace, and
that with oaths. In the awful defection of the Apostle on this occasion
we have melancholy proof of the power of human depravity even in
regenerate men, and of the weakness of human resolutions when left to
ourselves. St. Peter was fully warned by his divine Master of his
approaching danger; but confident in his own strength, he declared
himself ready to accompany his Lord to prison and even to judgment.
After the third denial Jesus turned and looked upon Peter;” that look
pierced him to the heart; and, stung with deep remorse, he went out, and
wept bitterly.” St. Peter, however, obtained forgiveness; and, when
Jesus had risen from the dead, he ordered the glad tidings of his
resurrection to be conveyed to St. Peter by name: Go tell my disciples
and Peter,” Mark xvi, 8. He afterward received repeated assurances of
his Saviour’s love, and from that time uniformly showed the greatest
zeal and fortitude in his Master’s service.

Soon after our Lord’s ascension, in a numerous assembly of the Apostles
and brethren, St. Peter gave it as his opinion, that one should be
chosen to be an Apostle in the room of Judas. To this they all agreed;
and, by lot, chose Matthias, whom on that occasion they numbered with
the eleven Apostles. On the day of pentecost following, when the Holy
Spirit fell on the Apostles and disciples, St. Peter, standing up with
the eleven, lifted up his voice; that is, St. Peter, rising up, spake
with a loud voice, in the name of the Apostles, as he had done on
various occasions in his Master’s lifetime, and gave the multitude an
account of that great miracle, Acts ii, 14. St. Peter now began to
experience the fulfilment of Christ’s promise to make him a fisher of
men, and also that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
His sermon on this occasion produced an abundant harvest of converts to
Christ. Three thousand of his audience were pricked to the heart, and
cried out, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” St. Peter proclaimed to
them the riches of pardoning mercy through the divine blood of the Son
of God; and they that gladly received his doctrine were baptized and
added to the church, Acts ii, 37–43. The effects produced on the mind of
this great Apostle of the circumcision by the resurrection of his divine
Master, and the consequent effusion of the Holy Spirit, were evidently
of the most extraordinary kind, and such as it is impossible to account
for upon natural principles. He was raised superior to all
considerations of personal danger and the fear of man. And though all
the Apostles could now say, God hath not given us the spirit of fear,
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind;” yet an attentive reader
of the Acts of the Apostles cannot fail to perceive that upon almost
every occasion of difficulty St. Peter is exhibited to our view as
standing foremost in the rank of Apostles. When St. Peter and John were
brought before the council to be examined concerning the miracle wrought
on the impotent man, St. Peter spake. It was St. Peter who questioned
Ananias and Sapphira about the price of their lands; and, for their
lying in that matter, punished them miraculously with death. It is
remarkable, also, that although by the hands of the Apostles many signs
and wonders were wrought, it was by St. Peter’s shadow alone that the
sick, who were laid in the streets of Jerusalem, were healed as he
passed by. Lastly: It was St. Peter who replied to the council in the
name of the Apostles, not obeying their command to preach no more in the
name of Jesus.

St. Peter’s fame was now become so great, that the brethren of Joppa,
hearing of his being in Lydda, and of his having cured Eneas
miraculously of a palsy, sent, desiring him to come and restore a
disciple to life, named Tabitha, which he did. During his abode in
Joppa, the Roman centurion, Cornelius, directed by an angel, sent for
him to come and preach to him. On that occasion the Holy Ghost fell on
Cornelius and his company, while St. Peter spake. St. Peter, by his zeal
and success in preaching the Gospel, having attracted the notice of the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, Herod Agrippa, who, to please the Jews, had
killed St. James, the brother of St. John, still farther to gratify
them, cast St. Peter into prison. But an angel brought him out; after
which he concealed himself in the city, or in some neighbouring town,
till Herod’s death, which happened about the end of the year. Some
learned men think St. Peter at that time went to Antioch or to Rome. But
if he had gone to any celebrated city, St. Luke, as L’Enfant observes,
would probably have mentioned it. Beside, we find him in the council of
Jerusalem, which met not long after this to determine the famous
question concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles. The council being
ended, St. Peter went to Antioch, where he gave great offence, by
refusing to eat with the converted Gentiles. But St. Paul withstood him
to the face, rebuking him before the whole church for his pusillanimity
and hypocrisy, Gal. ii, 11–21.

In the Acts of the Apostles, no mention is made of St. Peter after the
council of Jerusalem. But from Gal. ii, 11, it appears that after that
council he was with St. Paul at Antioch. He is likewise mentioned by St.
Paul, 1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 22. It is generally supposed that after St.
Peter was at Antioch with St. Paul, he returned to Jerusalem. What
happened to him after that is not told in the Scriptures. But Eusebius
informs us that Origen wrote to this purpose: St. Peter is supposed to
have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; and at length, coming to Rome, was
crucified with his head downward.

We are indebted to this Apostle for two epistles, which constitute a
valuable part of the inspired writings. The first epistle of St. Peter
has always been considered as canonical; and in proof of its genuineness
we may observe that it is referred to by Clement of Rome, Hermas, and
Polycarp; that, we are assured by Eusebius, that it was quoted by
Papias; and that it is expressly mentioned by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and most of the later fathers. The
authority of the second epistle of St. Peter was for some time disputed,
as we learn from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom; but since the fourth
century it has been universally received, except by the Syriac
Christians. It is addressed to the same persons as the former epistle,
and the design of it was to encourage them to adhere to the genuine
faith and practice of the Gospel.

PETHOR, a city of Mesopotamia, of which the Prophet Balaam was a native.
The Hebrews call this city Pethura. Ptolemy calls it Pachora; and
Eusebius, Pathara. He places it in the Upper Mesopotamia.

PHARAOH, a common name of the kings of Egypt. We meet with it as early
as Gen. xii, 15. Josephus says, that all the kings of Egypt, from
Minæus, the founder of Memphis, who lived several ages before Abraham,
always had the name of Pharaoh, down to the time of Solomon, for more
than three thousand three hundred years. He adds, that, in the Egyptian
language, the word Pharaoh means _king_, and that these princes did not
assume the name until they ascended the throne, at which time they
quitted their former name.

PHARISEES, a sect of the Jews. The earliest mention of them is by
Josephus, who tells us that they were a sect of considerable weight when
John Hyrcanus was high priest, B. C. 108. They were the most numerous,
distinguished, and popular sect among the Jews. The time when they first
appeared is not known, but it is supposed to have been not long after
the institution of the Sadducees, if, indeed the two sects did not
gradually spring up together. They derived their name from the Hebrew
word _pharash_, which signifies separated,” or set apart;” because they
separated themselves from the rest of the Jews to superior strictness in
religious observances. They boasted that, from their accurate knowledge
of religion, they were the favourites of Heaven; and thus, trusting in
themselves that they were righteous, despised others, Luke xi, 52;
xviii, 9, 11. Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate
the following: namely, they ascribed all things to fate or providence;
yet not so absolutely as to take away the free will of man; for fate
does not coöperate in every action, Acts v, 38, 39. They also believed
in the existence of angels and spirits, and in the resurrection of the
dead; Acts xxiii, 8. Lastly: the Pharisees contended that God stood
engaged to bless the Jews, to make them all partakers of the terrestrial
kingdom of the Messiah, to justify them, and make them eternally happy.
The cause of their justification they derived from the merits of
Abraham, from their knowledge of God, from their practising the rite of
circumcision, and from the sacrifices they offered. And as they
conceived works to be meritorious, they had invented a great number of
supererogatory ones, to which they attached greater merit than to the
observance of the law itself. To this notion St. Paul has some allusions
in those parts of his Epistle to the Romans, in which be combats the
erroneous suppositions of the Jews, Rom. i-xi.

The Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that
divided the Jewish nation, Acts xxvi, 5, and affected a singular probity
of manners according to their system; which, however, was, for the most
part, both lax and corrupt. Thus many things which Moses had tolerated
in civil life, in order to avoid a greater evil, the Pharisees
determined to be morally right: for instance, the law of divorce from a
wife for any cause, Matt. v, 31, &c; xix, 3–12. (See _Divorce_.)
Farther: they interpreted certain of the Mosaic laws most literally, and
distorted their meaning so as to favour their own selfish system. Thus,
the law of loving their neighbour, they expounded solely of the love of
their friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other persons
being considered by them as natural enemies, whom they were in no
respect bound to assist, Matt. v, 43; Luke x, 31–33. They also trifled
with oaths. Dr. Lightfoot has cited a striking illustration of this from
Maimonides. An oath, in which the name of God was not distinctly
specified, they taught was not binding, Matt. v, 33; maintaining that a
man might even swear with his lips, and at the same time annul it in his
heart! And yet so rigorously did they understand the command of
observing the Sabbath day, that they accounted it unlawful to pluck ears
of corn, and heal the sick, &c, Matt. xii; Luke vi, 6, &c; xiv. Many
moral rules they accounted inferior to the ceremonial laws, to the total
neglect of mercy and fidelity, Matt. v, 19; xv, 4; xxiii, 23. Hence they
accounted causeless anger and impure desires as trifles of no moment,
Matt. v, 21, 22, 27–30; they compassed sea and land to make proselytes
to the Jewish religion from among the Gentiles, that they might rule
over their consciences and wealth; and these proselytes, through the
influence of their own scandalous examples and characters, they soon
rendered more profligate and abandoned than ever they were before their
conversion, Matt. xxiii, 15. Esteeming temporal happiness and riches as
the highest good, they scrupled not to accumulate wealth by every means,
legal or illegal, Matt. v, 1–12; xxiii, 5; Luke xvi, 14; James ii, 1–8;
vain and ambitious of popular applause, they offered up long prayers in
public places, but not without self-complacency in their own holiness,
Matt. vi, 2–5; Luke xviii, 11; under a sanctimonious appearance of
respect for the memories of the prophets whom their ancestors had slain,
they repaired and beautified their sepulchres, Matt. xxiii, 29; and such
was their idea of their own sanctity, that they thought themselves
defiled if they but touched or conversed with sinners, that is, with
publicans or tax-gatherers, and persons of loose and irregular lives,
Luke vii, 39; xv, 1.

But, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conspicuous for
their reverential observance of the traditions or decrees of the elders:
these traditions, they pretended, had been handed down from Moses
through every generation, but were not committed to writing; and they
were not merely considered as of equal authority with the divine law,
but even preferable to it. The words of the scribes,” said they, are
lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty
and light, but the words of the scribes are _all_ weighty.” Among the
traditions thus sanctimoniously observed by the Pharisees, we may
briefly notice the following: the washing of hands up to the wrist
before and after meat, Matthew xv, 2; Mark vii, 3; which they accounted
not merely a religious duty, but considered its omission as a crime
equal to fornication, and punishable by excommunication: the
purification of the cups, vessels, and couches used at their meals by
ablutions or washings, Mark vii, 4; for which purpose the six large
water pots mentioned by St. John, ii, 6, were destined: their fasting
twice a week with great appearance of austerity, Luke xviii, 12; Matt.
vi, 16; thus converting that exercise into religion which is only a help
toward the performance of its hallowed duties: their punctilious payment
of tithes, (temple-offerings,) even of the most trifling things, Luke
xviii, 12; Matt. xxiii, 23. And their wearing broader phylacteries and
larger fringes to their garments than the rest of the Jews, Matt. xxiii,
5. See PHYLACTERIES.

With all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the most
sovereign contempt for the people; whom, being ignorant of the law, they
pronounced to be accursed, John vii, 49. Yet such was the esteem and
veneration in which they were held by the populace, that they may almost
be said to have given what direction they pleased to public affairs; and
hence the great men dreaded their power and authority. It is
unquestionable, as Mosheim has well remarked, that the religion of the
Pharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and
that, at the bottom, they were generally the slaves of every vicious
appetite, proud, arrogant, and avaricious, consulting only the
gratification of their lusts, even at the very moment when they
professed themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker. These
odious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be
reprehended by our Saviour with the utmost severity, even more so than
the Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine
principles of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by a pretended
sanctity, or devote themselves with insatiate greediness to the
acquisition of honours and riches. A few, and a few only of the sect of
the Pharisees in those times, might be of better character,--men who,
though self-righteous and deluded and bigoted, were not like the rest,
hypocritical. Of this number was Saul of Tarsus; but as a body their
attachment to traditions; their passionate expectation of deliverance
from the Roman yoke by the Messiah, and the splendour of his civil
reign, their pride, and above all their vices, sufficiently account for
that unconquerable unbelief which had possessed their minds as to the
claims of Christ, and their resistance to the evidence of his miracles.
The sect of the Pharisees was not extinguished by the ruin of the Jewish
commonwealth. The greater part of the Jews are still Pharisees, being as
much devoted to traditions, or the oral law, as their ancestors were.

PHARPAR. See ABANA.

PHEBE, a deaconess of the port of Corinth, called Cenchrea. St. Paul had
a particular esteem for this holy woman; and Theodoret thinks the
Apostle lodged at her house for some time, while he continued in or near
Corinth. It is thought she carried the epistle to Rome, which he wrote
to the church of that city, in which she is so highly commended, Rom.
xvi, 1, 2. It is thought that, in quality of deaconess, she was employed
by the church in some ministrations suitable to her sex and condition;
as to visit and instruct the Christian women, and attend them in their
sickness, and distribute alms to them in their necessities.

PHENICIA, a province of Syria, the limits of which have been differently
represented. Sometimes it has been defined as extending from north to
south, from Orthosia as far as Pelusium. At other times its southern
limit is said to have been Mount Carmel and Ptolemais. It is certain
that, from the conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews, its limits were
narrow, containing no part of the country of the Philistines, which
occupied all the coast from Mount Carmel along the Mediterranean, as far
as the borders of Egypt. It had also very little extent on the land
side, because the Israelites, who possessed all Galilee, confined it to
the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The chief cities of Phenicia were
Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Ecdippe, Sarepta, Berythe, Biblos, Tripoli,
Orthosia, Simira, Aradus. They formerly had possession of some cities in
Libanus: and sometimes the Greek authors comprehend all Judea under the
name of Phenicia. Phenicia may be considered as the birthplace of
commerce, if not also of letters and the arts. It was a Phenician who
introduced into Greece the knowledge and the use of letters. Phenician
workmen built the temple of Solomon; Phenician sailors navigated his
ships; Phenician pilots directed them; and before other nations had
ventured to lose sight of their own shores, colonies of Phenicians were
established in the most distant parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. These
early advantages were owing, doubtless, in part to their own
enterprising character, and in part also to their central situation,
which enabled them to draw into their own narrow territory all the
commerce between the east and the west. Bochart has laboured to show
that they sent colonies to almost all the isles and coasts of the
Mediterranean Sea; but the most famous of all their colonies was that of
Carthage.

PHILADELPHIA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and one of the seven
churches of Asia. It derived its name from Attalus Philadelphus, its
founder; and was seated on a branch of Mount Tmolus, about twenty-five
miles south-east of Sardis, and seventy, in nearly the same direction,
from Smyrna. It suffered greatly, in common with all this part of Asia,
in the terrible earthquake during the reign of Tiberius, and in the
seventeenth year of the Christian era. It has, however, retained a
better fate than most of its neighbours; for under the name of Alahsher,
or the city of God, it is still a place of some repute, chiefly
supported by trade, it being in the route of the caravans to Smyrna.
Among the Greek colonies and churches of Asia,” says Gibbon,
Philadelphia is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins.” Although
this city is now in the possession of the Turks, it has about a thousand
Christian inhabitants, chiefly Greeks; who have five churches with a
resident bishop, and inferior clergy.

PHILEMON was an inhabitant of Colosse; and from the manner in which he
is addressed by St. Paul in his epistle to him, it is probable that he
was a person of some consideration in that city. St. Paul seems to have
been the means of converting him to the belief of the Gospel, Philemon
19. He calls him his fellow-labourer; and from that expression some have
thought that he was bishop or deacon of the church at Colosse; but
others have been of opinion, that he was only a private Christian, who
had shown a zealous and active disposition in the cause of Christianity,
without holding any ecclesiastical office. We learn from this epistle
itself, that it was written when St. Paul was a prisoner, and when he
had hope of soon recovering his liberty, Philemon 1, 22; and thence we
conclude that it was written toward the end of his first confinement at
Rome. This epistle has always been deservedly admired for the delicacy
and address with which it is written; and it places St. Paul’s character
in a very amiable point of view. He had converted a fugitive slave to
the Christian faith; and he here intercedes with his master in the most
earnest and affectionate manner for his pardon; he speaks of Onesimus in
terms calculated to soften Philemon’s resentment, engages to make full
compensation for any injury which he might have sustained from him, and
conjures him to reconciliation and forgiveness by the now endearing
connection of Christian brotherhood. See ONESIMUS.

PHILIP, the Apostle, was a native of Bethsaida in Galilee. Jesus Christ
having seen him, said to him, Follow me,” John i, 43, 44. Philip
followed him; he was present at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Philip
was called at the beginning of our Saviour’s mission. He is mentioned,
Luke vi, 13; Matt. x, 3; John vi, 5–7. Some Gentiles having a curiosity
to see Jesus, a little before his passion, addressed themselves to
Philip, John xii, 21, 22, who mentioned it to Andrew, and these two to
Christ. At the last supper Philip desired the Saviour to show them the
Father, John xiv, 8–10. This is all that we find concerning Philip in
the Gospel.

2. PHILIP, the second of the seven deacons, Acts vi, 5, was, some say,
of Cæsarea in Palestine. It is certain his daughters lived in that city,
Acts xxi, 8, 9. After the death of Stephen all the Christians, except
the Apostles, having left Jerusalem, and being dispersed in several
places, Philip went to preach at Sebaste or Samaria, where he performed
several miracles, and converted many persons, Acts viii, 1–3, &c. He
baptized them; but informed the Apostles at Jerusalem that Samaria had
received the word of God, that they might come and communicate the Holy
Ghost to them. Peter and John came thither for that purpose. Philip was,
probably, at Samaria, when an angel commanded him to go on the road that
leads from Jerusalem to old Gaza. Philip obeyed, and there met with an
Ethiopian eunuch, belonging to Candace, queen of Ethiopia, whom he
converted and baptized, Acts viii, 26. Being come out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord took away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more.

PHILIPPI, one of the chief cities of Macedonia, lying on the north-west
of Neapolis, and formerly called Datum or Datos, but afterward taking
its name from Philip, the celebrated king of Macedon, by whom it was
repaired and beautified. In process of time, it became a Roman colony.
It was the first place at which St. Paul preached the Gospel upon the
continent of Europe, A. D. 51. He made many converts there, who soon
afterward gave strong proofs of their attachment to him, Phil. iv, 15.
He was at Philippi a second time, but nothing which then occurred is
recorded. The Philippian Christians having heard of St. Paul’s
imprisonment at Rome, with their accustomed zeal, sent Epaphroditus to
assure him of the continuance of their regard, and to offer him a supply
of money. His epistle was written in consequence of that act of
kindness; and it is remarkable for its strong expressions of affection.
As the Apostle tells the Philippians that he hoped to see them shortly,
Phil. ii, 24, and there are plain intimations in this epistle of his
having been some time at Rome, Phil. i, 12; ii, 26, it is probable that
it was written A. D. 62, toward the end of his confinement.

It is a strong proof,” says Chrysostom, of the virtuous conduct of the
Philippians, that they did not afford the Apostle a single subject of
complaint; for, in the whole epistle which he wrote to them, there is
nothing but exhortation and encouragement, without the mixture of any
censure whatever.”

PHILISTIM, or PHILISTINES, a people who are commonly said to have
descended from Casluhim, the son of Mizraim or Mizr, who peopled Egypt.
The Philistines, it is probable, continued with their progenitors in
Egypt until they were sufficiently numerous and powerful to stretch
themselves along the coast of Canaan; doubtless by driving out that
portion of the family of Ham. It is certain that, in the time of
Abraham, the Canaanites were in possession of the rest of the land, to
which they gave their name: but the extreme south of Philistia, or
Palestine, was even then possessed by the Philistines, whose king,
Abimelech, reigned at Gerar. After this, in the time of Joshua, we find
their country divided into five lordships or principalities; namely,
Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron; giving sometimes also, as it
appears, the title of king to their respective rulers; Achish being
termed king of Gath, I Sam. xxi, 10. The time of their coming to
Palestine is unknown; but they had been long in Canaan when Abraham came
thither, in the year of the world 2083. The name Philistine is not
Hebrew. The Septuagint generally translate it Ἀλλόφυλοι, _strangers_.
The Pelethites and Cherethites were also Philistines; and the Septuagint
sometimes translate _Cherethim_, Κρῆται, _Cretes_. They were not of the
cursed seed of Canaan. However, Joshua did not forbear to give their
land to the Hebrews, and to attack them by command from the Lord,
because they possessed a country promised to Israel. But these conquests
of Joshua must have been ill maintained, since, under the Judges, under
Saul, and at the beginning of the reign of King David, the Philistines
had their kings, and their lords, whom they called Sazenim; since their
state was divided into five little kingdoms, or satrapies; and since
they oppressed the Israelites during the government of the high priest
Eli, and of Samuel, and during the reign of Saul, for about a hundred
and twenty years, from A. M. 2848 to A. M. 2960. True it is, that
Shamgar, Samson, Samuel, and Saul, opposed them, and killed some of
their people, but did not reduce their power. They continued independent
till the time of David, who subdued them, 2 Sam. v, 17; viii, 1, 2, &c.

They continued in subjection to the kings of Judah down to the reign of
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, about two hundred and forty-six years, when
they revolted from Jehoram, 2 Chron. xxi, 16. Jehoram made war against
them, and probably reduced them to his obedience again; because it is
observed in Scripture, that they revolted again from Uzziah, who kept
them to their duty during his whole reign, 2 Chron. xxvi, 6, 7. Uzziah
began to reign A. M. 3194. During the unfortunate reign of Ahaz, the
Philistines made great havoc in the territory of Judah; but his son and
successor Hezekiah subdued them again, 2 Chron. xxviii, 18; 2 Kings
xviii, 8. Lastly, they regained their full liberty under the later kings
of Judah; and we may see, by the menaces made against them by the
Prophets Isaiah, Amos, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, that they
brought a thousand hardships and calamities on the children of Israel,
for which God threatened to punish them with great misfortunes.

Esar-haddon, successor to Sennacherib, besieged Ashdod, or Azoth, and
took it by the arms of his general, Thasthan, or Tartan. Psammetichus,
king of Egypt, took the same city after a siege of twenty-nine years,
according to Herodotus. During the siege of Tyre, which held out
thirteen years, Nebuchadnezzar used part of his army to subdue the
Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and other nations bordering on
the Jews. There is great probability that the Philistines could not
withstand him, but were reduced to his obedience, as well as the other
people of Syria, Phenicia, and Palestine. Afterward they fell under the
dominion of the Persians; then under that of Alexander the Great, who
destroyed the city of Gaza, the only city of the Phenicians that dared
to oppose him. After the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the
Asmoneans took by degrees several cities from the country of the
Philistines, which they subjected. Tryphon, regent of the kingdom of
Syria, gave to Jonathan, the Asmonean, the government of the whole coast
of the Mediterranean, from Tyre to Egypt; consequently, all the country
of the Philistines.

The land of the Philistines bordered on the west and south-west of
Judea, and lies on the south-east point of the Mediterranean Sea. The
country to the north of Gaza is very fertile; and, long after the
Christian era, it possessed a very numerous population, and strongly
fortified cities. No human probability, says Keith, could have existed,
in the time of the prophets, or at a much more recent date, of its
eventual desolation. But it has belied, for many ages, every promise
which the fertility of its soil, and the excellence both of its climate
and situation, gave for many preceding centuries of its permanency as a
rich and well cultivated region. And the voice of prophecy, which was
not silent respecting it, proclaimed the fate that awaited it, in terms
as contradictory, at the time, to every natural suggestion, as they are
descriptive of what Philistia now actually is. I will stretch out my
hand upon the Philistines, and destroy the remnant of the sea coasts,”
Ezek. xxv, 16. Baldness is come upon Gaza; Ashkelon is cut off with the
remnant of their valley,” Jer. xlvii, 5. Thus saith the Lord, For three
transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the
punishment thereof. I will send a fire upon the wall of Gaza, which
shall devour the palaces thereof. And I will cut off the inhabitant from
Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon; and I will turn
my hand against Ekron; and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,
saith the Lord God,” Amos i, 6, 7, 8. For Ashkelon shall be a
desolation;” it shall be cut off with the remnant of the valley; and
Ekron shall be rooted up.--O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will
even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast
shall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks,”
Zeph. ii, 4, 5, 6. The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall
not be inhabited,” Zech. ix, 5.

The land of the Philistines was to be destroyed. It partakes of the
general desolation common to it with Judea and other neighbouring
states. While ruins are to be found in all Syria, they are particularly
abundant along the sea coast, which formed, on the south, the realm of
the Philistines. But its aspect presents some existing peculiarities,
which travellers fail not to particularize, and which, in reference both
to the state of the country and the fate of its different cities, the
prophets failed not to discriminate as justly as if their description
had been drawn both with all the accuracy which ocular observation, and
all the certainty which authenticated history, could give. Volney,
(though, like one who in ancient times was instrumental to the
fulfilment of a special prediction, he meant not so, neither did his
heart think so,”) from the manner in which he generalizes his
observations, and marks the peculiar features of the different districts
of Syria, with greater acuteness and perspicuity than any other
traveller whatever, is the ever ready purveyor of evidence in all the
cases which came within the range of his topographical description of
the wide field of prophecy: while, at the same time, from his known,
open, and zealous hostility to the Christian cause, his testimony is
alike decisive and unquestionable: and the vindication of the truth of
the following predictions may safely be committed to this redoubted
champion of infidelity. In the plain between Ramla and Gaza,” the very
plain of the Philistines along the sea coast, we met with a number of
villages badly built, of dried mud, and which, like the inhabitants,
exhibit every mark of poverty and wretchedness. The houses, on a nearer
view, are only so many huts, (cottages,) sometimes detached, at others
ranged in the form of cells, around a court yard, enclosed by a mud
wall. In winter, they and their cattle may be said to live together; the
part of the dwelling allotted to themselves being only raised two feet
above that in which they lodge their beasts:”--“dwellings and cottages
for shepherds, and folds for flocks.”--“Except the environs of these
villages, all the rest of the country is a desert, and abandoned to the
Bedouin Arabs, who feed their flocks on it.”--Thus accomplishing the
words of prophecy, The remnant shall perish; the land of the Philistines
shall be destroyed, that there shall be no inhabitant; and the sea coast
shall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks.”
“The ruins of white marble, sometimes found at Gaza, prove that it was
formerly the abode of luxury and opulence. It has shared in the general
destruction; and, notwithstanding its proud title of the capital of
Palestine, it is now no more than a defenceless village,” (baldness has
come upon it,) peopled by, at most, only two thousand inhabitants.”--“It
is forsaken,” says the prophet, and bereaved of its king.” “The sea
coast, by which it was formerly washed, is every day removing farther
from the deserted ruins of Ashkelon.” Amidst the various successive
ruins, those of Edzoud,” Ashdod, so powerful under the Philistines, are
now remarkable for their scorpions.”--Here again we are reminded of the
words of inspiration: The inhabitants shall be cut off from Ashdod.”

Thus Volney becomes an unconscious commentator upon prophecy. But let us
hear a Christian traveller. Ashkelon,” says Richardson, “was one of the
proudest satrapies of the lords of the Philistines: now there is not an
inhabitant within its walls; and the prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled:
‘The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.’
When the prophecy was uttered, both cities were in an equally
flourishing condition; and nothing but the prescience of Heaven could
pronounce on which of the two, and in what manner, the vial of its wrath
should be poured out. Gaza is truly without a king. The lofty towers of
Ashkelon lie scattered on the ground, and the ruins within its walls do
not shelter a human being. How is the wrath of man made to praise his
Creator! Hath he not said, and shall he not do it? The oracle was
delivered by the mouth of the prophet more than five hundred years
before the Christian era, and we beheld its accomplishment eighteen
hundred years after that event.” There is yet another city which was
noted by the prophets, the very want of any information respecting
which, and the absence of its name from several modern maps of
Palestine, while the sites of other ruined cities are marked, are really
the best confirmation of the truth of the prophecy that could possibly
be given. Ekron shall be rooted up.” It is rooted up. It was one of the
chief cities of the Philistines; but, though Gaza still subsists, and
while Ashkelon and Ashdod retain their names in their ruins, the very
name of Ekron is missing.

PHILOSOPHY, in general, is defined, the knowledge and study of nature
and morality, founded on reason and experience.” Philosophy owes its
name to the modesty of Pythagoras, who refused the high title of σοφός,
_wise_, given to his predecessors, Thales, Pherecydes, &c, as too
assuming; and contented himself with the simple appellation of
φιλόσοφος, _quasi_ φίλος τῆς σοφίας, _a friend_ or _lover of wisdom_:
but Chauvin rather chooses to derive the name from φιλία, _desire to
study_, and σοφία, _studium sapientiæ_; and says that Pythagoras,
conceiving that the application of the human mind ought rather to be
called study than science, set aside the appellation of wise, and, in
lieu thereof, took that of philosopher.

A knowledge of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, or the
science of natural history, was always an object of interest. We are
informed that Solomon himself had given a description of the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, 1 Kings iv, 33. Traces of philosophy, strictly so
called, that is, the system of prevailing moral opinions, may be found
in the book of Job, in the thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and
seventy-third Psalms; also in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,
but chiefly in the apocryphal book of Wisdom, and the writings of the
son of Sirach. During the captivity, the Jews acquired many new notions,
particularly from the Mahestani, and appropriated them, as occasion
offered, to their own purposes. They at length became acquainted with
the philosophy of the Greeks, which makes its appearance abundantly in
the book of Wisdom. After the captivity, the language in which the
sacred books were written was no longer vernacular. Hence arose the need
of an interpreter on the sabbatic year, a time when the whole law was
read, and also on the Sabbath in the synagogues, which some think had
been recently erected, in order to make the people understand what was
read. These interpreters learned the Hebrew language at the schools. The
teachers of these schools, who, for the two generations preceding the
time of Christ, had maintained some acquaintance with the Greek
philosophy, were not satisfied with a simple interpretation of the
Hebrew idiom, as it stood, but shaped the interpretation so as to render
it conformable to their philosophy. Thus arose contentions, which gave
occasion for the various sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In
the time of our Saviour, divisions had arisen among the Pharisees
themselves. No less than eighteen nice questions, if we may believe the
Jewish rabbins, were contested at that period between the schools of
Hillel and Shammai; one of which questions was an inquiry, what cause
was sufficient for a bill of divorce. If the Shammai and Hillel of the
Talmud are the same with the learned men mentioned in Josephus, namely,
Sameas and Pollio, who flourished thirty-four years before Christ, then
Shammai or Sameas is undoubtedly the same with the Simeon who is
mentioned, Luke ii, 25–35; and his son Gamaliel, so celebrated in the
Talmud, is the same with the Gamaliel mentioned, Acts v, 34; xxii, 3.

Anciently, learned men were denominated among the Hebrews חכמים, as
among the Greeks they were called σοφοὶ, _wise men_. In the time of
Christ, the common appellative for men of that description was
γραμματεὺς, in the Hebrew סופר, _a scribe_. They were addressed by the
honorary title of _rabbi_, רבי, great,” or master.” The Jews, in
imitation of the Greeks, had their seven wise men, who were called
_rabboni_. Gamaliel was one of the number. They called themselves the
children of wisdom; expressions which correspond very nearly to the
Greek φιλόσοφος, Matthew xi, 19; Luke vii, 35. The heads of sects were
called fathers;” the disciples were denominated sons,” or children,”
Matt. xii, 27; xxiii, 1–9. The Jewish teachers, at least some of them,
had private lecture rooms; but they also taught and disputed in
synagogues, in temples, and, in fact, wherever they could find an
audience. The method of these teachers was the same with that which
prevailed among the Greeks. Any disciple who chose might propose
questions, upon which it was the duty of the teachers to remark and give
their opinions, Luke ii, 46. The teachers were not invested with their
functions by any formal act of the church, or of the civil authority:
they were self-constituted. They received no other salary than some
voluntary present from the disciples, which was called an honorary,”
τιμὴ, _honorarium_, 1 Tim. v, 17. They acquired a subsistence, in the
main, by the exercise of some art or handicraft. That they took a higher
seat than their auditors, although it was probably the case, does not
follow, as is sometimes supposed, from Luke ii, 46. According to the
Talmudists, they were bound to hold no conversation with women, and to
refuse to sit at table with the lower class of people, Matt. ix, 11;
John iv, 27. The subjects on which they taught were numerous, commonly
intricate, and of no great consequence; of which there are abundant
examples in the Talmud.

St. Paul bids the Colossians beware lest any man should spoil them
through philosophy and vain deceit;” that is, a vain and deceitful
philosophy, such as was popular in that day, and had been compounded out
of all preceding systems, Grecian and oriental. An explanation of this
philosophy is given under GNOSTICS, and CABBALA.

On these ancient systems of pretended wisdom, Dr. Burton justly remarks:
“Philosophy is indeed the noblest stretch of intellect which God has
vouchsafed to man; and it is only when man forgets that he received his
reasoning powers from God, that he is in danger of losing himself in
darkness when he sought for light. To measure that which is infinite, is
as impossible in metaphysics as in physics. If it had not been for
revelation, we should have known no more of the Deity than the Heathen
philosophers knew before: and to what did their knowledge amount? They
felt the necessity of a First Cause, and they saw that that Cause must
be intrinsically good; but when they came to systems, they never went
farther than the point from which they first set out, that evil is not
good, and good is not evil. The Gnostics thought to secure the triumph
of their scheme by veiling its weaker points in mystery, and by
borrowing a part from almost every system. But popular, and even
successful, as this attempt may have been, we may say with truth, that
the scheme which flattered the vanity of human wisdom, and which strove
to conciliate all opinions, has died away, and is forgotten; while the
Gospel, the unpresuming, the uncompromising doctrine of the Gospel,
aided by no human wisdom, and addressing itself not merely to the head,
but to the heart, has triumphed over all systems and all philosophers;
and still leads its followers to that true knowledge which some have
endeavoured to teach ‘after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ.’”

PHINEHAS, son of Eleazar, and grandson of Aaron, third high priest of
the Jews, A. M. 2571 to about A. M. 2590, B. C. 1414. He is particularly
commended in Scripture for zeal in vindicating the glory of God, when
the Midianites had sent their daughters into the camp of Israel, to
tempt the Hebrews to fornication and idolatry, Num. xxv, 7. On this
account the Lord promised the priesthood to Phinehas by perpetual
covenant; evidently including this tacit condition, that his children
should continue faithful and obedient: for we know the priesthood passed
out of the family of Eleazar and Phinehas to that of Ithamar, and that
it returned not to the posterity of Eleazar until after about a hundred
and fifty years.

PHUT or PUT, the posterity of Phut, the son of Ham, Gen. x, 6. Calmet is
of opinion that Phut, the third son of Ham, peopled either the canton of
Phtemphu, Phtemphti, Phtembuti, of Pliny and Ptolemy, whose capital was
Thara, in Lower Egypt, inclining toward Libya; or the canton called
Phtenotes, of which Buthas was the capital. The prophets often speak of
Phut. In the time of Jeremiah, xlvi, 9, Phut was under the obedience of
Necho, king of Egypt. Nahum, iii, 9, reckons this people in the number
of those who ought to come to the assistance of No-Ammon, or Diospolis.

PHYLACTERIES, called by the Jews תפלין, are little scrolls of parchment,
in which are written certain sentences of the law, enclosed in leather
cases, and bound with thongs on the forehead and on the left arm. They
are called in Greek φυλακτήρια, from φυλάττω, _custodio_, either because
they were supposed to preserve the law in memory, or rather because they
were looked upon as a kind of amulets or charms to keep them from
danger. The making and wearing these phylacteries, as the Jews still do
in their private devotions, is owing to a misinterpretation of those
texts, on which they ground the practice, namely, God’s commanding them
to bind the law for a sign on their hands, and to let it be as frontlets
between their eyes,” &c, Deut. vi, 8. The command ought doubtless to be
understood metaphorically, as a charge to remember it, to meditate upon
it, to have it as it were continually before their eyes, and to conduct
their lives by it; as when Solomon says, concerning the commandments of
God in general, Bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of
thy heart,” Prov. iii, 1, 3; vi, 21. However, the Jews understanding the
precept literally, wrote out the several passages wherever it occurs,
and to which it seems to refer, and bound them upon their foreheads and
upon their arms. It seems the Pharisees used to make broad their
phylacteries.” This some understand of the knots of the thongs by which
they were fastened, which were tied very artificially in the form of
Hebrew letters; and that the pride of the Pharisees induced them to have
these knots larger than ordinary, as a peculiar ornament. The Pharisees
are farther said to enlarge the borders of their garments,” τὰ κράσπεδα
τῶν ἱματίων, Matt. xxiii, 5. These κράσπεδα were the ציצית, the fringes
which the Jews are commanded to wear upon the borders of their garments,
Num. xv, 38, 39. The Targum of Onkelos calls them כרספדין, which has so
near an affinity with the Greek word κράσπεδον, that there is no doubt
but it signifies the same thing; which is, therefore, an evidence that
the κράσπεδα were the ציצית. These were worn by our Saviour, as appears
from the following passage: Behold, a woman, which was diseased with an
issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his
garment,” κράσπεδον του ἱματιου, Matt. ix, 20. Again: the inhabitants of
Gennesaret are said to have brought unto him their diseased, and to have
besought him, that they might only touch the hem of his garment,”
κρασπεδον τοῦ ἱματίου, Matt. xiv, 36. Κράσπεδον τοῦ ἱματίου is, in both
these passages, very improperly translated the hem of his garment.” It
should have been rendered the fringe.” The Pharisees are censured by our
Saviour for enlarging these fringes of their garments, which we may
suppose they did partly from pride, and partly from hypocrisy, as
pretending thereby an extraordinary regard for the precepts of the law.
It is reported by Jerom, as quoted by Godwin, that they used to have
fringes extravagantly long; sticking thorns in them, that, by pricking
their legs as they walked, they might put them in mind of the law. See
FRONTLETS.

PIETISTS, PROTESTANT, a denomination in the seventeenth century, which
owed its origin to the pious and learned Spener,” as Dr. Mosheim calls
him, who formed private devotional societies at Frankfort, in order to
cultivate vital and practical religion; and published a book entitled
Pious Desires,” which greatly promoted this object. His followers laid
it down as an essential maxim, that none should be admitted into the
ministry but those who not only had received a proper education, but
were also distinguished by their wisdom and sanctity of manners, and had
hearts filled with divine love. Hence they proposed an alteration in the
schools of divinity, which embraced the following points: 1. That the
scholastic theology, which reigned in the academies, and was composed of
intricate and disputable doctrines, and obscure and unusual forms of
expression, should be totally abolished. 2. That polemical divinity,
which comprehended the controversies subsisting between Christians of
different communions, should be less eagerly studied, and less
frequently treated, though not entirely neglected. 3. That all mixture
of philosophy and human science with divine wisdom, was to be most
carefully avoided; that is, that Pagan philosophy and classical learning
should be kept distinct from, and by no means supersede, Biblical
theology. But, 4. That, on the contrary, all those students, who were
designed for the ministry, should be accustomed from their early youth
to the perusal and study of the Holy Scriptures, and be taught a plain
system of theology, drawn from these unerring sources of truth. 5. That
the whole course of their education was to be so directed as to render
them useful in life, by the practical power of their doctrine, and the
commanding influence of their example. Such, in substance, is Mosheim’s
account of the meditated reforms in the public schools. But it was not
intended to confine these reforms to students and the clergy. Religious
persons of every class and rank were encouraged to meet in what were
called Biblical colleges, or colleges of piety, (we might call them
prayer meetings,) where some exercised in reading the Scriptures,
singing, and prayer, and others engaged in the exposition of the
Scriptures; not in a dry and critical way, but in a strain of practical
and experimental piety, by which they mutually edified each other. This
practice, which always more or less obtains where religion flourishes,
as, for instance, at the Reformation, raised the same sort of outcry as
at the rise of Methodism; and those who entered not into the spirit of
the design, were eager to catch at every instance of weakness or
imprudence, to bring disgrace on that which, in fact, brought disgrace
upon themselves, as lukewarm and formal Christians. In so saying,
Master, thou reproachest us also.” This work began about 1670. In 1691
Dr. Spener removed from Dresden to Berlin, where he propagated the same
principles, which widely spread, and were well supported in many parts
of Germany by the excellent Professor Francke and others, until the
general decline of religion which has unhappily prevailed in Germany for
the last half century. See NEOLOGY.

PI-HAHIROTH. The Hebrew _pi_ answers to the modern Arabic word _fum_,
signifying mouth;” and is generally applied to the passes in the
mountains. In the English and Septuagint versions, Hahiroth is taken as
a proper name; and the whole word would imply the mouth or pass of
Hahiroth or Hiroth, whatever particular origin or signification may
belong to that word. The name, however, sufficiently explains the
situation of the children of Israel; who were hemmed in at this place,
between the sea in front, and a narrow mountain pass behind; which no
doubt encouraged Pharaoh to make his attack upon them in so
disadvantageous a position; thinking that they must inevitably fall an
easy prey into his hands, or be cut to pieces: when their deliverance,
and his own destruction, were unexpectedly wrought by the parting of the
waters of the sea. The place where this miracle is supposed to have
happened, is still called Bahral-Kolsum, or the Sea of Destruction; and
just opposite to the situation which answers to the opening called
Pi-hahiroth, is a bay, where the north cape is called Ras Musa, or the
Cape of Moses. That part of the western or Heroopolitan branch of the
Red Sea where, from these coincidences, the passage most probably took
place, is described by Bruce as about three leagues over, with fourteen
fathoms of water in the channel, nine at the sides, and good anchorage
every where. The farther side is also represented as a low sandy coast,
and an easy landing place. See RED SEA.

PILATE. It is not known of what country or family Pontius Pilate was,
but it is believed that he was of Rome, or, at least, of Italy. He was
sent to govern Judea in the room of Gratus, A. D. 26, or 27. He presided
over this province for ten years, from the twelfth or thirteenth year of
Tiberius, to the twenty-second of the same emperor. He is represented,
both by Philo and Josephus, as a man of an impetuous and obstinate
temper, and, as a judge, one who used to sell justice, and, for money,
to pronounce any sentence that was desired. The same authors make
mention of his rapines, his injuries, his murders, the torments that he
inflicted upon the innocent, and the persons he put to death without any
form of process. Philo, in particular, describes him as a man that
exercised an excessive cruelty during the whole time of his government;
who disturbed the repose of Judea; and was the occasion of the troubles
and revolt that followed. St. Luke acquaints us, that Pilate had mingled
the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices; and that the matter,
having been related to Jesus Christ, he introduced the subject into his
discourse, Luke xiii. The reason why Pilate treated them in this manner,
while sacrificing in the temple, is not known. At the time of our
Saviour’s passion, Pilate made some attempts to deliver him out of the
hands of the Jews. He knew the reasons of their enmity against him,
Matthew xxvii, 18. His wife, also, having had a dream that alarmed her,
requested he would not stain his hands with the blood of that just
person, verse 19. He therefore attempted to appease the wrath of the
Jews by scourging Jesus, John xix, 1; Matt. xxvii, 26; and also tried to
take him out of their hands by proposing to deliver him or Barabbas on
the day of the passover. Lastly, be thought to discharge himself from
pronouncing judgment against him, by sending him to Herod, king of
Galilee, Luke xxiii, 7, 8. When he saw all this would not satisfy the
Jews, and that they even threatened him in some manner, saying, he could
be no friend to the emperor if he suffered Jesus to be set at liberty,
John xix, 12–15, he caused water to be brought, and washed his hands
before all the people, and publicly declared himself innocent of the
blood of that just person, Matthew xxvii, 23, 24. Yet at the same time
he delivered him to his soldiers that they might crucify him. This was
enough to justify Jesus Christ, as Calmet observes, and to prove that he
held him as innocent; but it was not enough to vindicate the conscience
and integrity of a judge, whose duty it was as well to assert the cause
of oppressed innocence, as to punish the guilty. He ordered the
inscription to be placed over the head of our Saviour, John xix, 19; and
when requested by the Jews to alter it, peremptorily refused. He also
gave leave for the removal of our Lord’s body, and to place a guard over
the sepulchre, Matthew xxvii, 65. These are all the particulars that we
learn concerning Pilate from the writers of the Gospels.

The extreme reluctance of Pilate to condemn Christ, considering his
merciless character, is signally remarkable, and still more his repeated
protestations of the innocence of his prisoner; although, on occasions
of massacre, he made no scruple of confounding the innocent with the
guilty. But he was unquestionably influenced by the overruling
providence of God, to make the righteousness of his Son appear as clear
as the noon day, even when condemned and executed as a malefactor, by
the fullest, the most authentic, and the most public evidence: 1. By the
testimony even of his judges, Pilate and Herod, after examination of
evidence. 2. By the message of Pilate’s wife, delivered to him on the
tribunal. 3. By the testimony of the traitor Judas, who hanged himself
in despair, for betraying the innocent blood. 4. By the testimony of the
Roman centurion and guard, at his crucifixion, to his divinity and
righteousness. And, 5. Of his fellow sufferer on the cross. Never was
innocence so attested as his innocence.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and after them several others, both
ancient and modern, assure us that it was formerly the custom for Roman
magistrates to prepare copies of all verbal processes and judical acts,
which they passed in their several provinces, and to send them to the
emperor. And Pilate, in compliance with the custom, having sent word to
Tiberius of what had passed relating to Jesus Christ, the emperor wrote
an account of it to the senate, in a manner that gave reason to judge
that he thought favourably of the religion of Jesus Christ, and showed
that he should be willing for them to confer divine honours upon him;
but the senate was not of the same opinion, and so the matter dropped.
It appears by what Justin says of these acts, that the miracles of
Christ were mentioned there, and even that the soldiers had divided his
garments among them. Eusebius insinuates that they spoke of his
resurrection and ascension. Tertullian and Justin refer to these acts
with so much confidence, as would make one believe they had read and
handled them. However, neither Eusebius nor Jerom, who were both
inquisitive and understanding persons, nor any other author who wrote
afterward, seems to have seen them, at least not the true and original
acts. For as to what we have now in great number, they are not
authentic, being neither ancient nor uniform. There are also some
pretended letters of Pilate to Tiberius, giving a history of our
Saviour; but they are universally allowed to be spurious. Pilate being a
man who, by his excessive cruelties and rapine, had disturbed the repose
of Judea, during the whole time of his government, was at length deposed
by Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria, A. D. 36, and sent to Rome to give
an account of his conduct to the emperor. But, though Tiberius died
before Pilate arrived at Rome, yet his successor Caligula banished him
to Vienne in Gaul, where he was reduced to such extremity that he laid
violent hands upon himself. The evangelists call him governor, though in
reality he was nothing more than procurator of Judea, not only because
governor was a name of general use, but because Pilate, in effect, acted
as one, by taking upon him to judge in criminal matters, as his
predecessors had done, and as other procurators in the small provinces
of the empire, where there was no proconsul, constantly did.

PILLAR properly means a column raised to support a building; but in
Scripture the term mostly occurs in a metaphorical or figurative sense.
Thus we have a pillar of cloud, a pillar of fire, a pillar of smoke, &c;
signifying a cloud, a fire, a smoke raised up toward heaven in the form
or shape of a pillar, Exod. xiii, 21; Judges xx, 40. Job speaks of the
pillars of heaven and the pillars of the earth, Job ix, 6; xxvi, 11;
which are strong metaphorical expressions, that suppose the heavens and
the earth to be an edifice raised by the hand of the almighty Creator,
and founded upon its basis. St. Paul speaks of the Christian church
under the similitude of a pillar or column on which the truth, or
doctrine of the glorious Gospel is inscribed, 1 Tim. iii, 15.

PILLOWS. The prophet speaks of sewing pillows to arm holes.” There is
here, probably, an allusion to the easy indulgence of the great. To this
day in the east they cover the floors of their houses with carpets: and
along the sides of the wall or floor, a range of narrow beds or
mattresses is often placed upon these carpets; and, for their farther
ease and convenience, several velvet or damask bolsters are placed upon
these carpets or mattresses,--indulgences that seem to be alluded to by
the stretching of themselves upon couches, and by the sewing of pillows
to arm holes,” Ezekiel xiii, 18; Amos vi, 4.

PINE TREE. The pine appears in our translation three times, Neh. viii,
15; Isaiah xli, 19; lx, 13. Nehemiah, viii, 15, giving directions for
observing the feast of tabernacles, says, “Fetch olive branches, pine
branches, myrtle branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths.”
The Hebrew phrase שמן, means literally _“branches of oily_ or _gummy
plants_.” The LXX. say _cypress_. Scheuchzer says the Turks call the
cypress _zemin_. The author of Scripture Illustrated” says, I should
prefer the whole species called jasmin, on account of its verdure, its
fragrance, and its flowers, which are highly esteemed. The word _jasmin_
and _jasemin_ of the Turks, resembles strongly the _shemen_ of the
Hebrew original here. The Persians also name this plant _semen_ and
_simsyk_.” The authority, however, of the Septuagint must prevail. In
Isa. xli, 19; lx, 13, the Hebrew word is תדהר; a tree, says Parkhurst,
so called from the springiness or elasticity of its wood. Luther thought
it the elm, which is a lofty and spreading tree; and Dr. Stock renders
it the ash. After all, it may be thought advisable to retain the pine.
La Roche, describing, a valley near to Mount Lebanon, has this
observation: “_La continuelle verdure des pins et des chênes verds fait
toujours sa beauté_.” [The perpetual verdure of the pines and the live
oaks makes it ever beautiful.]

PISGAH, a part of Mount Nebo, so called, being, in all probability, a
distinct, and most likely the highest, summit of that mountain. Here
Moses climbed to view the land of Canaan; and here he died.

PISIDIA, a province of Asia Minor, having Lycaonia to the north,
Pamphylia to the south, Cilicia and Cappadocia to the east, and the
province of Asia to the west. St. Paul preached at Antioch in Pisidia,
Acts xiii, 14; xiv, 24.

PITCH, ופת, Exod. ii, 3; Isaiah xxxiv, 9; Septuagint ἄσφαλτος; a fat,
combustible, oily matter, sometimes called asphaltos, from the lake
Asphaltites, or Dead Sea, in Judea, on the surface of which it rises in
the nature of liquid pitch, and floats like other oleaginous bodies; but
is condensed by degrees, through the heat of the sun, and grows dry and
hard. The word which our translators have rendered _pitch_ in Gen. vi,
14, and חמר, _slime_, Gen. xi, 3; xiv, 10, is generally supposed to be
bitumen. In the first of these places it is mentioned as used for
smearing the ark, and closing its interstices. It was peculiarly adapted
to this purpose. Being at first soft, viscous, and pliable, it might be
thrust into every chasm and crevice with the greatest ease; but would
soon acquire a tenacity and hardness superior to those of our pitch. A
coat of it spread over both the inside and outside of the ark would make
it perfectly water proof. The longer it was kept in the water, the
harder and stronger it would grow. The Arabs still use it for careening
their vessels. In the second passage it is described as applied for
cement in building the tower of Babel. It was much used in ancient
buildings in that region; and, in the ruins of Babylon, large masses of
brick work cemented with it are discovered. It is known that the plain
of Shinar did abound with it, both in its liquid and solid state; that
there was there a cave and fountain which was continually casting it
out; and that the famous tower and no less famous walls of Babylon were
built by this kind of cement, is confirmed by the testimony of several
ancient authors. The slime pits of Siddim, Gen. xiv, 10, were holes out
of which issued this liquid bitumen, or _naphtha_. Bitumen was formerly
much used by the Egyptians and Jews in embalming the bodies of their
dead.

PITHOM, one of the cities that the Israelites built for Pharaoh in
Egypt, during the time of their servitude, Exod. i, 11.

PLAGUES OF EGYPT. The design of these visitations, growing more awful
and tremendous in their progress, was to make Pharaoh know, and confess,
that the God of the Hebrews was the supreme Lord, and to exhibit his
power and his justice in the strongest light to all the nations of the
earth, Exod. ix, 16; 1 Sam. iv, 8, &c; to execute judgment upon the
Egyptians and upon all their gods, inanimate and bestial, for their
cruelty to the Israelites, and for their grovelling polytheism and
idolatry, Exod. vii, 14–17; xii, 12. The Nile was the principal divinity
of the Egyptians. According to Heliodorus, they paid divine honours to
this river, and revered it as the first of their gods. They declared him
to be the rival of heaven, since he watered the country without the aid
of the clouds and rain. His principal festival was at the summer
solstice, when the inundation commenced; at which season, in the dog
days, by a cruel idolatrous rite, they sacrificed red-haired persons,
principally foreigners, to Typhon, or the power that presided over
tempests, at Busiris, Heliopolis, &c, by burning them alive, and
scattering their ashes in the air, for the good of the people, as we
learn from Plutarch. Hence Bryant infers the probability, that these
victims were chosen from among the Israelites, during their residence in
Egypt. The judgment then inflicted upon the river, and all the waters of
Egypt, in the presence of Pharaoh and of his servants, as
foretold,--when, as soon as Aaron had smitten the waters of the river,
they were turned into blood, and continued in that state for seven days,
so that all the fish died, and the Egyptians could not drink of the
waters of the river, in which they delighted as the most wholesome of
all waters, but were forced to dig wells for pure water to drink--was a
significant sign of God’s displeasure for their senseless idolatry in
worshipping the river and its fish, and also a manifest reproof of that
bloody edict whereby the infants were slain,” Wisdom xi, 7.

In the plague of frogs, their sacred river itself was made an active
instrument of their punishment, together with another of their gods. The
frog was one of their sacred animals, consecrated to the sun, and
considered as an emblem of divine inspiration in its inflations.

The plague of lice, which was produced without any previous intimation
to Pharaoh, was peculiarly offensive to a people so superstitiously nice
and cleanly as the Egyptians; and, above all, to their priests, who used
to shave their whole body every third day, that neither louse, nor any
other vermin, might be found upon them while they were employed in
serving their gods, as we learn from Herodotus; and Plutarch informs us,
that they never wore woollen garments, but linen only, because linen is
least apt to produce lice. This plague, therefore, was particularly
disgraceful to the magicians themselves; and when they tried to imitate
it, but failed, on account of the minuteness of the objects, (not like
serpents, water, or frogs, of a sensible bulk that could be handled,)
they were forced to confess that this was no human feat of legerdemain,
but rather the finger of God.” Thus were the illusions of their magic
put down, and their vaunting in wisdom reproved with disgrace,” Wisdom
xvii, 7. Their folly was manifest unto all men,” in absurdly and
wickedly attempting at first to place the feats of human art on a level
with the stupendous operations of divine power, in the first two
plagues; and being foiled in the third, by shamefully miscarrying, they
exposed themselves to the contempt of their admirers. Philo, the Jew,
has a fine observation on the plagues of Egypt: Some, perhaps, may
inquire, Why did God punish the country by such minute and contemptible
animals as frogs, lice, flies, rather than by bears, lions, leopards, or
other kinds of savage beasts which prey on human flesh? Or, if not by
these, why not by the Egyptian asp, whose bite is instant death? But let
him learn, if he be ignorant, first, that God chose rather to correct
than to destroy the inhabitants; for, if he desired to annihilate them
utterly, he had no need to have made use of animals as his auxiliaries,
but of the divinely inflicted evils of famine and pestilence. Next, let
him farther learn that lesson so necessary for every state of life,
namely, that men, when they war, seek the most powerful aid to supply
their own weakness; but God, the highest and the greatest power, who
stands in need of nothing, if at any time he chooses to employ
instruments, as it were, to inflict chastisement, chooses not the
strongest and greatest, disregarding their strength, but rather the mean
and the minute, whom he endues with invincible and irresistible power to
chastise offenders.” The first three plagues were common to the
Egyptians and the Israelites, to convince both that “there was none like
the Lord;” and to wean the latter from their Egyptian idolatries, and
induce them to return to the Lord their God. And when this end was
answered, the Israelites were exempted from the ensuing plagues; for the
Lord severed the land of Goshen from the rest of Egypt; whence the
ensuing plagues, confined to the latter, more plainly appeared to have
been inflicted by the God of the Hebrews, Exodus viii, 20–23, to
convince both more clearly of “the goodness and severity of God,” Rom.
xi, 22; that great plagues remain for the ungodly, but mercy embraceth
the righteous on every side,” Psalm xxxii, 10.

The visitation of flies, of the gad fly, or hornet, was more intolerable
than any of the preceding. By this, his minute, but mighty army, God
afterward drove out some of the devoted nations of Canaan before Joshua,
Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Josh. xxiv, 12. This insect was
worshipped in Palestine and elsewhere under the title of Baal-zebub,
lord of the gad fly,” 2 Kings i, 1, 2. Egypt, we learn from Herodotus,
abounded with prodigious swarms of flies, or gnats; but this was in the
heat of summer, during the dog days; whence this fly is called by the
Septuagint κυνόμνια, _the dog fly_. But the appointed time of this
plague was in the middle of winter; and, accordingly, this plague
extorted Pharaoh’s partial consent, Go ye, sacrifice to your God, but in
the land;” and when Moses and Aaron objected the offence they would give
to the Egyptians, who would stone them for sacrificing the abomination
of the Egyptians,” namely, animal sacrifices, he reluctantly consented,
only ye shall not go very far away;” for he was apprehensive of their
flight, like his predecessor, who first enslaved the Israelites, Exod.
i, 10; and he again desired them to entreat for him.” But he again dealt
deceitfully; and after the flies were removed so effectually that not
one was left, when Moses entreated the Lord, Pharaoh hardened his heart
this fifth time also, neither would he let the people go.”

This second breach of promise on the part of Pharaoh drew down a plague
of a more deadly description than the preceding. The fifth plague of
murrain destroyed all the cattle of Egypt, but of the cattle of the
Israelites died not one.” It was immediately inflicted by God himself,
after previous notification, and without the agency of Moses and Aaron,
to manifest the divine indignation at Pharaoh’s falsehood. And though
the king sent and found that not one of the Israelites was dead, yet his
heart was hardened this sixth time also, and he would not let the people
go, Exod. ix, 1–7.

At length, after Pharaoh had repeatedly abused the gracious respites and
warnings vouchsafed to him and his servants, a sorer set of plagues,
affecting themselves, began to be inflicted; and Moses now, for the
first time, appears as the executioner of divine vengeance; for in the
presence of Pharaoh, by the divine command, he sprinkled ashes of the
furnace toward heaven, and it became a boil, breaking forth with blains
upon man and upon beast. And the magicians could not stand before Moses
because of the boil, which affected them and all the Egyptians, Exod.
ix, 8–11. This was a very significant plague: the furnace from which the
ashes were taken aptly represented the iron furnace” of Egyptian
bondage, Deut. iv, 20, and the scattering of the ashes in the air might
have referred to the usage of the Egyptians in their Typhonian
sacrifices of human victims; while it converted another of the elements,
and of their gods, the air, or ether, into an instrument of their
chastisement. And now the Lord,” for the first time, hardened the heart
of Pharaoh,” after he had so repeatedly hardened it himself, and he
hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had foretold unto Moses,” Exod. ix,
12. Though Pharaoh probably felt, the scourge of the boil, as well as
his people, it did not soften nor humble his heart; and when he wilfully
and obstinately turned away from the light, and shut his eyes against
the luminous evidences vouchsafed to him of the supremacy of the God of
the Hebrews, and had twice broken his promise when he was indulged with
a respite, and dealt deceitfully, he became a just object of punishment;
and God now began to increase the hardness or obduracy of his heart. And
such is the usual and the righteous course of his providence; when
nations or individuals despise the warnings of Heaven, abuse their best
gifts, and resist the means of grace, God then delivers them over to a
reprobate” or undiscerning mind, to work all uncleanness with
greediness,” Rom. i, 28.

In the tremendous plague of hail, the united elements of air, water, and
fire, were employed to terrify and punish the Egyptians by their
principal divinities. This plague was formally announced to Pharaoh and
his people: I will at this season send all my plagues upon thine heart,
and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, that thou mayest know that
there is none like me in all the earth. For now I could stretch out my
hand, and smite thee and thy people with pestilence,” or destroy thee at
once, like thy cattle with the murrain, and thou shouldest be cut off
from the earth; but, in truth, for this cause have I sustained thee,
that I might manifest in thee my power, and that my name might be
declared throughout the whole earth,” Exod. ix, 13–16. This rendering of
the passage is more conformable to the context, the Chaldee paraphrase,
and to Philo, than the received translation, For now I will stretch out
my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence;” for
surely Pharaoh and his people were not smitten with pestilence; and they
were preserved” or kept from immediate destruction, according to the
Septuagint, διετηρήθης, to manifest the divine power,” by the number and
variety of their plagues. Still, however, in the midst of judgment, God
remembered mercy; he gave a gracious warning to the Egyptians, to avoid,
if they chose, the threatened calamity: Send, therefore, now, and gather
thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field; every man and beast
that shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the
hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.” And this warning
had some effect: He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants
of Pharaoh, made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses; and
he that regarded not the word of the Lord, left his servants and his
cattle in the field,” Exod. ix, 17–21. But it may be asked, If all the
cattle of the Egyptians were destroyed by the foregoing plague of
murrain, as asserted Exod. ix, 6, how came there to be any cattle left?
Surely the Egyptians might have recruited their stock from the land of
Goshen, where not one of the cattle of the Israelites died.” And this
justifies the supposition, that there was some respite, or interval,
between the several plagues, and confirms the conjecture of the duration
of the whole, about a quarter of a year. And that the warning, in this
case, was respected by many of the Egyptians, we may infer from the
number of chariots and horsemen that went in pursuit of the Israelites
afterward. This was foretold to be a very grievous hail, such as had not
been in Egypt since the foundation thereof: and the Lord sent thunder
and hail, and the fire ran along the ground; and the hail smote
throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and
beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree
of the field. Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel
were, there was no hail.” Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron,
and said unto them, I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and
I and my people are wicked: entreat the Lord,” for it is enough, that
there might be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you
go, and ye shall stay no longer.” But when there was respite, Pharaoh
sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants; neither
would he let the people go,” Exod. ix, 27–35. In this instance, there is
a remarkable suspension of the judicial infatuation. Pharaoh had humbled
himself, and acknowledged his own and his people’s guilt, and the
justice of the divine plague: the Lord, therefore, forbore this time to
harden his heart. But he abused the long sufferance of God, and this
additional respite; he sinned yet more, because he now sinned wilfully,
after he had received information of the truth; he relapsed, and
hardened his own heart a seventh time. He became, therefore, a vessel of
wrath, fitted to destruction,” Heb. x, 26; Rom. ix, 22.

The design of the eighth and the ensuing plagues, was to confirm the
faith of the Israelites: “That thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son,
and of thy son’s son, what I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I
have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.” This
plague of locusts, inflicted on the now devoted Egyptians and their
king, completed the havoc begun by the hail; by this the wheat and rye
were destroyed, and every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the
trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any verdure in the
trees, nor in the herbs of the field, throughout the land of Egypt. Very
grievous were they; before them were no such locusts as they, neither
after them shall there be such,” Exod. x, 3–15.

The awful plague of darkness over all the land of Egypt, for three days,
a thick darkness which might be felt,” in the emphatic language of
Scripture, was inflicted on the Egyptians, and their chief god, the sun;
and was, indeed, a most significant sign of the divine displeasure, and
of that mental darkness under which they now laboured. Their
consternation thereat is strongly represented by their total inaction;
neither rose any from his place for three days, petrified, as they were,
with horror. They were also scared with strange apparitions and visions,
while a heavy night was spread over them, an image of that darkness
which should afterward receive them. But yet, they were unto themselves
more grievous than that darkness,” Wisdom xvii, 3–21; Psalm lxxviii, 49.
This terrific and horrible plague compelled Pharaoh to relax; he offered
to let the men and their families go; but he wished to keep the flocks
and herds as security for their return; but Moses peremptorily declared,
that not a hoof should be left behind. Again “the Lord hardened
Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let them go,” Exod. x, 21–27. And
the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that my
wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. And Moses and Aaron did
all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the Lord” ultimately “hardened
Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out
of his land,” Exod. xi, 9, 10. This passage forms the conclusion to the
nine plagues, and should properly follow the preceding; for the result
of the tenth and last plague was foretold, that Pharaoh should not only
let them go, but surely thrust them out altogether, Exod. xi, 1.

The tenth plague was announced to Pharaoh with much solemnity: Thus
saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt,
and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the
first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even to the
first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill; and all the
first-born of cattle. And there shall be a great cry throughout the land
of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be any more. But
against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue,
against man or beast; that ye may know, how that the Lord doth make a
difference between the Egyptians and Israel. And all these thy servants
shall come down unto me, and bow themselves unto me, saying, Get thee
out, and all the people that follow thee. And after that I will go out,”
Exod. xi, 4–8. Such a threat, delivered in so high a tone, both in the
name of the God of Israel and of Moses, did not fail to exasperate the
infatuated Pharaoh, and he said, Get thee from me; take heed to thyself;
see my face no more: for in the day thou seest my face thou shalt die.
And Moses said, Be it so as thou hast spoken; I will see thy face again
no more. And he went out from Pharaoh in great anger,” Exod. x, 28, 29;
xi, 8. And at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of
Egypt; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house in
which there was not one dead,” Exod. xii, 1–30. This last tremendous
judgment is described with much sublimity in the book of Wisdom, xviii,
14–18.

       For when all things were wrapt in still silence,
       And night, in her proper speed, holding her mid course,
       Thy all powerful oracle leapt down from heaven,
       Out of the royal throne, a fierce warrior,
       Into the midst of the land of destruction,
       Wielding a sharp sword, thine unfeigned command,
       And standing up, he filled the whole with death,
       He touched the heavens, indeed, but trod upon the earth!”

And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants, and all the
Egyptians; and he called for,” or sent to, Moses and Aaron by night, and
said, Get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of
Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye said; take also your flocks and
your herds, and be gone; and bless me also. And the Egyptians also were
urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste; for they
said, We shall all be dead.” It is evident from the extreme urgency of
the occasion, when all the Egyptians apprehended total destruction, if
the departure of the Israelites was delayed any longer, that Pharaoh had
no personal interview with Moses and Aaron, which would have wasted
time, and was quite unnecessary; he only sent them a peremptory mandate
to be gone on their own terms. And the children of Israel did according
to the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver,
and jewels of gold, and raiment. And the Lord gave the people favour in
the sight of the Egyptians, so that they freely gave what they required,
and they spoiled the Egyptians,” Exod. xii, 31–36, as originally
foretold to Abraham, Gen. xv, 14; and to Moses before the plagues began.
This was an act of perfect retributive justice, to make the Egyptians
pay for the long and laborious services of the Israelites, whom they had
unjustly enslaved, in violation of their charter.

The Israelites were thrust out of Egypt on the fifteenth day of the
first month, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside women and
children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks and
herds, even very much cattle,” Exod. xii, 37–38; Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3.
And they went out with a high hand; for the Lord went before them by
day, in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a
pillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night. He took not
away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night,
from before the people,” Exod. xiii, 22; Num. ix, 15–23. And the motion
or rest of this divine guide regulated their marches, and their stations
or encampments during the whole of their route, Num. x, 33–36. See RED
SEA.

PLATONISTS. The Platonic philosophy is denominated from Plato, who was
born about B. C. 426. He founded the old academy on the opinions of
Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Socrates; and by adding the information he
had acquired to their discoveries, he established a sect of
philosophers, who were esteemed more perfect than any who had before
appeared in the world. The outlines of Plato’s philosophical system were
as follows:--that there is one God, eternal, immutable, and immaterial;
perfect in wisdom and goodness, omniscient, and omnipresent: that this
all-perfect Being formed the universe out of a mass of eternally
preëxisting matter, to which he gave form and arrangement: that there is
in matter a necessary, but blind and refractory force, which resists the
will of the supreme Artificer, so that he cannot perfectly execute his
designs; and this is the cause of the mixture of good and evil which is
found in the material world: that the soul of man was derived by
emanation from God; but that this emanation was not immediate, but
through the intervention of the soul of the world, which was itself
debased by some material admixture: that the relation which the human
soul, in its original constitution, bears to matter, is the source of
moral evil; that when God formed the universe, he separated from the
soul of the world inferior souls, equal in number to the stars, and
assigned to each its proper celestial abode: that these souls were sent
down to earth to be imprisoned in mortal bodies; hence arose the
depravity and misery to which human nature is liable: that the soul is
immortal; and by disengaging itself from all animal passions, and rising
above sensible objects to the contemplation of the world of
intelligence, it may be prepared to return to its original habitation:
that matter never suffers annihilation, but that the world will remain
for ever; and that by the action of its animating principle it
accomplishes certain periods, within which every thing returns to its
ancient place and state. This periodical revolution of nature is called
the Platonic, or great year.

The Platonic system makes the perfection of morality to consist in
living in conformity to the will of God, the only standard of truth, and
teaches that our highest good consists in the contemplation and
knowledge of the supreme Being. In this divine Being Plato admitted a
sort of trinity of _three hypostases_. The first he considered as
self-existent, calling him, by way of eminence, τὸ hὸν, the Being, or τὸ
hὲν, the One. The only attribute which he acknowledged in this person
was goodness; and therefore he frequently styles him, τὸ ἀγαθὸν, the
_good_. The second he considered as, νοῦς, the _mind_, or, λογὸς, the
_wisdom_ or _reason_ of the former, and the δημιȣργὸς, _maker of the
world_. The third he always speaks of as, ψυχὴ, the _soul_ of the world.
He taught that the second is a necessary emanation from the first, and
the third from the second, or perhaps from both; comparing these
emanations to those of light and heat from the sun. From the above use
of _Logos_ for the second person of the Platonic trinity, it has been
thought that St. John borrowed the term from Plato; but it is not likely
that this Apostle was conversant with his writings, and therefore both
Le Clerc and Dr. Campbell think it more probable that he took it from
the Old Testament. The end of all knowledge, or philosophy, according to
Plato, was to make us resemble the Deity as much as is compatible with
human nature. This likeness consists in the possession and practice of
all the moral virtues. After the death of Plato, many of his disciples
deviated from his doctrines. His school was then divided into the old,
the middle, and the new academy. The old academy strictly adhered to his
tenets. The middle academy partially receded from his system, without
entirely deserting it. The new academy almost entirely relinquished the
original doctrines of Plato, and verged toward the skeptical philosophy.
An infusion of Platonism, though in a perverted form, is seen in the
philosophy most prevalent in the times of the Apostles. It was Judaized
by the contemplative Hellenists, and, through them, their native Judaism
was Platonized. The eclectic philosophy added other ingredients to the
compound, from the oriental systems. All however issued in pride, and
the domination of bewildering and monstrous imaginations.

PLOUGH. The Syrian plough, which was probably used in all the regions
around, is a very simple frame, and commonly so light, that a man of
moderate strength might carry it in one hand. Volney states that in
Syria it is often nothing else than the branch of a tree cut below a
bifurcation, and used without wheels. It is drawn by asses and cows,
seldom by oxen. And Dr. Russel informs us, the ploughing of Syria is
performed often by a little cow, at most with two, and sometimes only by
an ass. In Persia it is for the most part drawn by one ox only, and not
unfrequently even by an ass, although it is more ponderous than in
Palestine. With such an imperfect instrument, the Syrian husbandman can
do little more than scratch the surface of his field, or clear away the
stones or weeds that encumber it, and prevent the seed from reaching the
soil. The ploughshare is a piece of iron, broad, but not large, which
tips the end of the shaft.” So much does it resemble the short sword
used by the ancient warriors, that it may with very little trouble, be
converted into that deadly weapon; and when the work of destruction is
over, reduced again into its former shape, and applied to the purposes
of agriculture. In allusion to the first operation, the Prophet Joel
summons the nations to leave their peaceful employments in the
cultivated field, and buckle on their armour: Beat your ploughshares
into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears,” Joel iii, 10. This
beautiful image the Prophet Isaiah has reversed, and applied to the
establishment of that profound and lasting peace which is to bless the
church of Christ in the latter days: And they shall beat their swords
into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more,”
Isaiah ii, 4. The plough used in Syria is so light and simple in its
construction, that the husbandman is under the necessity of guiding it
with great care, bending over it, and loading it with his own weight,
else the share would glide along the surface without making any
incision. His mind should be wholly intent on his work, at once to press
the plough into the ground, and direct it in a straight line. Let the
ploughman,” said Hesiod, attend to his charge, and look before him; not
turn aside to look on his associates, but make straight furrows, and
have his mind attentive to his work.” And Pliny: Unless the ploughman
stoop forward,” to press his plough into the soil, and conduct it
properly, he will turn it aside.” To such careful and incessant
exertion, our Lord alludes in that declaration, No man having put his
hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven,”
Luke ix, 62.

POETRY OF THE HEBREWS. Among the books of the Old Testament, says Bishop
Lowth, there is such an apparent diversity in style, as sufficiently
discovers which of them are to be considered as poetical, and which as
prose. While the historical books and legislative writings of Moses are
evidently prosaic compositions, the book of Job, the Psalms of David,
the Song of Solomon, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, a great part of the
prophetical writings, and several passages scattered occasionally
through the historical books, carry the most plain and distinguishing
marks of poetical writing. There is not the least reason for doubting
that originally these were written in verse, or some kind of measured
numbers; though, as the ancient pronunciation of the Hebrew language is
now lost, we are not able to ascertain the nature of the Hebrew verse,
or at most can ascertain it but imperfectly. Let any person read the
historical introduction to the book of Job, contained in the first and
second chapters, and then go on to Job’s speech in the beginning of the
third chapter, and he cannot avoid being sensible that he passes all at
once from the region of prose to that of poetry. From the earliest times
music and poetry were cultivated among the Hebrews. In the days of the
judges mention is made of the schools or colleges of the prophets, where
one part of the employment of the persons trained in such schools was to
sing the praises of God, accompanied with various instruments. But in
the days of King David music and poetry were carried to the greatest
height. In 1 Chron. xxv, an account is given of David’s institutions
relating to the sacred music and poetry, which were certainly more
costly, more splendid and magnificent, than ever obtained in the public
service of any other nation. See PSALMS.

The general construction of the Hebrew poetry is of a singular nature,
and peculiar to itself. It consists in dividing every period into
correspondent, for the most part into equal, members, which answer to
one another both in sense and sound. In the first member of the period a
sentiment is expressed; and in the second member the same sentiment is
amplified, or is repeated in different terms, or sometimes contrasted
with its opposite; but in such a manner, that the same structure, and
nearly the same number of words, is preserved. This is the general
strain of all the Hebrew poetry. Instances of it occur every where on
opening the Old Testament. Thus, in Psalm xcvi:--

           Sing unto the Lord a new song.
             Sing unto the Lord, all the earth.
           Sing unto the Lord, and bless his name.
             Show forth his salvation from day to day.
           Declare his glory among the Heathen,
             His wonders among all the people.
           For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised.
             He is to be feared above all the gods.
           Honour and majesty are before him;
             Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.”

It is owing in a great measure to this form of composition, that our
version, though in prose, retains so much of a poetical cast: for, the
version being strictly word for word after the original, the form and
order of the original sentence are preserved; which, by this artificial
structure, this regular alternation and correspondence of parts, makes
the ear sensible of a departure from the common style and tone of prose.
The origin of this form of poetical composition among the Hebrews is
clearly to be deduced from the manner in which their sacred hymns were
wont to be sung. They were accompanied with music, and they were
performed by choirs or bands of singers and musicians, who answered
alternately to each other. When, for instance, one band began the hymn
thus: The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice;” the chorus, or
semi-chorus, took up the corresponding versicle, Let the multitude of
the isles be glad thereof.” “Clouds and darkness are round about him,”
sung the one; the other replied, Judgment and righteousness are the
habitation of his throne.” And in this manner their poetry, when set to
music, naturally divided itself into a succession of strophes and
antistrophes correspondent to each other; whence it is probable the
antiphon, or responsory, in the public religious service of so many
Christian churches, derived its origin. The twenty-fourth Psalm, in
particular, which is thought to have been composed on the great and
solemn occasion of the ark of the covenant being brought back to Mount
Zion, must have had a noble effect when performed after this manner, as
Dr. Lowth has illustrated it. The whole people are supposed to be
attending the procession. The Levites and singers, divided into their
several courses, and accompanied with all their musical instruments, led
the way. After the introduction to the Psalm, in the two first verses,
when the procession begins to ascend the sacred mount, the question is
put, as by a semi-chorus, Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord,
and who shall stand in his holy place?” The response is made by the full
chorus with the greatest dignity: He that hath clean hands and a pure
heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn
deceitfully.” As the procession approaches to the doors of the
tabernacle, the chorus, with all their instruments, join in this
exclamation: Lift up your heads, ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye
everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.” Here the
semi-chorus plainly breaks in, as with a lower voice, Who is this King
of glory?” And at the moment when the ark is introduced into the
tabernacle, the response is made by the burst of the whole chorus: The
Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.”

The method of composition which has been explained, by correspondent
versicles being universally introduced into the hymns or musical poetry
of the Jews, easily spread itself through their other poetical writings,
which were not designed to be sung in alternate portions, and which,
therefore, did not so much require this mode of composition. But the
mode became familiar to their ears, and carried with it a certain solemn
majesty of style, particularly suited to sacred subjects. Hence,
throughout the prophetical writings, we find it prevailing as much as in
the Psalms of David. This form of writing is one of the great
characteristics of the ancient Hebrew poetry; very different from, and
even opposite to, the style of the Greek and Roman poets. Independently
of this peculiar mode of construction, the sacred poetry is
distinguished by the highest beauties of strong, concise, bold, and
figurative expression. Conciseness and strength are two of its most
remarkable characters. One might, indeed, imagine that the practice of
the Hebrew poets, of always amplifying the same thought, by repetition
or contrast, might tend to enfeeble their style. But they conduct
themselves so as not to produce this effect. Their sentences are always
short. Few superfluous words are used. The same thought is never dwelt
upon long. To their conciseness and sobriety of expression their poetry
is indebted for much of its sublimity; and all writers who attempt the
sublime might profit much by imitating, in this respect, the style of
the Old Testament.

No writings whatever abound so much with the most bold and animated
figures as the sacred books. In order to do justice to these, it is
necessary that we transport ourselves as much as we can into the land of
Judea, and place before our eyes that scenery and those objects with
which the Hebrew writers were conversant. Natural objects are in some
measure common to them with poets of all ages and countries. Light and
darkness, trees and flowers, the forest and the cultivated field,
suggest to them many beautiful figures. But, in order to relish their
figures of this kind, we must take notice that several of them arise
from the particular circumstances of the land of Judea. During the
summer months little or no rain falls throughout all that region. While
the heats continued, the country was intolerably parched; want of water
was a great distress; and a plentiful shower falling, or a rivulet
breaking forth, altered the whole face of nature, and introduced much
higher ideas of refreshment and pleasure than the like causes can
suggest to us. Hence, to represent distress, such frequent allusions
among them, to a dry and thirsty land where no water is;” and hence, to
describe a change from distress to prosperity, their metaphors are
founded on the falling of showers, and the bursting out of springs in
the desert. Thus: The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad,
and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose. For in the
wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert; and the
parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land, springs of
water; in the habitation of dragons there shall be grass, with rushes
and reeds,” Isaiah xxxv, 1, 6, 7. Images of this nature are very
familiar to Isaiah, and occur in many parts of his book. Again: as Judea
was a hilly country, it was, during the rainy months, exposed to
frequent inundations by the rushing of torrents, which came down
suddenly from the mountains, and carried every thing before them; and
Jordan, their only great river, annually overflowed its banks. Hence the
frequent allusions to the noise, and to the rushings of many waters;”
and hence great calamities so often compared to the overflowing torrent,
which, in such a country, must have been images particularly striking:
Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts; all thy waves
and thy billows are gone over me,” Psalm xlii, 7. The two most
remarkable mountains of the country were Lebanon and Carmel; the former
noted for its height, and the woods of lofty cedars that covered it; the
latter, for its beauty and fertility, the richness of its vines and
olives. Hence, with the greatest propriety, Lebanon is employed as an
image of whatever is great, strong, or magnificent; Carmel, of what is
smiling and beautiful. The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, and
the excellency of Carmel,” Isaiah xxxv, 2. Lebanon is often put
metaphorically for the whole state or people of Israel, for the temple,
for the king of Assyria; Carmel, for the blessings of peace and
prosperity. His countenance is as Lebanon,” says Solomon, speaking of
the dignity of a man’s appearance; but when he describes female beauty,
Thine head is like Mount Carmel,” Cant. v, 15; vii, 5. It is farther to
be remarked under this head, that, in the images of the awful and
terrible kind, with which the sacred poets abound, they plainly draw
their descriptions from that violence of the elements, and those great
concussions of nature, with which their climate rendered them
acquainted. Earthquakes were not unfrequent; and the tempests of hail,
thunder, and lightning, in Judea and Arabia, accompanied with whirlwinds
and darkness, far exceed any thing of that sort which happens in more
temperate regions. Isaiah, xxiv, 20, describes, with great majesty, the
earth, reeling to and fro like a drunkard, and removed like a cottage.”
And in those circumstances of terror, with which an appearance of the
Almighty is described, in Psalm xviii, when his pavilion round about him
was darkness; when hail stones and coals of fire were his voice; and
when, at his rebuke, the channels of the waters are said to be seen, and
the foundations of the hills discovered; though there may be some
reference, as Dr. Lowth thinks, to the history of God’s descent upon
Mount Sinai; yet it seems more probable that the figures were taken
directly from those commotions of nature with which the author was
acquainted, and which suggested stronger and nobler images than those
which now occur to us.

Beside the natural objects of their own country, we find the rites of
their religion, and the arts and employments of their common life,
frequently employed as grounds of imagery among the Hebrews. Hence
flowed, of course, the many allusions to pastoral life, to the green
pastures and the still waters,” and to the care and watchfulness of a
shepherd over his flock, which carry to this day so much beauty and
tenderness in them, in Psalm xxiii, and in many other passages of the
poetical writings of Scripture. Hence all the images founded upon rural
employments, upon the wine press, the threshing floor, the stubble and
the chaff. To disrelish all such images is the effect of false delicacy.
Homer is at least as frequent, and much more minute and particular, in
his similes, founded on what we now call low life; but, in his
management of them, far inferior to the sacred writers, who generally
mix with their comparisons of this kind somewhat of dignity and grandeur
to ennoble them. What inexpressible grandeur does the following rural
image in Isaiah, for instance, receive from the intervention of the
Deity!--“The nations shall rush like the rushings of many waters; but
God shall rebuke them, and they shall fly far off; and they shall be
chased as the chaff of the mountain before the wind, and like the down
of the thistle before the whirlwind.” Figurative allusions, too, we
frequently find to the rites and ceremonies of their religion, to the
legal distinctions of things clean and unclean, to the mode of their
temple service, to the dress of their priests, and to the most noted
incidents recorded in their sacred history; as, to the destruction of
Sodom, the descent of God upon Mount Sinai, and the miraculous passage
of the Israelites through the Red Sea. The religion of the Hebrews
included the whole of their laws and civil constitution. It was full of
splendid external rites, that occupied their senses; it was connected
with every part of their national history and establishment; and hence,
all ideas founded on religion possessed in this nation a dignity and
importance peculiar to themselves, and were uncommonly suited to impress
the imagination.

From all this it results that the imagery of the sacred poets is, in a
high degree, expressive and natural; it is copied directly from real
objects that were before their eyes; it has this advantage, of being
more complete within itself, more entirely founded on national ideas and
manners, than that of the most of other poets. In reading their works we
find ourselves continually in the land of Judea. The palm trees, and the
cedars of Lebanon, are ever rising in our view. The face of their
territory, the circumstances of their climate, the manners of the
people, and the august ceremonies of their religion, constantly pass
under different forms before us. The comparisons employed by the sacred
poets are generally short, touching on one point only of resemblance,
rather than branching out into little episodes. In this respect they
have an advantage over the Greek and Roman authors; whose comparisons,
by the length to which they are extended, sometimes interrupt the
narration too much, and carry too visible marks of study and labour;
whereas, in the Hebrew poets, they appear more like the glowings of a
lively fancy, just glancing aside to some resembling object, and
presently returning to its track. Such is the following fine comparison,
introduced to describe the happy influence of good government upon a
people, in what are called the last words of David: He that ruleth over
men must be just, ruling in the fear of God; and he shall be as the
light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds;
as the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after
rain,” 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. This is one of the most regular and formal
comparisons in the sacred books.

Allegory, likewise, is a figure frequently found in them. But the
poetical figure which, beyond all others, elevates the style of
Scripture, and gives it a peculiar boldness and sublimity, is
_prosopopœia_, or personification. No personifications employed by
any poets are so magnificent and striking as those of the inspired
writers. On great occasions they animate every part of nature,
especially when any appearance or operation of the Almighty is
concerned. Before him went the pestilence.” “The waters saw thee, O God,
and were afraid.” The mountains saw thee, and they trembled.” “The
overflowing of the water passed by.” The deep uttered his voice, and
lifted up his hands on high.” When inquiry is made about the place of
wisdom, Job introduces the deep, saying, It is not in me; and the sea
saith, It is not in me. Destruction and death say, We have heard the
fame thereof with our ears.” That noted sublime passage in the book of
Isaiah, which describes the fall of the king of Assyria, is full of
personified objects; the fir trees and cedars of Lebanon breaking forth
into exultation on the fall of the tyrant; hell from beneath stirring up
all the dead to meet him at his coming; and the dead kings introduced as
speaking and joining in the triumph. In the same strain are those many
lively and passionate apostrophes to cities and countries, to persons
and things, with which the prophetical writings every where abound. O
thou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? Put
thyself up into the scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet,”
as the reply is instantly made, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge
against Askelon, and the sea shore? there hath he appointed it,” Jer.
xlvii, 6. In general, for it would carry us too far to enlarge upon all
the instances, the style of the poetical books of the Old Testament is,
beyond the style of all other poetical works, fervid, bold, and
animated. It is extremely different from that regular correct expression
to which our ears are accustomed in modern poetry. It is the burst of
inspiration. The scenes are not coolly described, but represented as
passing before our eyes. Every object and every person is addressed and
spoken to, as if present. The transition is often abrupt; the connection
often obscure; the persons are often changed; figures crowded, and
heaped upon one another. Bold sublimity, not correct elegance, is its
character. We see the spirit of the writer raised beyond himself, and
labouring to find vent for ideas too mighty for his utterance.

The several kinds of poetical composition which we find in Scripture are
chiefly the didactic, elegiac, pastoral, and lyric. Of the didactic
species of poetry, the book of Proverbs is the principal instance. The
first nine chapters of that book are highly poetical, adorned with many
distinguished graces, and figures of expression. The book of
Ecclesiastes comes, likewise, under this head; and some of the Psalms,
as the hundred and nineteenth in particular. Of elegiac poetry, many
very beautiful specimens occur in Scripture; such as the lamentation of
David over his friend Jonathan; several passages in the prophetical
books; and several of David’s Psalms, composed on occasions of distress
and mourning. The forty-second Psalm, in particular, is, in the highest
degree, tender and plaintive. But the most regular and perfect elegiac
composition in the Scripture, perhaps in the whole world, is the
Lamentations of Jeremiah. As the prophet mourns, in that book, over the
destruction of the temple and the holy city, and the overthrow of the
whole state, he assembles all the affecting images which a subject so
melancholy could suggest. The Song of Solomon affords us a high
exemplification of pastoral poetry. Considered with respect to its
spiritual meaning, it is undoubtedly a mystical allegory; in its form it
is a dramatic pastoral, or a perpetual dialogue between personages in
the character of shepherds; and, suitably to that form, it is full of
rural and pastoral images from beginning to end. Of lyric poetry, or
that which is intended to be accompanied with music, the Old Testament
is full. Beside a great number of hymns and songs, which we find
scattered in the historical and prophetical books, such as the song of
Moses, the song of Deborah, and many others of like nature, the whole
book of Psalms is to be considered as a collection of sacred odes. In
these we find the ode exhibited in all the varieties of its form, and
supported with the highest spirit of lyric poetry; sometimes sprightly,
cheerful, and triumphant; sometimes solemn and magnificent; sometimes
tender and soft. From these instances it clearly appears, that there are
contained in the Holy Scriptures full exemplifications of several of the
chief kinds of poetical writing.

POLLUX, a tutelar deity of mariners in ancient times, Acts xxviii, 11,
whose image was placed either at the prow or stern of the ship.

POMEGRANATE, רמון, Numbers xiii, 23; xx, 5; 1 Sam. xiv, 2, &c, a low
tree growing very common in Palestine, and in other parts of the east.
Its branches are very thick and bushy; some of them are armed with sharp
thorns. They are garnished with narrow spear-shaped leaves. Its flowers
are of an elegant red colour, resembling a rose. It is chiefly valued
for the fruit, which is as big as a large apple, is quite round, and has
the general qualities of other summer fruits, allaying heat and
quenching thirst. The high estimation in which it was held by the people
of Israel, may be inferred from its being one of the three kinds of
fruit brought by the spies from Eshcol to Moses and the congregation in
the wilderness, Num. xiii, 23; xx, 5; and from its being specified by
that rebellious people as one of the greatest luxuries which they
enjoyed in Egypt, the want of which they felt so severely in the sandy
desert. The pomegranate, classed by Moses with wheat and barley, vines
and figs, oil olive and honey, was, in his account, one principal
recommendation of the promised land, Deut. viii, 8. The form of this
fruit was so beautiful, as to be honoured with a place at the bottom of
the high priest’s robe, Exodus xxviii, 33; Ecclus. xlv, 9; and was the
principal ornament of the stately columns of Solomon’s temple. The
inside is full of small kernels, replenished with a generous liquor. In
short there is scarcely any part of the pomegranate which does not
delight and recreate the senses.

PORTERS OF THE TEMPLE. The Levites discharged the office of porters of
the temple both day and night, and had the care both of the treasure and
offerings. The office of porter was in some sort military; properly
speaking, they were the soldiers of the Lord, and the guards of his
house, to whose charge the several gates of the courts of the sanctuary
were appointed by lot, 1 Chronicles xxvi, 1, 13, 19. They waited at
every gate; and were not permitted to depart from their service,” 2
Chron. xxxv, 15; and they attended by turns in their courses, as the
other Levites did, 2 Chron. viii, 14. Their proper business was to open
and shut the gates, and to attend at them by day, as a sort of peace
officers, in order to prevent any tumult among the people; to keep
strangers and the excommunicated and unclean persons, from entering into
the holy court; and, in short, to prevent whatever might be prejudicial
to the safety, peace, and purity of the holy place and service. They
also kept guard by night about the temple and its courts; and they are
said to have been twenty-four, including three priests, who stood sentry
at so many different places. There was a superior officer over the whole
guard, called by Maimonides, the man of the mountain of the house;” he
walked the round as often as he pleased; when he passed a sentinel that
was standing, he said, Peace be unto you;” but if he found one asleep,
he struck him, and he had liberty to set fire to his garment. This
custom may, perhaps, be alluded to in the following passage: Behold, I
come as a thief,” that is, unawares; blessed is he that watcheth and
keepeth his garments,” Rev. xvi, 15. Psalm cxxxiv, seems to be addressed
to these watchmen of the temple, who by night stand in the house of the
Lord;” in which they are exhorted to employ their waking hours in acts
of praise and devotion.

POST, a messenger or regulated courier, appointed to carry with
expedition the despatches of princes, or the letters of private persons
in general, Job ix, 25; Jer. li, 31; 2 Chron. xxx, 6; Esther iii, 13,
&c. It is thought that the use of posts is derived from the Persians.
Diodorus Siculus observes, that the kings of Persia, in order to have
intelligence of what was passed through all the provinces of their vast
dominions, placed centinels at eminences, at convenient distances, where
towers were built. These centinels gave notice of public occurrences
from one to another, with a very loud and shrill voice, by which news
was transmitted from one extremity of the kingdom to another with great
expedition. But as this could not be practised, except in the case of
general news, which it was expedient that the whole nation should be
acquainted with, Cyrus, as Xenophon relates, appointed couriers and
places for post horses, building on purpose on all the high roads houses
for the reception of the couriers, where they were to deliver their
packets to the next, and so on. This they did night and day, so that no
inclemency of weather was to stop them; and they are represented as
moving with astonishing speed. In the judgment of many they went faster
than cranes could fly. Herodotus owns, that nothing swifter was known
for a journey by land. Xerxes, in his famous expedition against Greece,
planted posts from the Ægean Sea to Shushan, or Susa, to send notice
thither of what might happen to his army; he placed these messengers
from station to station, to convey his packets, at such distances from
each other as a horse might easily travel.

POTTER. Frequent mention is made of the potter in Scripture, Jer. xviii,
3; Ecclus. xxxviii, 29, 30. Homer says, that the potter turns his wheel
with his hands. But at the present day, the wheel on which the work is
formed is turned by another.

POTTER’s FIELD, the land that was bought with the money for which Judas
sold our Saviour, Matt. xxvii, 7, 10, and which he returned. See
ACELDAMA.

PRAYER has been well defined, the offering up of our desires unto God,
for things agreeable to his will, in the name or through the mediation
of Jesus Christ, by the help of the Holy Spirit, with a confession of
our sins, and a thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. 1. Prayer is in
itself a becoming acknowledgment of the all-sufficiency of God, and of
our dependence upon him. It is his appointed means for the obtaining of
both temporal and spiritual blessings. He could bless his creatures in
another way: but he will be inquired of, to do for them those things of
which they stand in need, Ezek. xxxvi, 37. It is the act of an indigent
creature, seeking relief from the fountain of mercy. A sense of want
excites desire, and desire is the very essence of prayer. One thing have
I desired of the Lord,” says David: that will I seek after.” Prayer
without desire is like an altar without a sacrifice, or without the fire
from heaven to consume it. When all our wants are supplied, prayer will
be converted into praise; till then Christians must live by prayer, and
dwell at the mercy seat. God alone is able to hear and to supply their
every want. The revelation which he has given of his goodness lays a
foundation for our asking with confidence the blessings we need, and his
ability encourages us to hope for their bestowment. O thou that hearest
prayer; unto thee shall all flesh come,” Psalm lxv, 2. 2. Prayer is a
spiritual exercise, and can only be performed acceptably by the
assistance of the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii, 26. The sacrifice of the
wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is
his delight.” The Holy Spirit is the great agent in the world of grace,
and without his special influence there is no acceptable prayer. Hence
he is called the Spirit of grace and of supplication: for he it is that
enables us to draw nigh unto God, filling our mouth with arguments, and
teaching us to order our cause before him, Zech. xii, 10. 3. All
acceptable prayer must be offered in faith, or a believing frame of
mind. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him
ask in faith, nothing wavering--for let not the wavering man think that
he shall receive any thing of the Lord,” James i, 5–7. He that cometh
unto God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him,” Heb. xi, 6. It must be offered in the name of
Christ, believing in him as revealed in the word of God, placing in him
all our hope of acceptance, and exercising unfeigned confidence in his
atoning sacrifice and prevalent intercession. 4. Prayer is to be offered
for things agreeable to the will of God.” So the Apostle says: This is
the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according
to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever
we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him,” 1
John v, 14, 15. Our prayers must therefore be regulated by the revealed
will of God, and come within the compass of the promises. These are to
be the matter and the ground of our supplications. What God has not
particularly promised he may nevertheless possibly bestow; but what he
has promised he will assuredly perform. Of the good things promised to
Israel of old not one failed, but all came to pass; and in due time the
same shall be said of all the rest. 5. All this must be accompanied with
confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of God’s mercies.
These are two necessary ingredients in acceptable prayer. I prayed,”
says the Prophet Daniel, and made confession.” Sin is a burden, of which
confession unloads the soul. Father,” said the returning prodigal, I
have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight.” Thanksgiving is also as
necessary as confession; by the one we take shame to ourselves; by the
other, we give glory to God. By the one, we abase the creature; by the
other we exalt the Creator. In petitioning favours from God, we act like
dependent creatures; in confession, like sinners; but in thanksgiving,
like angels.

The reason on which this great and efficacious duty rests, has been a
subject of some debate. On this point, however, we have nothing stated
in the Scriptures. From them we learn only, that God has appointed it;
that he enjoins it to be offered in faith, that is, faith in Christ,
whose atonement is the meritorious and procuring cause of all the
blessings to which our desires can be directed; and that prayer so
offered is an indispensable condition of our obtaining the blessings for
which we ask. As a matter of inference, however, we may discover some
glimpses of the reason in the divine Mind on which its appointment
rests. That reason has sometimes been said to be the moral preparation
and state of fitness produced in the soul for the reception of the
divine mercies which the act and, more especially the habit of prayer
must induce. Against this stands the strong, and, in a Scriptural view,
fatal objection, that an efficiency is thus ascribed to the mere act of
a creature to produce those great, and, in many respects, radical
changes in the character of man, which we are taught, by inspired
authority, to refer to the direct influences of the Holy Spirit. What is
it that fits man for forgiveness, but simply repentance? Yet that is
expressly said to be the gift” of Christ, and supposes strong operations
of the illuminating and convincing Spirit of truth, the Lord and Giver
of spiritual life; and if the mere acts and habit of prayer had
efficiency enough to produce a Scriptural repentance, then every
formalist attending with ordinary seriousness to his devotions must, in
consequence, become a penitent. Again: if we pray for spiritual
blessings aright, that is, with an earnestness of desire which arises
from a due apprehension of their importance, and a preference of them to
all earthly good, who does not see that this implies such a deliverance
from the earthly and carnal disposition which characterizes our
degenerate nature, that an agency far above our own, however we may
employ it, must be supposed? or else, if our own prayers could be
efficient up to this point, we might, by the continual application of
this instrument, complete our regeneration, independent of that grace of
God, which, after all, this theory brings in. It may indeed be said,
that the grace of God operates by our prayers to produce in us a state
of moral fitness to receive the blessings we ask. But this gives up the
point contended for, the moral efficiency of prayer; and refers the
efficiency to another agent working by our prayers as an instrument.
Still, however, it may be affirmed, that the Scriptures no where
represent prayer as an instrument for improving our moral state, in any
other way than as the means of bringing into the soul new supplies of
spiritual life and strength. It is therefore more properly to be
considered as a condition of our obtaining that grace by which such
effects are wrought, than as the instrument by which it effects them. In
fact, all genuine acts of prayer depend upon a grace previously
bestowed, and from which alone the disposition and the power to pray
proceed. So it was said of Saul of Tarsus, Behold, he prayeth!” He
prayed in fact then for the first time; but that was in consequence of
the illumination of his mind as to his spiritual danger, effected by the
miracle on the way to Damascus, and the grace of God which accompanied
the miracle. Nor does the miraculous character of the means by which
conviction was produced in his mind, affect the relevancy of this to
ordinary cases. By whatever means God may be pleased to fasten the
conviction of our spiritual danger upon our minds, and to awaken us out
of the long sleep of sin, that conviction must precede real prayer, and
comes from the influence of his grace, rendering the means of conviction
effectual. Thus it is not the prayer which produces the conviction, but
the conviction which gives birth to the prayer; and if we pursue the
matter into its subsequent stages, we shall come to the same result. We
pray for what we feel we want; that is, for something not in our
possession; we obtain this either by impartation from God, to whom we
look up as the only Being able to bestow the good for which we ask him;
or else we obtain it, according to this theory, by some moral efficiency
being given to the exercise of prayer to work it in us. Now, the latter
hypothesis is in many cases manifestly absurd. We ask for pardon of sin,
for instance; but this is an act of God done _for_ us, quite distinct
from any moral change which prayer may be said to produce in us,
whatever efficiency we may ascribe to it; for no such change in us can
be pardon, since that must proceed from the party offended. We ask for
increase of spiritual strength; and prayer is the expression of that
want. But if it supply this want by its own moral efficiency, it must
supply it in proportion to its intensity and earnestness; which
intensity and earnestness can only be called forth by the degree in
which the want is felt, so that the case supposed is contradictory and
absurd, as it makes the sense of want to be in proportion to the supply
which ought to abate or remove it. And if it be urged, that prayer at
least produces in us a fitness for the supply of spiritual strength,
because it is excited by a sense of our wants, the answer is, that the
fitness contended for consists in that sense of want itself which must
be produced in us by the _previous_ agency of grace, or we should never
pray for supplies. There is, in fact, nothing in prayer simply which
appears to have any adaptation, as an _instrument_, to effect a moral
change in man, although it should be supposed to be made use of by the
influence of the Holy Spirit. The word of God is properly an instrument,
because it contains the doctrine which that Spirit explains and applies,
and the motives to faith and obedience which he enforces upon the
conscience and affections; and although prayer brings these truths and
motives before us, prayer cannot properly be said to be an instrument of
our regeneration, because that which is thus brought by prayer to bear
upon our case is the word of God itself introduced into our prayers,
which derive their sole influence in that respect from that
circumstance. Prayer simply is the application of an insufficient to a
sufficient Being for the good which the former cannot otherwise obtain,
and which the latter only can supply; and as that supply is dependent
upon prayer, and in the nature of the thing consequent, prayer can in no
good sense be said to be the instrument of supplying our wants, or
fitting us for their supply, except relatively, as a mere condition
appointed by the Donor.

If we must inquire into the reason of the appointment of prayer, and it
can scarcely be considered as a purely arbitrary institution, that
reason seems to be, the preservation in the minds of men of a solemn and
impressive sense of God’s agency in the world, and the dependence of all
creatures upon him. Perfectly pure and glorified beings, no longer in a
state of probation, and therefore exposed to no temptations, may not
need this institution; but men in their fallen state are constantly
prone to forget God; to rest in the agency of second causes; and to
build upon a sufficiency in themselves. This is at once a denial to God
of the glory which he rightly claims, and a destructive delusion to
creatures, who, in forsaking God as the object of their constant
affiance, trust but in broken reeds, and attempt to drink from broken
cisterns which can hold no water.” It is then equally in mercy to us, as
in respect to his own honour and acknowledgment, that the divine Being
has suspended so many of his blessings, and those of the highest
necessity to us, upon the exercise of prayer; an act which acknowledges
his uncontrollable agency, and the dependence of all creatures upon him;
our insufficiency, and his fulness; and lays the foundation of that
habit of gratitude and thanksgiving which is at once so meliorating to
our own feelings, and so conducive to a cheerful obedience to the will
of God. And if this reason for the injunction of prayer is no where in
Scripture stated in so many words, it is a principle uniformly supposed
as the foundation of the whole scheme of religion which they have
revealed.

To this duty objections have been sometimes offered, at which it may be
well at least to glance. One has been grounded upon a supposed
predestination of all things which come to pass; and the argument is,
that as this established predetermination of all things cannot be
altered, prayer, which supposes that God will depart from it, is vain
and useless. The answer which a pious predestinarian would give to this
objection is, that the argument drawn from the predestination of God
lies with the same force against every other human effort, as against
prayer; and that as God’s predetermination to give food to man does not
render the cultivation of the earth useless and impertinent, so neither
does the predestination of things shut out the necessity and efficacy of
prayer. It would also be urged, that God has ordained the means as well
as the end; and although he is an unchangeable Being, it is a part of
the unchangeable system which he has established, that prayer shall be
heard and accepted. Those who have not these views of predestination
will answer the objection differently; for if the premises of such a
predestination as is assumed by the objection, and conceded in the
answer, be allowed, the answer is unsatisfactory. The Scriptures
represent God, for instance, as purposing to inflict a judgment upon an
individual or a nation, which purpose is often changed by prayer. In
this case either God’s purpose must be denied, and then his threatenings
are reduced to words without meaning; or the purpose must be allowed; in
which case either prayer breaks in upon predestination, if understood
absolutely, or it is vain and useless. To the objection so drawn out it
is clear that no answer is given by saying that the means as well as the
end are predestinated, since prayer in such cases is not a means to the
end, but an instrument of thwarting it; or is a means to one end in
opposition to another end, which, if equally predestinated with the same
absoluteness, is a contradiction. The true answer is, that although God
has absolutely predetermined some things, there are others which respect
his government of free and accountable agents, which he has but
conditionally predetermined. The true immutability of God consists, not
in his adherence to his purposes, but in his never changing the
principles of his administration; and he may therefore, in perfect
accordance with his preördination of things, and the immutability of his
nature, purpose to do, under certain conditions dependent upon the free
agency of man, what he will not do under others; and for this reason,
that an immutable adherence to the principles of a wise, just, and
gracious government requires it. Prayer is in Scripture made one of
these conditions; and if God has established it as one of the principles
of his moral government to accept prayer, in every case in which he has
given us authority to ask, he has not, we may be assured, entangled his
actual government of the world with the bonds of such an eternal
predestination of particular events, as either to reduce prayer to a
mere form of words, or not to be able himself, consistently with his
decrees, to answer it, whenever it is encouraged by his express
engagements.

A second objection is, that as God is infinitely wise and good, his
wisdom and justice will lead him to bestow whatever is fit for us
without praying; and if any thing be not fit for us, we cannot obtain it
by praying.” To this Dr. Paley very well replies, that it may be
agreeable to perfect wisdom to grant that to our prayers which it would
not have been agreeable to the same wisdom to have given us without
praying for.” This, independent of the question of the authority of the
Scriptures which explicitly enjoin prayer, is the best answer which can
be given to the objection; and it is no small confirmation of it, that
it is obvious to every reflecting man, that for God to withhold favours
till asked for, tends,” as the same writer observes, to encourage
devotion among his rational creatures, and to keep up and circulate a
knowledge and sense of their dependency upon him.” But it is urged, God
will always do what is best from the moral perfection of his nature,
whether we pray or not.” This objection, however, supposes that there is
but one mode of acting for the best, and that the divine will is
necessarily determined to that mode only; both which positions,” says
Paley, presume a knowledge of universal nature, much beyond what we are
capable of attaining.” It is, indeed, a very unsatisfactory mode of
speaking, to say, God will always do what is best; since we can conceive
him capable in all cases of doing what is still better for the creature,
and also that the creature is capable of receiving more and more from
his infinite fulness for ever. All that can be rationally meant by such
a phrase is, that, in the circumstances of the case, God will always do
what is most consistent with his own wisdom, holiness, and goodness; but
then the disposition to pray, and the act of praying, add a new
circumstance to every case, and often bring many other new circumstances
along with them. It supposes humility, contrition, and trust, on the
part of the creature; and an acknowledgment of the power and compassion
of God, and of the merit of the atonement of Christ: all which are
manifestly new positions, so to speak, of the circumstances of the
creature, which, upon the very principle of the objection, rationally
understood, must be taken into consideration.

But if the efficacy of prayer as to ourselves be granted, its influence
upon the case of others is said to be more difficult to conceive. This
may be allowed without at all affecting the duty. Those who bow to the
authority of the Scriptures will see, that the duty of praying for
ourselves and for others rests upon the same divine appointment; and to
those who ask for the reason of such intercession in behalf of others,
it is sufficient to reply, that the efficacy of prayer being established
in one case, there is the same reason to conclude that our prayers may
benefit others, as any other effort we may use. It can only be by divine
appointment that one creature is made dependent upon another for any
advantage, since it was doubtless in the power of the Creator to have
rendered each independent of all but himself. Whatever reason,
therefore, might lead him to connect and interweave the interests of one
man with the benevolence of another, will be the leading reason for that
kind of mutual dependence which is implied in the benefit of mutual
prayer. Were it only that a previous sympathy, charity, and good will,
are implied in the duty, and must, indeed, be cultivated in order to it,
and be strengthened by it, the wisdom and benevolence of the institution
would, it is presumed, be apparent to every well constituted mind. That
all prayer for others must proceed upon a less perfect knowledge of them
than we have of ourselves, is certain; that all our petitions must be,
even in our own mind, more conditional than those which respect
ourselves, though many of these must be subjected to the principles of a
general administration, which we but partially apprehend; and that all
spiritual influences upon others, when they are subject to our prayers,
will be understood by us as liable to the control of their free agency,
must also be conceded; and, therefore, when others are concerned, our
prayers may often be partially or wholly fruitless. He who believes the
Scriptures will, however, be encouraged by the declaration that the
effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man,” for his fellow creatures,
availeth much;” and he who demands something beyond mere authoritative
declaration, as he cannot deny that prayer is one of those instruments
by which another may be benefited, must acknowledge that, like the
giving of counsel, it may be of great utility in some cases, although it
should fail in others; and that as no man can tell how much good counsel
may influence another, or in many cases say whether it has ultimately
failed or not, so it is with prayer. It is a part of the divine plan, as
revealed in his word, to give many blessings to man independent of his
own prayers, leaving the subsequent improvement of them to himself. They
are given in honour of the intercession of Christ, man’s great
Advocate;” and they are given, subordinately, in acceptance of the
prayers of Christ’s church, and of righteous individuals. And when many
or few devout individuals become thus the instruments of good to
communities, or to whole nations, there is no greater mystery in this
than in the obvious fact, that the happiness or misery of large masses
of mankind is often greatly affected by the wisdom or the errors, the
skill or the incompetence, the good or the bad conduct, of a few
persons, and often of one.

PREACHING is the discoursing publicly on any religious subject. From the
sacred records, says Robert Robinson, we learn that when men began to
associate for the purpose of worshipping the Deity, Enoch prophesied,
Jude 14, 15. We have a very short account of this prophet and his
doctrine; enough, however, to convince us that he taught the principal
truths of natural and revealed religion. Conviction of sin was in his
doctrine, and communion with God was exemplified in his conduct, Gen. v,
24; Heb. xi, 5, 6. From the days of Enoch to the time of Moses, each
patriarch worshipped God with his family: probably several assembled at
new moons, and alternately instructed the whole company. Noah,” it is
said, was a preacher of righteousness,” 1 Peter iii, 19, 20; 2 Peter ii,
5. Abraham commanded his household after him to keep the way of the
Lord, and to do justice and judgment, Gen. xviii, 19; and Jacob, when
his house lapsed to idolatry, remonstrated against it, and exhorted all
them that were with him to put away the strange gods, and go up with him
to Bethel, Gen. xxxv, 2, 3. Melchisedec, also, we may consider as the
father, the priest, and the prince, of his people; publishing the glad
tidings of peace and salvation, Gen. xiv; Heb. vii.

Moses was a most eminent prophet and preacher, raised up by the
authority of God, and by whom, it was said, came the law, John i, 17.
This great man had much at heart the promulgation of his doctrine: he
directed it to be inscribed on pillars, to be transcribed in books, and
to be taught both in public and private by word of mouth, Deut. iv, 9;
vi, 9; xvii, 18; xxvii, 8; xxxi, 19; Num. v, 23. He himself set the
example of each; and how he and Aaron preached, we may see by several
parts of his writings. The first discourse was heard with profound
reverence and attention; the last was both uttered and received with
raptures, Exod. iv, 31; Deut. xxxiii, 7, 8, &c. Public preaching does
not appear under this economy to have been attached to the priesthood:
priests were not officially preachers; and we have innumerable instances
of discourses delivered in assemblies by men of other tribes beside that
of Levi, Psalm lxviii, 11. Joshua was an Ephraimite; but, being full of
the spirit of wisdom, he gathered the tribes to Shechem, and harangued
the people of God, Deut. xxxiv, 9; Joshua xxiv. Solomon was a prince of
the house of Judah; Amos, a herdsman of Tekoa; yet both were preachers,
and one at least was a prophet, 1 Kings ii; Amos vii, 14, 15. When the
ignorant notions of Pagans, the vices of their practice, and the
idolatry of their pretended worship, were in some sad periods
incorporated into the Jewish religion by the princes of that nation, the
prophets and all the seers protested against this apostasy; and they
were persecuted for so doing. Shemaiah preached to Rehoboam, the
princes, and all the people at Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xii, 5; Azariah and
Hanani preached to Asa and his army, 2 Chron. xv, 1; xvi, 7; Micaiah, to
Ahab. Some of them opened schools, or houses of instruction; and there
to their disciples they taught the pure religion of Moses. At Naioth, in
the suburbs of Ramah, there was one where Samuel dwelt; and there was
one at Jericho, and a third at Bethel, to which Elijah and Elisha often
resorted. Thither the people went on Sabbath days and at new moons, and
received public lessons of piety and morality, 1 Sam. xix, 18; 2 Kings
ii, 2, 5; iv, 2, 3. Through all this period, however, there was a dismal
confusion of the useful ordinance of public preaching. Sometimes they
had no open vision, and the word of the Lord was precious, or scarce;
the people heard it only now and then. At other times they were left
without a teaching priest, and without law. And at other seasons again,
itinerants, both princes, priests, and Levites, were sent through all
the country, to carry the book of the law, and to teach in the cities.
In a word, preaching flourished when pure religion grew; and when the
last decayed, the first was suppressed. Moses had not appropriated
preaching to any order of men: persons, places, times, and manners, were
all left open and discretional. Many of the discourses were preached in
camps and courts, in streets, schools, cities, villages; sometimes, with
great composure and coolness; at other times, with vehement action and
rapturous energy; sometimes, in a plain, blunt style; at other times, in
all the magnificent pomp of eastern allegory. On some occasions, the
preachers appeared in public with visible signs, with implements of war,
with yokes of slavery, or something adapted to their subject. They gave
lectures on these, held them up to view, girded them on, broke them in
pieces, rent their garments, rolled in the dust, and endeavoured, by all
the methods they could devise, agreeably to the customs of their
country, to impress the minds of their auditors with the nature and
importance of their doctrines. These men were highly esteemed by the
pious part of the nation; and princes thought proper to keep seers and
others who were scribes, who read and expounded the law, 2 Chron. xxxiv,
29, 30; xxxv, 15. Hence, false prophets, bad men, who found their
account in pretending to be good, crowded the courts of princes.
Jezebel, an idolatress, had four hundred prophets of Baal; and Ahab, a
pretended worshipper of Jehovah, had as many pretended prophets of his
own profession, 2 Chron. xviii, 5.

When the Jews were carried captive into Babylon, the prophets who were
with them inculcated the principles of religion, and endeavoured to
possess their minds with an aversion to idolatry; and, to the success of
preaching, we may attribute the re-conversion of the Jews to the belief
and worship of one God; a conversion that remains to this day. The Jews
have since fallen into horrid crimes; but they have never since this
period lapsed into gross idolatry, Hosea ii, iii; Ezekiel ii, iii,
xxxiv. There were not wanting, however, multitudes of false prophets
among them, whose characters are strikingly delineated by the true
prophets, and which the reader may see in Ezek. xiii; Isa. lvi; Jer.
xxiii. When the seventy years of the captivity were expired, the good
prophets and preachers, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai, and others, having
confidence in the word of God, and being concerned to possess their
natural, civil, and religious rights, endeavoured, by all means, to
extricate themselves and their countrymen from that mortifying state
into which the crimes of their ancestors had brought them. They wept,
fasted, prayed, preached, prophesied, and at length prevailed. The chief
instruments were Nehemiah and Ezra; the former was governor, and
reformed the civil state; the latter was a scribe of the law of the God
of heaven, and applied himself to ecclesiastical matters, in which he
rendered the noblest service to his country, and to all posterity. He
collected and collated MSS. of the sacred writings, and arranged and
published the books of the holy canon in their present form. To this he
added a second work, as necessary as the former: he revised and new
modelled public teaching, and exemplified his plan in his own person.
The Jews had almost lost, in the seventy years’ captivity, their
original language; that was now become dead; and they spoke a jargon
made up of their own language and that of the Chaldeans, and other
nations, with whom they had been mingled. Formerly, preachers had only
explained subjects: now they were obliged to explain words; words which,
in the sacred code, were become obsolete, equivocal, or dead. Houses
were now opened, not for ceremonial worship, as sacrificing, for this
was confined to the temple; but for moral and religious instruction, as
praying, preaching, reading the law, divine worship, and social duties.
These houses were called synagogues: the people repaired thither for
morning and evening prayer; and on Sabbaths and festivals, the law was
read and expounded to them. We have a short but beautiful description of
the manner of Ezra’s first preaching, Neh. viii. Upward of fifty
thousand people assembled in a street, or large square, near the water
gate. It was early in the morning of a Sabbath day. A pulpit of wood, in
the fashion of a small tower, was placed there on purpose for the
preacher; and this turret was supported by a scaffold, or temporary
gallery, where, in a wing on the right hand of the pulpit, sat six of
the principal preachers; and in another on the left, seven. Thirteen
other principal teachers, and many Levites, were present also, on
scaffolds erected for the purpose, alternately to officiate. When Ezra
ascended the pulpit, he produced and opened the book of the law, and the
whole congregation instantly rose up from their seats, and stood. Then
he offered up prayer and praise to God. The people bowing their heads
and worshipping the Lord with their faces to the ground; and at the
close of the prayer, with uplifted hands, they solemnly pronounced,
Amen! Amen!” Then all standing, Ezra, assisted at times by the Levites,
read the law distinctly, gave the sense, and caused them to understand
the reading. The sermons delivered so affected the hearers, that they
wept excessively; and about noon the sorrow became so exuberant and
immeasurable, that it was thought necessary by the governor, the
preacher, and the Levites, to restrain it. Go your way,” said they, eat
the fat, and drink the sweet, send portions to them for whom nothing is
prepared.” The wise and benevolent sentiments of these noble souls were
imbibed by the whole congregation, and fifty thousand troubled hearts
were calmed in a moment. Home they returned, to eat, to drink, to send
portions, and rejoice, because they had understood the words that were
declared unto them. Plato was living at this time, teaching dull
philosophy to cold academics; but what was he, and what was Xenophon, or
Demosthenes, or any of the Pagan orators, in comparison with these men?
From this period to that of the appearance of Jesus Christ, public
preaching was universal; synagogues were multiplied, vast numbers
attended, and elders and rulers were appointed for the purpose of order
and instruction.

The most celebrated preacher that arose before the appearance of Jesus
Christ was John the Baptist. He was commissioned from heaven to be the
harbinger of the Messiah. His subjects were few, plain, and important.
His style was vehement, his images bold, his deportment solemn, his
action eager, and his morals strict. But this bright morning star gave
way to the illustrious Sun of Righteousness, who now arose on a
benighted world. Jesus Christ certainly was the Prince of teachers. Who
but can admire the simplicity and majesty of his style, the beauty of
his images, the alternate softness and severity of his address, the
choice of his subjects, the gracefulness of his deportment, and the
indefatigableness of his zeal? Let the reader charm and solace himself
in the study and contemplation of the character, excellency, and dignity
of this divine teacher, as he will find them delineated in the
evangelists.

The Apostles copied their divine Master. They formed multitudes of
religious societies, and were abundantly successful in their labours.
They confined their attention to religion, and left the schools to
dispute, and politicians to intrigue. The doctrines they preached they
supported entirely by evidence; and neither had nor required such
assistance as human laws or worldly policy, the eloquence of schools or
the terror of arms, could afford them.

The Apostles being dead, every thing came to pass as they had foretold;
the whole Christian system, in time, underwent a miserable change;
preaching shared the fate of other institutions, and the glory of the
primitive church gradually degenerated. Those writers whom we call the
fathers, however, held up to view by some as models for imitation, do
not deserve that indiscriminate praise ascribed to them. Christianity,
it is true, is found in their writings; but how sadly incorporated with
Pagan philosophy and Jewish allegory! It must, indeed, be allowed, that,
in general, the simplicity of Christianity was maintained, though under
gradual decay, during the first three centuries. The next five centuries
produced many pious and excellent preachers, both in the Latin and Greek
church, though the doctrine continued to degenerate. The Greek pulpit
was adorned with some eloquent orators. Basil, bishop of Cæsarea, John
Chrysostom, preacher at Antioch, and afterward patriarch, as he was
called, of Constantinople, and Gregory Nazianzen, who all flourished in
the fourth century, seem to have led the fashion of preaching in the
Greek church; Jerom and Augustine did the same in the Latin church. The
first preachers differed much in pulpit action; the greater part used
very moderate and sober gestures. They delivered their sermons all
extempore, while there were notaries who took down what they said.
Sermons in those days were all in the vulgar tongue: the Greeks preached
in Greek, the Latins in Latin. They did not preach by the clock, so to
speak, but were short or long as they saw occasion; though an hour was
about the usual time. Sermons were generally both preached and heard
standing; but sometimes both speaker and auditors sat, especially the
aged and the infirm. The fathers were fond of allegory; for Origen, that
everlasting allegorizer, had set them the example. Before preaching, the
preacher usually went into a vestry to pray, and afterward to speak to
such as came to salute him. He prayed with his eyes shut in the pulpit.
The first word the preacher uttered to the people when he ascended the
pulpit was, Peace be with you;” or, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all;”
to whom the assembly first added, Amen,” and in after times they
answered, And with thy spirit.” Degenerate, however, as these days were,
in comparison of those of the Apostles, yet they were golden ages in
comparison with the times that followed, when metaphysical reasoning,
mystical divinity, yea, Aristotelian categories, and reading the lives
of saints, were substituted in the place of sermons. The pulpit became a
stage where ludicrous priests obtained the vulgar laugh by the lowest
kind of wit, especially at the festivals of Christmas and Easter.

But the glorious Reformation was the offspring of preaching, by which
mankind were reformed; there was a standard, and the religion of the
times was put to the trial by it. The avidity of the common people to
read the Scriptures, and to hear them expounded, was wonderful; and the
papists were so fully convinced of the benefits of frequent public
instruction, that they, who were justly called unpreaching prelates, and
whose pulpits to use an expression of Latimer, had been bells without
clappers” for many a long year, were obliged for shame to set up regular
preaching again. The church of Rome has produced some great preachers
since the Reformation, but none equal to the reformed preachers. And a
question naturally arises here, which it would be unpardonable to pass
over in silence, concerning the singular effect of the preaching of the
reformed, which was general, national, universal reformation. In the
dark times of popery there had arisen now and then some famous popular
preachers, who had zealously inveighed against the vices of the times,
and whose sermons had produced sudden and amazing effects on their
auditors; but all these effects had died away with the preachers who had
produced them, and all things had gone back into their old state. Law,
learning, commerce, society at large had not been improved. Here a new
scene opens; preachers arise less popular, perhaps less indefatigable
and exemplary; their sermons produce less striking immediate effects;
and yet their auditors go away and agree by whole nations to reform.
Jerom Savonarola, Jerom Narni, Capistran, Connecte, and many others, had
produced, by their sermons, great immediate effects. When Connecte
preached, the ladies lowered their head dresses, and committed quilled
caps by hundreds to the flames. When Narni taught the people in lent,
from the pulpits of Rome, half the city went from his sermons crying
along the streets, Lord, have mercy upon us;” so that in only one
passion week, two thousand crowns’ worth of ropes were sold to make
scourges with; and when he preached before the pope to the cardinals and
bishops, and painted the sin of non-residence in its own colours, he
frightened thirty or forty bishops, who heard him, home to their
diocesses. In the pulpit of the university of Salamanca, he induced
eight hundred students to quit all worldly prospects of honour, riches,
and pleasure, and to become penitents in divers monasteries. We know the
fate of Savonarola, and others might be added; but all lamented the
momentary duration of the effects produced by their labours. Narni
himself was so disgusted with his office, that he renounced preaching,
and shut himself up in his cell to mourn over his irreclaimable
contemporaries; for bishops went back to the court, and rope makers lay
idle again.

Our reformers taught all the good doctrines which had been taught by
these men, and they added two or three more, by which they laid the axe
to the root of the apostasy, and produced general reformation. Instead
of appealing to popes and canons, and founders and fathers, they only
quoted them, and referred their auditors to the Holy Scriptures for law.
Pope Leo X. did not know this when he told Prierio, who complained of
Luther’s heresy, Friar Martin has a fine genius.” They also taught the
people what little they knew of Christian liberty; and so led them into
a belief that they might follow their own ideas in religion, without the
consent of a confessor, a diocesan, a pope, or a council. They went
farther, and laid the stress of all religion on justifying faith.

Since the reformers we have had multitudes who have entered into their
views with disinterestedness and success; and in the present times, both
in the church and among other religious societies, names might be
mentioned which would do honour to any nation; for though there are too
many who do not fill up that important station with proportionate piety
and talents, yet we have men who are conspicuous for their extent of
knowledge, depth of experience, originality of thought, fervency of
zeal, consistency of deportment, and great usefulness in the Christian
church.

The preceding sketch will show how mighty an agent preaching has been in
all ages, in raising, and maintaining, and reviving the spirit of
religion. Wherever it has had this power, let it however be remarked, it
has consisted in the declaration, the proclamation, of the truth of God,
as contained in his early revelations to man, and afterward embodied in
the Holy Scriptures. The effect too has been produced by preachers
living themselves under the influence of this truth, and filled with
faith and the Holy Ghost,” depending wholly upon God’s blessing for
success, and going forth in his name, with ardent longing to win souls,”
and to build up the church in knowledge and holiness. For preaching is
not a profession; but a work of divine appointment, to be rightly
discharged only by him who receives a commission from God, and fulfils
it as under his eye, and in dependence upon his promise, Lo, I am with
you alway.”

PREDESTINATION, according to some, is a judgment, or decree of God, by
which he has resolved, from all eternity, to save a certain number of
persons, hence named elect. Others define it, a decree to give faith in
Jesus Christ to a certain number of men, and to leave the rest to their
own malice and hardness of heart. A third, more Scripturally, God’s
eternal purpose to save all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe
his holy Gospel,”--according to the Apostle Paul, Whom he did foreknow”
as believers them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son;” to his moral image here, and to the image of his glorified
humanity in heaven. According to the Calvinistical scheme, the reason of
God’s predestinating some to everlasting life is not founded in a
foresight of their faith and obedience; nevertheless, it is also
maintained on this scheme, that the means are decreed as well as the
end, and that God purposes to save none but such as by his grace he
shall prepare for salvation by sanctification. The Remonstrants define
predestination to be God’s decree to save believers, and condemn
unbelievers. Some represent the election and predestination spoken of in
Scripture, as belonging only to nations, or, at least, bodies of men,
and not to particular persons. The greatest difficulties with which the
modern theology is clogged turn on predestination; both the Romish and
Reformed churches are divided about it; the Lutherans speak of it with
horror; the Calvinists contend for it with the greatest zeal; the
Molinists and Jesuits preach it down as a most dangerous doctrine; the
Jansenists assert it as an article of faith; the Arminians,
Remonstrants, and many others, are all avowed enemies of absolute
predestination. Those strenuous patrons of Jansenism, the
Port-royalists, taught, that God predestinates those whom he foresees
will coöperate with his grace to the end. Dupin adds, that men do not
fall into sin because not predestinated to life, but they are not
predestinated because God foresaw their sins. See CALVINISM.

This doctrine has been already treated of. We shall here therefore
merely subjoin a sketch of its history previous to the Reformation. The
apostolic fathers, men little accustomed to the intricacy of
metaphysical disquisition, deeply impressed with the truth of the
Gospel, powerfully influenced by its spirit, and from their particular
situation naturally dwelling much upon it as a system of direction and
consolation, do not, in their writings, at all advert to the origin of
evil, or to predestination, so closely allied to it. They press, with
much earnestness, upon those in whom they were interested the vast
importance of practical holiness, exhibit the motives which appeared to
them calculated to secure it, and represent the blessedness which awaits
good men, and the condemnation reserved for the wicked; but they do not
once attempt to determine whether the sin which they were solicitous to
remove could be accounted for, in consistency with the essential
holiness and the unbounded mercy of the Deity. In short, they just took
that view of this subject which every man takes when he is not seeking
to enter into philosophical disquisition; never for one moment doubting
that whatever is wrong was ultimately to be referred to man, and that
the economy of grace proceeding from God was the most convincing proof
of the tenderness of his compassion for mankind.

When, however, the church received within its communion those who had
been educated in the schools of philosophy, and to whom the question as
to the origin of evil must, while they frequented these schools, have
become familiar, it was not to be supposed that, even although they were
convinced that we should be chiefly solicitous about the formation of
the Christian character, there would be no allusion to what had formerly
interested them, or that they would refrain from delivering their
sentiments upon it. Agreeably to this, we find, in the works of Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, sufficient intimations
that they had directed their attention to the difficulty now under
review; and that, whether upon adequate grounds or not, they had come to
a decision as to the way in which it should be explained consistently
with the divine perfections. It is evident that they did not investigate
the subject to the depth to which it is requisite for the full
discussion of it to go; and that various questions which must be put
before it can be brought completely before us, they either did not put,
or hastily regarded as of very little moment: but it is enough to dwell
upon the fact, that they did employ their thoughts upon it, and have so
expressed themselves as to leave no doubt of the light in which it was
contemplated by them. Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that
“they who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did
so not from any fault of God, ἀιτίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, but from their own blame;”
by which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God
foresaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that
this did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A
little after he says more fully, that God created angels and men free to
the practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through
which they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed,
when before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which
they were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason.
Wherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being
wicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God
foretels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so
because he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked by no means,
however, because God made them such.” Justin thus admits that man is
wholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he
has from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able
to retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we
should not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any
imputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression. Tatian, in
his oration against the Greeks, an excellent work which, although
composed after the death of Justin, was written, in all probability,
before its author had adopted the wild opinions which he defended toward
the conclusion of his life, expresses very much the same sentiments
avowed by Justin. He says, Both men and angels were created free, so
that man becoming wicked through his own fault may be deservedly
punished, while a good man, who, from the right exercise of his free
will, does not transgress the law of God, is entitled to praise; that
the power of the divine Logos having in himself the knowledge of what
was to happen, not through fate or unavoidable necessity, but from free
choice, predicted future things, condemning the wicked and praising the
righteous.”

Irenæus, in the third book of his work against heresies, has taken an
opportunity to state his notions about the origin of evil. The
seventy-first chapter of that book is entitled, A proof that man is
free, and has power to this extent, that of himself he can choose what
is good or the contrary.” In illustration of this he remarks, God gave
to man the power of election as he did to the angels. They, therefore,
who do not obey are justly not found with the good, and receive deserved
punishment, because God having given them what was good, they did not
keep it, but despised the riches of the divine mercy.” The next chapter
is entitled, A proof that some men are not good by nature, and others
wicked, and that what is good is within the choice of man.” In treating
on this subject, Irenæus observes, that if the reverse were the case,
the good would not merit praise nor the wicked blame, because being
merely what, without any will of theirs, they had been made, they could
not be considered as voluntary agents. But,” he adds, since all have the
same nature, and are able to retain and to do what is good, and may, on
the other hand, lose it and not do it, some are, even in the sight of
men, and much more in that of God, deservedly praised and others
blamed.” In support of this he introduces a great variety of passages
from Scripture. It appears, however, that the real difficulty attending
the subject had suggested itself to his mind; for he inquires in the
seventy-third chapter, why God had not from the beginning made man
perfect, all things being possible to him. He gives to this question a
metaphysical and unsatisfactory answer, but which so far satisfied
himself as to convince him that there could not, on this ground, be any
imputation justly cast on the perfections of the Almighty, and that,
consequently, a sufficient explanation of the origin of evil and of the
justice of punishing it, was to be found in the nature of man as a free
agent, or in the abuse of that liberty with which man had been endowed.
Tertullian had also speculated upon the moral condition of man, and has
recorded his sentiments with respect to it. He explicitly asserts the
freedom of the will; lays down the position, that, if this be denied,
there can be neither reward nor punishment; and, in answer to an
objection, that since free will has been productive of such melancholy
consequences, it would have been better that it had not been bestowed,
he enters into a formal vindication of this part of our constitution. In
reply to another suggestion, that God might have interposed to prevent
the choice which was to be productive of sin and misery, he maintains
that this could not have been done without destroying that admirable
constitution by which alone the interests of virtue can be really
promoted. He thus thought that sin was to be imputed wholly to man, and
that it was perfectly consistent with the attributes of God, or rather
illustrated these attributes, that there should be a system under which
sin was possible, because without this possibility there could have been
no accountable agents.

From what has been stated on this subject, it seems unquestionable that
the apostolic fathers did not at all enter upon the subject of the
origin of evil; that the writers by whom they were succeeded were
satisfied that, in the sense in which the term is now most commonly
used, there was no such thing as predestination; that they uniformly
represented the destiny of man as regulated by the use or abuse of his
free will; that, with the exception of Irenæus, they did not attempt to
explain why such a creature as man, who was to fall into sin, was
created by a Being of infinite goodness; that the sole objection to
their doctrine seemed to them to be, that prescience was incompatible
with liberty, and that, when they answered this, they considered that
nothing more was requisite for receiving, without hesitation, the view
of man upon which they often and fondly dwelt, as a free and accountable
agent, who might have held fast his integrity, and whose fall from that
integrity was to be ascribed solely to himself, as it did not at all
result from any appointment of the supreme Being.

Although opinions respecting original sin, directly tending to a very
different view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been
stated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the
sentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church,
took their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy
gave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that
controversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with
Origen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered
as a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from
perceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the
positions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he
soon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with
these positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace,
he inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly
determined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he
thus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested;
because it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the
reverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special
grace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the
divine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree,
transferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to
the purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had
determined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and
corruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be
admitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to
promote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted
of his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen
the fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of
heaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to
this system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were
given up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of
the subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was
really the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of
themselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those
delivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case
being quite different from what it would have been had God interposed
with respect to creatures who had not received from himself their
physical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that
a sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed,
the principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated
the wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and
transgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus
wholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly
termed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or
fixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said
that the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed,
labouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had
taught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will
and the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push
his tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that
although the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly
taught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles,
yet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at
least, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and
illustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their
peculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each
other as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of
which we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this
celebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that
subject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and
gave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often
agitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and
tolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous
truths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one
which it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which
might be very much left open to speculation; for although in different
countries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as
errors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the
revival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been
formed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all
who were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.

In the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who
had, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a
monastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the
science of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the
difficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the
consideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted,
with regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having
convinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the
conviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated
that the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to
everlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some
reason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having
been informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too
often been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of
anxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost
vehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city,
procured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter
was afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the
zealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a
council, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not
satisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and,
with an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the
unfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for
a moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a
justification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable
tormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like
this sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it
was directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to
it. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both
sides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly
displayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by
which the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of
Godeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by
leaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the
church in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly
discussed.

To the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst
inextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the
sources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were
surrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was
admirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their
diligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the
thirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have
really merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured
for him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor.
He was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations,
produced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would
shrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote
largely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately
connected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same
with those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to
resemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it
was asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of
Aquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any
regard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and
happiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this
position with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist,
John Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness
and bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention,
in the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a
different view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these
two brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the
dark ages thought upon them.

It is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed
in the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation:
it is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it,
it does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were,
by the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely
considered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and
raised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ,
while their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not
be called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.

The seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by
Calvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute
predestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible
only by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit
that purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and
_Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer
and the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from
which they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of
devotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians
in the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas.
Cartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the
Parliament” in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of
falling from grace;” and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The
labours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their
abortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long
before Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general
redemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and
defended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a
zealous Anti-Calvinian,” as one of our church historians observes, was
made Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and
“he went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons,
determining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points
contrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any
manner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a
letter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it
for fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty;
for he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was
at last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In
1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against
absolute reprobation at St. Paul’s Cross, the greatest audience then in
the kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year
following. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary’s in
Cambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin
himself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in
that scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to
the same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground,
being much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several
of the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of
the two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor.
Their heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which
whether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may
reasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop
Whitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord
Burleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to
retract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied
in judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the
land were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their
resolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling
them that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to
the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in
the church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best
account; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and
contrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by
his absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be
impiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the
other; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by
authority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This
testimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward
countenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the
case. The question is not about any man’s private opinion, but about the
doctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist,
as he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the
greater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared
in favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars
charged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was
contradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply
does not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his
plea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His
words are, ‘We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth,
if not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church,
publicly received, and always held in her majesty’s reign, and
maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.’ And even this
pretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly
false, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be
the facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and
that too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe,
he met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype
particularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr.
Andrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in
their generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads
in their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching
against Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many;
which implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they
expressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they
represent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to
this prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor,
the Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient
were of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would
be for well doing.”

But Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not
endure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in
that university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations,
elucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the
sanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to
Archbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace
summoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to
meet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth,
on the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and
altering, they produced Whitaker’s affirmation in the following form,
called the Lambeth Articles,” from the place in which their secret
sittings had been held:--“1. God from eternity hath predestinated
certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or
efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of
faith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in
the person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of
God. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can
neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true,
living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either
totally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is
endued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm
persuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his
eternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given,
communicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they
will. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given
unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not
drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not
placed in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.” Dr.
Whitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine
articles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After
his demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King’s
Professorship, Dr. Wotton, of King’s College, a professed Calvinian, and
Dr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,” says Heylin, from the
Calvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe,
Harsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of
the university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part;
which plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly
stickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned
body entertained them not.” “The Lambeth articles,” it is well observed,
are no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had
any the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation.
They were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward
approved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior
clergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a
private manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far
from approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the
articles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to
bring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for
presuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.” Such, in
brief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without
the countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of
England could find no semblance of support for their manifold
affirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles
afford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real
sentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct
of many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed
heterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own
orthodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old
English school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of
these nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in
accordance with their individual belief. Baroe’s clever dissertation on
this subject will be found in Strype’s Life of Whitgift;” and that of
Plaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.”

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the
Virgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi,
50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various
opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the
orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational
soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His
body was formed in the virgin’s womb; but his human soul, they suppose,
was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought
into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy
union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his
incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the
latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold
his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who
believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ
from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also
from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ’s human soul
began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that
likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The
writers in favour of the preëxistence of Christ’s human soul recommend
their opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his
Father’s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by
his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem
to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ
to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man
really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a
peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal
union. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several
passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he
had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time
nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could
not properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor.
viii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely
self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and
glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he
were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It
seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of
Jesus Christ should preëxist, that it might have an opportunity to give
its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of
making atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that
the doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and
subverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit,
the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures,
created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the
second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the
least difference except in name. 2. This preëxistent intelligence,
supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other
intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking
this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to
consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like
the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make
him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the preëxistence of
the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which
others allege in proof of the preëxistence of all human souls. 5. This
opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this
sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the
last as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to
the Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made
like unto his brethren,” Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities,
except sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,” Luke ii,
52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties
which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones.
This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of
resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.

PRESBYTERIANS are those that affirm there is no order in the church, as
established by Christ and his Apostles, superior to that of presbyters;
that all ministers, being ambassadors, are equal by their commission;
and that elder, or presbyter, and bishop, are the same in name and
office, and the terms synonymous. Their arguments against the
Episcopalians are as follows:--With respect to the successors of the
Apostles, they seem to have been placed on a footing of perfect
equality, the διάκονοι, or deacons, not being included among the
teachers. They were inferior officers, whose province it originally was
to care for the poor, and to discharge those secular duties arising out
of the formation of Christian communities, which could not be discharged
by the ministers without interfering with the much higher duties which
they had to perform. These ministers are sometimes in the New Testament
styled ϖρεσϐύτεροι, or presbyters, at other times ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops;
but the two appellations were indiscriminately applied to all the
pastors who were the instructers of the different churches. Of this
various examples may be given from the sacred writings. The Apostle
Paul, upon a very affecting occasion, when he was convinced that he
could never again have an opportunity of addressing them, sent for the
elders or presbyters of Ephesus, the persons to whom the ministry in
that church had been committed; and after mentioning all that he had
done, and intimating to them the sufferings which awaited him, he
addressed to them what may be considered as his dying advice, and as
comprehending in it all that he judged it most essential for them to do.
Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which
the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops or overseers, to feed the church of
God,” Acts xx, 17, 28. Here they whose duty it was to feed the church of
God, as having been set apart through the Holy Spirit for that
interesting work, are termed by the Apostle presbyters and bishops, and
there is not the slightest allusion to the existence of any other
ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, superior to those ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops, to whom
he gives the moving charge now recorded. In his epistle to Titus, St.
Paul thus writes: For this purpose I left thee in Crete,” where, as yet,
it is probable that no teachers had been appointed, that thou shouldest
ordain elders, or presbyters, in every city.” He then points out the
class of men from which the presbyters were to be selected, adding, as
the reason of this, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of
God,” Titus i, 5, 7. It is quite plain that the epithet bishop is here
applicable to the same persons who were a little before styled elders,
and both are declared to be the stewards of God, the guardians and
instructers of his church. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle
addressed to the Jewish converts, has these words: “The elders which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, ὁ συμπρεσϐύτερος, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, feed the flock of God which is
among you, taking the oversight of it, ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops of
it, not by constraint but willingly,” 1 Peter v, 1, 2. This passage is a
very strong one. The Apostle speaks of himself in his extraordinary
capacity, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and in his ordinary
capacity as a teacher; showing, by the use of a very significant term,
that as to it he was on a footing of equality with the other pastors or
presbyters. He gives it in charge to them to feed the flock of God; the
charge which, under most particular and affecting circumstances, he had
received from the Lord after the resurrection, and which includes in it
the performance of every thing requisite for the comfort and the
edification of Christians; and he accordingly expresses this by the word
ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops over them. It cannot, with any shadow of
reason, be supposed that the Apostle would exhort the elders or
presbyters to take to themselves the office, and to perform the duties,
of a bishop, if that term really marked out a distinct and higher order;
or that he would have considered the presbyters as fitted for the
discharge of the whole ministerial office, if there were parts of that
office which he knew that it was not lawful for them to exercise.

It seems, by the passages that have been quoted, to be placed beyond a
doubt, that, in what the Apostles said respecting the ministers of
Christ’s religion, they taught that the ἐπίσκοποι and the ϖρεσβύτεροι
were the same class of instructers; and that there were, in fact, only
two orders pointed out by them, bishops or presbyters, and deacons. This
being the case, even although it should appear that there were bishops,
in the common sense of that term, recognized in the apostolic age, all
that could be deduced from the fact would be, that the equality at first
instituted among the teachers, had, for prudential reasons, or under
peculiar circumstances, been interrupted; but it would not follow either
that the positive and general declarations on the subject by the
inspired writers were not true, or that it was incumbent at all times,
and upon all Christians, to disregard them. It has been strenuously
contended that there were such bishops in the infancy of the church, and
that allusion is made to them in Scripture; but without directly
opposing the assertion, this much must be admitted, that the proof of it
is less clear than that bishops and presbyters were represented as the
same in rank and in authority. Indeed, there does not appear to have
been any occasion for this higher order. To presbyters was actually
committed the most important charge of feeding the church of God, that
is, of promoting the spiritual improvement of mankind; and it is
remarkable that their privilege of separating from the people by
ordination the ministers of religion, is explicitly acknowledged in the
case of Timothy, whom the Apostle admonishes not to neglect the gift
that was in him, and which had been given by prophecy, and by the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery; by which can be meant only the laying
on of the hands of those who were denominated presbyters or bishops. But
although all the parts of the ministerial duty had been intrusted to
presbyters, it is still contended that the New Testament indicates the
existence of bishops as a higher order. There has, however, been much
diversity of opinion in relation to this point by those who contend for
the divine institution of episcopacy. Some of them maintain that the
Apostles, while they lived, were the bishops of the Christian church;
but this, and upon irrefragable grounds, is denied by others. Some urge
that Timothy and Titus were, in what they call the true sense of the
term, bishops; but many deny that, founding their denial upon these
evangelists not having resided within the bounds, or been limited to the
administration of any one church, being sent wherever it was resolved to
bring men to the knowledge of divine truth. Many conceive that the
question is settled by the epistles in the book of Revelation being
addressed to the angels of the respective churches named by the Apostle.
But it is far from being obvious what is implied under the appellation
angel; there has been much dispute about this point, and it is certainly
a deviation from all the usual rules by which we are guided in
interpreting Scripture, to bring an obscure and doubtful passage in
illustration of one, about the import of which, if we attend to the
language used, there can be no doubt. It may, therefore, be safely
affirmed that there is nothing clear and specific in the writings of the
New Testament which qualifies the positive declarations that bishops and
presbyters were the same officers; that the ground upon which the
distinction between them is placed, is, at least, far from obviously
supporting it; and that there is not the slightest intimation that the
observance of such a distinction is at all important, much less
absolutely essential to a true Christian church, insomuch that, where it
is disregarded, the ordinances of divine appointment cannot be properly
dispensed. If therefore it be established,--and some of the most learned
and zealous advocates for the hierarchy which afterward arose have been
compelled to admit it,--that Scripture has not recognized any difference
of rank or order between the ordinary teachers of the Gospel, all other
means of maintaining this difference should be with Protestants of no
force. It may be shown that the admission of the distinction is not
incompatible with the great ends for which a ministry was appointed, and
even in particular cases may tend to promote them; but still it is
merely a matter of human regulation, not binding upon Christians, and
not in any way connected with the vital influence of the Gospel
dispensation. The whole of the writers of antiquity may be urged in
support of it, if that could be done; and, after all, every private
Christian would be entitled to judge for himself, and to be directed by
his own judgment, unless it be maintained that where Scripture has
affirmed the existence of equality, this is to be counteracted and set
at nought by the testimonies and assertions of a set of writers, who,
although honoured with the name of fathers, are very far, indeed, from
being infallible, and who have, in fact, often delivered sentiments
which even they who, upon a particular emergency, cling to them, must
confess to be directly at variance with all that is sound in reason, or
venerable and sublime in religion. It also follows, from the Scriptural
identity of bishops and presbyters, that no church in which this
identity is preserved, can on that account be considered as having
departed from the apostolic model, or its ministers be viewed, at least
with any good reason, as having less ground to hope for the blessing of
God upon their spiritual labours; because if we admit the contrary, we
must also admit that the inspired writers, instead of properly
regulating the church, betrayed it into error, by omitting to make a
distinction closely allied with the essence of religion. What is this
but to say that it is safer to follow the erring direction of frail
mortals, than to follow the admonitions of those who, it is universally
allowed, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or commissioned by him to be
the instructers of the world?

It is to be observed, however, that although bishops and presbyters were
the same when the epistles of the New Testament were written, it would
be going too far to contend that no departure from this should ever take
place; because, to justify such a position, it would be requisite that a
positive injunction should have been given that equality must at all
times be carefully preserved. There is, however, no such injunction.
Unlike the Old Testament, which specified every thing, even the most
minute, in relation to the priesthood, the New only alludes in general
terms, and very seldom, to the ministry; and the reason probably is,
that, being intended for all nations, it left Christians at liberty to
make such modifications in the ecclesiastical constitution as in their
peculiar situation appeared best adapted for religious edification. The
simple test to be applied to the varying or varied forms of church
government is that indicated by our Lord himself: By their fruits ye
shall know them.” Wherever the regulations respecting the ministry are
such as to divert it from the purposes for which it was destined, to
separate those who form it from the flock of Christ, to relax their
diligence in teaching, and to destroy the connection between them and
their people, so as to render their exertions of little or of no use,
there we find a church not apostolical. But wherever the blessed fruits
of Gospel teaching are in abundance produced, where the people and the
ministers are cordially united, and where every regulation is calculated
to give efficacy to the labours of those who have entered into the
vineyard, we have an apostolical church, or, to speak more properly, a
church of Christ, built upon a rock, because devoted to the beneficent
objects for which our Saviour came into the world.

The form of church government among the Scotch Presbyterians is as
follows:--The kirk session, consisting of the minister and lay elders of
the congregation, is the lowest ecclesiastical judicature. The next is
the presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain
district, and one ruling elder from each parish. The provincial synods,
of which there are fifteen, meet twice in the year, and are composed of
the members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces.
From the kirk sessions appeal lies to the presbyteries, from these to
the synods, and from them to the general assembly, which meets annually,
and is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the kingdom. This is
composed of delegates from each presbytery, from every royal borough,
and from each of the Scotch universities; and the king presides by a
commission of his own appointment. The Scotch ordain by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery,” before which persons may be licensed to
preach as probationers, but cannot administer the sacraments. The clergy
are maintained by the state, and nominated to livings by patrons, as in
other establishments. Those properly called the English Presbyterians,
have no connection with the Scotch kirk. They are now indeed broken into
separate churches, and follow the same form of church government as the
Congregationalists or Independents. The name Presbyterian, therefore, is
now inapplicable to them although retained. So Dr. Doddridge: Those who
hold every pastor to be so a bishop or overseer of his own congregation,
as that no other person or body of men have, by divine institution, a
power to exercise any superior or pastoral office in it, may, properly
speaking, be called, so far at least, congregational; and it is by a
vulgar mistake that any such are called Presbyterians.” See
EPISCOPALIANS.

PRESCIENCE, or foreknowledge, an attribute of God. (See _Omniscience_.)
On this subject three leading theories have been resorted to, in order
to evade the difficulties which are supposed to be involved in the
opinion commonly received. The Chevalier Ramsay, among his other
speculations, holds it a matter of choice in God, to think of finite
ideas; and similar opinions, though variously worded, have been
occasionally adopted. In substance these opinions are, that though the
knowledge of God be infinite as his power is infinite, there is no more
reason to conclude, that his knowledge should be always exerted to the
full extent of its capacity, than that his power should be employed to
the extent of his omnipotence; and that if we suppose him to _choose_
not to know some contingencies, the infiniteness of his knowledge is not
thereby impugned. To this it may be answered, that the infinite power of
God is in Scripture represented, as in the nature of things it must be,
as an infinite capacity, and not as infinite in act; but that the
knowledge of God is on the contrary never represented there to us as a
capacity to acquire knowledge, but as actually comprehending all things
that are, and all things that can be. 2. That the notion of God’s
choosing to know some things, and not to know others, supposes a reason
why he refuses to know any class of things or events; which reason, it
would seem, can only arise out of their nature and circumstances, and
therefore supposes at least a partial knowledge of them, from which the
reason for his not choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is
therefore somewhat contradictory. But, 3. It is fatal to this opinion
that it does not at all meet the difficulty arising out of the question
of the consistency of divine prescience, and the free actions of men;
since some contingent actions, for which men have been made accountable,
we are sure, have been foreknown by God, because by his Spirit in the
prophets they were foretold; and if the freedom of man can in these
cases be reconciled to the prescience of God, there is no greater
difficulty in any other case which can possibly occur.

A second theory is, that the foreknowledge of contingent events, being
in its own nature impossible, because it implies a contradiction, it
does no dishonour to the divine Being to affirm, that of such events he
has, and can have, no prescience whatever; and thus the prescience of
God, as to moral actions, being wholly denied, the difficulty in
question is got rid of. To this the same answer must be given as to the
former. It does not meet the case, so long as the Scriptures are allowed
to contain prophecies of rewardable and punishable actions. The great
fallacy in the argument, that the certain prescience of a moral action
destroys its contingent nature, lies in supposing that contingency and
certainty are the opposites of each other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate,
that a word which is of figurative etymology, and which consequently can
only have an ideal application to such subjects, should have grown into
common use in this discussion, because it is more liable, on that
account, to present itself to different minds under different shades of
meaning. If, however, the term _contingent_ in this controversy has any
definite meaning at all, as applied to the moral actions of men, it must
mean their freedom, and stands opposed, not to certainty, but to
necessity. A free action is a voluntary one; and an action which results
from the choice of the agent, is distinguished from a necessary one in
this, that it might not have been, or have been otherwise, according to
the self-determining power of the agent. It is with reference to this
specific quality of a free action, that the term contingency is used; it
might have been otherwise, in other words, it was not necessitated.
Contingency in moral actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is
opposed, not to certainty, but to constraint. The very nature of this
controversy fixes this as the precise meaning of the term. The question
is not, in point of fact, about the certainty of moral actions, that is,
whether they _will_ happen or not; but about the nature of them, whether
free or constrained, whether they _must_ happen or not. Those who
advocate this theory care not about the certainty of actions, simply
considered, that is, whether they will take place or not; the reason why
they object to a certain prescience of moral actions, is this,--they
conclude, that such a prescience renders them necessary. It is the
quality of the action for which they contend, not whether it will happen
or not. If contingency meant _uncertainty_, the sense in which such
theorists take it, the dispute would be at an end. But though an
uncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, a free, unnecessitated
action may; for there is nothing in the knowledge of the action, in the
least, to affect its nature. Simple knowledge is, in no sense, a cause
of action, nor can it be conceived to be causal, unconnected with
exerted power: for mere knowledge, therefore, an action remains free or
necessitated as the case may be. A necessitated action is not made a
voluntary one by its being foreknown; a free action is not made a
necessary one. Free actions foreknown will not, therefore, cease to be
contingent. But how stands the case as to their certainty? Precisely on
the same ground. The certainty of a necessary action foreknown, does not
result from the knowledge of the action, but from the operation of the
necessitating cause; and, in like manner, the certainty of a free action
does not result from the knowledge of it, which is no cause at all, but
from the voluntary cause, that is, the determination of the will. It
alters not the case in the least, to say that the voluntary action might
have been otherwise. Had it been otherwise, the knowledge of it would
have been otherwise; but as the will which gives birth to the action, is
not dependent upon the previous knowledge of God, but the knowledge of
the action upon foresight of the choice of the will, neither the will
nor the act is controlled by the knowledge; and the action, though
foreseen, is still free or contingent. The foreknowledge of God has then
no influence upon either the freedom or the certainty of actions, for
this plain reason, that it is knowledge, and not influence; and actions
may be certainly foreknown, without their being rendered necessary by
that foreknowledge. But here it is said, If the result of an absolute
contingency be certainly foreknown, it _can_ have no other result, it
_cannot_ happen otherwise.” This is not the true inference. It _will_
not happen otherwise; but it may be asked, Why _can_ it not happen
otherwise? _Can_ is an expression of potentiality, it denotes power or
possibility. The objection is, that it is not possible that the action
should otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives it of that power? If
a necessary action were in question, it could not otherwise happen than
as the necessitating cause shall compel; but then that would arise from
the necessitating cause solely, and not from the prescience of the
action which is not causal. But if the action be free, and it enter into
the very nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained, then it might
have happened in a thousand other ways, or not have happened at all; the
foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the
other. All its potentiality, so to speak, still remains, independent of
foreknowledge, which neither adds to its power of happening otherwise,
nor diminishes it. But then we are told, that the prescience of it, in
that case, must be uncertain.” Not unless any person can prove, that the
divine prescience is unable to dart through all the workings of the
human mind, all its comparison of things in the judgment, all the
influences of motives on the affections, all the hesitances and haltings
of the will, to its final choice. Such knowledge is too wonderful for
us,” but it is the knowledge of Him who understandeth the thoughts of
man afar off.” “But if a contingency _will_ have a given result, to that
result it _must_ be determined.” Not in the least. We have seen that it
cannot be determined to a given result by mere precognition; for we have
evidence in our own minds that mere knowledge is not causal to the
actions of another. It is determined to its result by the will of the
agent; but even in that case, it cannot be said, that it _must_ be
determined to that result, because it is of the nature of freedom to be
unconstrained: so that here we have an instance in the case of a free
agent that he _will_ act in some particular manner; but it by no means
follows from what _will_ be, whether foreseen or not, that it _must_ be.

The third theory amounts, in brief, to this, that the foreknowledge of
God must be supposed to differ so much from any thing of the kind which
we perceive in ourselves, and from any ideas which we can possibly form
of that property of the divine nature, that no argument respecting it
can be grounded upon our imperfect notions; and that all controversy on
subjects connected with it, is idle and fruitless. But though
foreknowledge in God should be admitted to be something of a very
different nature” to the same quality in man, yet as it is represented
as _something_ equivalent to foreknowledge, whatever that something may
be, since in consequence of it, prophecies have actually been uttered
and fulfilled, and of such a kind, too, as relate to actions for which
men have in fact been held accountable; all the original difficulty of
reconciling contingent events to this something, of which human
foreknowledge is a kind of shadow,” as a map of China is to China
itself,” remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, but not
removed. It may, therefore, be certainly concluded, if at least the Holy
Scriptures are to be our guide, that the omniscience of God comprehends
his certain prescience of all events however contingent; and if any
thing more were necessary to strengthen the argument above given, it
might be drawn from the irrational, and, above all, the unscriptural
consequences, which would follow from the denial of this doctrine. These
are forcibly stated by President Edwards:--“It would follow from this
notion, (namely, that the Almighty doth not foreknow what will be the
result of future contingencies,) that as God is liable to be continually
repenting what he has done; so he must be exposed to be constantly
changing his mind and intentions as to his future conduct; altering his
measures, relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and
projections. For his purposes, even as to the main parts of his scheme,
namely, such as belong to the state of his moral kingdom, must be always
liable to be broken, through want of foresight; and he must be
continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order,
through the contingence of the actions of moral agents: he must be a
Being who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be
the subject of infinitely the most numerous acts of repentance, and
changes of intention, of any being whatsoever; for this plain reason,
that his vastly extensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater
number of those things which are to him contingent and uncertain. In
such a situation he must have little else to do, but to mend broken
links as well as he can, and be rectifying his disjointed frame and
disordered movements, in the best manner the case will allow. The
supreme Lord of all things must needs be under great and miserable
disadvantages, in governing the world which he has made, and has the
care of, through his being utterly unable to find out things of chief
importance, which hereafter shall befall his system; which, if he did
but know, he might make seasonable provision for. In many cases, there
may be very great necessity that he should make provision, in the manner
of his ordering and disposing things, for some great events which are to
happen, of vast and extensive influence, and endless consequence to the
universe; which he may see afterward, when it is too late, and may wish
in vain that he had known beforehand, that he might have ordered his
affairs accordingly. And it is in the power of man, on these principles,
by his devices, purposes, and actions, thus to disappoint God, break his
measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to
vexation, and bring him into confusion.”

Socinus and his early followers would not allow that God possesses any
knowledge of future contingencies. The schoolmen, in reference to this
species of knowledge in God, invented that called _scientia media_, and
which they define as that by which God knows _sub conditione_, what men
or angels will do according to the liberty which they have, when they
are placed in these or those circumstances, or in this or in that order
of things.” When Gomarus, the opponent of Arminius, found that his
opinion concerning the object of reprobation was clogged with this
absurdity--that it made God to be the author of Adam’s sin, he very
astutely took refuge in this conditionate foreknowledge, and, in his
corrected theses on predestination, published after the death of
Arminius, he describes it as that by which God, through the infinite
light of his own knowledge, foreknows some future things, not
absolutely, but as placed under a certain condition.” Walæus, the
celebrated antagonist of Episcopius, had recourse to the same expedient.
This distinction has been adopted by very few of those who espouse the
doctrines of general redemption; and who believe that every event, how
contingent soever to the creature, is, with respect to God, certainly
foreknown. An old English divine thinks, that, “in the sacred Scriptures
certain not obscure vestiges are apparent of this kind of knowledge, of
things that will happen thus or otherwise, on the supposition of the
occurrence of this or that circumstance. Omitting the well known example
of David in Keilah, 1 Sam. xxii, 12, and of Chorazin and Bethsaida,
Matt. xi, 21; Luke x, 13, consult, among other sayings of the same
description, the answer of our Saviour to the chief priests and scribes,
who had asked, ‘Art thou the Christ? Tell us.’ And he said unto them,
‘If I tell you, ye will not believe.’ In the subsequent verse he adds,
‘If I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go,’ Luke xxii,
67, 68. You have here three events specified, which yet will not occur
even on the supposition of Christ our Lord himself.” This kind of
knowledge might very well be included in that of _scientia visionis_,
because the latter ought to include, not what God will do and what his
creatures will do under his appointment, but what they will do by his
permission as free agents, and what he will do, as a consequence of
this, in his character of Governor and Lord. But since the
predestinarians had confounded _scientia visionis_ with a predestinating
decree, the _scientia media_ well expressed what they had left quite
unaccounted for, and which they had assumed did not really exist,--the
actions of creatures endowed with free will, and the acts of Deity which
from eternity were consequent upon them. If such actions do not take
place, then men are not free; and if the rectoral acts of God are not
consequent upon the actions of the creature in the order of the divine
intention, and the conduct of the creature is consequent upon the
foreordained rectoral acts of God, then we reach a necessitating eternal
decree, which in fact, the predestinarian contends for; but it
unfortunately brings after it consequences which no subtleties have ever
been able to shake off,--that the only _actor_ in the universe is God
himself; and that the only distinction among events is, that one class
is brought to pass by God directly, and the other indirectly, not by the
agency, but by the mere instrumentality, of his creatures.

PRIEST, a general name for the minister of religion. The priest under
the law was, among the Hebrews, a person consecrated and ordained of God
to offer up sacrifices for his own sins and those of the people, Lev.
iv, 5, 6. The priesthood was not annexed to a certain family till after
the promulgation of the law of Moses. Before that time the first-born of
every family, the fathers, the princes, the kings were priests. Cain and
Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Abimelech and Laban, Isaac and Jacob, offered
themselves their own sacrifices. In the solemnity of the covenant that
the Lord made with his people at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses
performed the office of mediator, Exod. xxiv, 5, 6; and young men were
chosen from among the children of Israel to perform the office of
priests. But after the Lord had chosen the tribe of Levi to serve him in
his tabernacle, and the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron,
then the right of offering sacrifices to God was reserved to the priests
alone of this family. The Lord ordained, Num. xvi, 40, that no stranger,
which was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense
unto the Lord, that he might not be as Korah and his company. The
punishment of Uzziah is well known, 2 Chron. xxvi, 19, who, having
presumed to offer incense to the Lord, was suddenly smitten with a
leprosy, put out of his palace, and excluded from the administration of
affairs to the day of his death. However, it seems that, on certain
occasions, the judges and the kings of the Hebrews offered sacrifices
unto the Lord, especially before a constant place of worship was fixed
at Jerusalem; for in 1 Sam. vii, 8, we are told that Samuel, who was no
priest, offered a lamb for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord; and in 1 Sam.
ix, 13, it is said that this prophet was to bless the offering of the
people, which should seem to be a function appropriated to the priests;
lastly, 1 Sam. xvi, 5, he goes to Bethlehem, where he offers a sacrifice
at the inauguration or anointing of David. Saul himself offered a
burnt-offering to the Lord, perhaps as being king of Israel, 1 Sam.
xiii, 9, 10. Elijah also offered a burnt-offering upon Mount Carmel, 1
Kings xviii, 33. David himself sacrificed, (at least the text expresses
it so,) at the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and at the
floor of Araunah, 2 Sam. vi, 13. Solomon went up to the brazen altar
that was at Gibeon, and there offered sacrifices, 2 Chron. i, 5. It is
true the above passages are commonly explained by supposing that these
princes offered their sacrifices by the hands of the priests; but the
sacred text will by no means favour such explanations; and it is very
natural to imagine, that in the quality of kings and heads of the
people, they had the privilege of performing some sacerdotal functions,
upon some extraordinary occasions; thus we see David clothed with the
priestly ephod, and consulting the Lord; and upon another occasion we
find David and Solomon pronounce solemn benedictions on the people, 2
Sam. vi, 18; 1 Kings viii, 55. God having reserved to himself the
first-born of all Israel, because he had preserved them from the hand of
the destroying angel in Egypt, by way of exchange or compensation
accepted of the tribe of Levi for the service of the tabernacle, Numbers
iii, 41. Of the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the
Lord chose the family of Kohath, and out of this the house of Aaron, to
exercise the functions of the priesthood. All the rest of the family of
Kohath, even the children of Moses and their descendants, remained of
the order of mere Levites. See LEVITES.

The posterity of the sons of Aaron, namely, Eleazar and Ithamar, Lev. x,
1–5; 1 Chron. xxiv, 1, 2, had so increased in number in the time of
David, that they were divided into twenty-four classes, which officiated
a week at a time alternately. Sixteen classes were of the family of
Eleazar, and eight of the family of Ithamar. Each class obeyed its own
prefect or ruler. The class _Jojarib_ was the first in order, and the
class _Abia_ was the eighth, 1 Mac. ii, 1; Luke i, 5; 1 Chron. xxiv,
3–19. This division of the priesthood was continued as a permanent
arrangement after the time of David, 2 Chron. viii, 14; xxxi, 2; xxxv,
4, 5. Indeed, although only four classes returned from the captivity,
the distinction between them, and also the ancient names, were still
retained, Ezra ii, 36–39; Neh. vii, 39–42; xii, 1.

Aaron, the high priest was set apart to his office by the same
ceremonies with which his sons the priests were, with this exception,
that the former was clothed in his robes, and the sacred oil was poured
upon his head, Exod. xxix, 5–9; Lev. viii, 2. The other ceremonies were
as follows. The priests, all of them with their bodies washed, and clad
in their appropriate dress, assembled before the altar, where a bullock,
two rams, unleavened bread, and wafers of two kinds in baskets, were in
readiness. When they had placed their hands upon the head of the
bullock, he was slain by Moses as a sin-offering. He touched the horns
of the altar with the blood, poured the remainder of it round its base,
and placed the parts which were to compose the sacrifice on its top. The
remaining parts of the animal were all burned without the camp, Exod.
xxix, 10–14; Lev. viii, 2, 3, 14–17. They in like manner placed their
hands on the head of one of the rams, which was also slain by Moses for
a whole burnt-offering, the blood was sprinkled around the altar, and
the parts of the ram were separated and burned upon it, Exod. xxix,
15–18; Lev. viii, 18–21. The other ram, when the priests had laid their
hands upon him, was likewise slain by Moses for the sacrifice of
consecration. He touched with the blood the tip of the right ear of the
priests, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right
foot. The rest of the blood he sprinkled in part upon the bottom of the
altar, and a part he mingled with the consecrated oil, and sprinkled on
the priests and their garments. He anointed the high priest by pouring a
profusion of oil upon his head; whence he is called the anointed, Lev.
v, 3, 5, 16; vi, 15; Psalm cxxxiii, 2. Certain parts of the sacrifice,
namely, the fat, the kidneys, the haunches, the caul above the liver,
and the right shoulder, also one cake of unleavened bread, a cake of
oiled bread, and a wafer, were placed by Moses upon the hands of the
priests, that they might offer them to God. This ceremony was called
“filling the hands,” expressions which accordingly in a number of
passages mean the same as consecrating, Exod. xxxii, 29; Leviticus xvi,
32; 1 Chronicles xxix, 5. All the parts which have been mentioned as
being placed in the hands of the priests, were at last burned upon the
altar. This ceremony, which continued for eight days, for ever separated
the priests from all the other Israelites, not excepting the Levites; so
that there was subsequently no need of any farther consecration, neither
for themselves nor their posterity, Exodus xxix, 35–37; Lev. x, 7; Rom.
i, 1; Eph. iii, 3; Acts xiii, 2, 3. That the ceremonies of inauguration
or consecration, however, were practised at every new accession of a
high priest to his office, seems to be hinted in the following passages,
Exod. xxix, 29; Lev. xvi, 32; xxi, 10; Num. xx, 26–28; xxxv, 25.

It was not customary for the priests to wear the sacerdotal dress except
when performing their official duties, Exod. xxviii, 4, 43; Ezek. xlii,
14; xliv, 19. The description of the dress of the priests which is given
in Exodus xxviii, is by some thought defective, as many things are
passed in silence, apparently for the reason that they were at that time
sufficiently well known, without being expressly stated. Some additional
information is communicated to us by Josephus; but the dress of the
priests, as he describes it, may have been in some respects of recent
origin. It was as follows: 1. A sort of hose, made of cotton or linen,
which was fastened round the loins, and extended down so as to cover the
thighs, Lev. vi, 10; Ezek. xliv, 18. 2. A tunic of cotton which
extended, in the days of Josephus, down to the ankles. It was furnished
with sleeves, and was fabricated all of one piece without being sewn,
Exod. xxviii, 39, 41; xxix, 5; John xix, 23. 3. The girdle. According to
Josephus it was a hand’s breadth in width, woven in such a manner as to
exhibit the appearance of scales, and ornamented with embroidered
flowers in purple, dark blue, scarlet, and white. It was worn a little
below the breast, encircled the body twice, and was tied in a knot
before. The extremities of the girdle hung down nearly to the ankle. The
priest, when engaged in his sacred functions, in order to prevent his
being impeded by them, threw them over his left shoulder, Exod. xxxix,
27–29. 4. The mitre or turban was originally acuminated in its shape,
was lofty, and was bound upon the head, Exod. xxviii, 8, 40; xxix, 9;
Lev. viii, 13. In the time of Josephus the shape of the mitre had become
somewhat altered; it was circular, was covered with a piece of fine
linen, and sat so closely on the upper part of the head, (for it did not
cover the whole of the head,) that it would not fall off when the body
was bent down. The Hebrew priests, like those of Egypt and other
nations, performed their sacred duties with naked feet; a symbol of
reverence and veneration, Exod. iii, 5; Josh. v, 15.

The ordinary priests served immediately at the altar, offered
sacrifices, killed and flayed them, and poured the blood at the foot of
the altar, 2 Chron. xxix, 34; xxxv, 11. They kept a perpetual fire
burning upon the altar of burnt-sacrifices, and in the lamps of the
golden candlestick that was in the sanctuary; they prepared the loaves
of shew bread, baked them, and changed them every Sabbath day. Every
day, night, and morning, a priest appointed by casting lots at the
beginning of the week, brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer, and
set it upon the golden table, otherwise called the altar of perfumes,
Luke i, 9. The priests were not suffered to offer incense to the Lord
with strange fire, Lev. x, 1, 2; that is, with any other fire than what
should be taken from the altar of burnt-sacrifices. It is well known
with what severity God chastised Nadab and Abihu for having failed in
this. Those that would dedicate themselves to perpetual service in the
temple were well received, and were maintained by the constant and daily
offerings, Deut. xviii, 6–8. The Lord had given no lands of inheritance
to the tribe of Levi in the distribution of the land of promise. He
designed that they should be supported by the tithes, the first fruits,
the offerings that were made in the temple, by their share of the
sin-offerings, and thanksgiving-offerings that were sacrificed in the
temple, of which certain parts were appropriated to the priests. They
had also a share in the wool when the sheep were shorn. All the
first-born, both of man and beast, belonged to the Lord, that is, to his
priests. The men were redeemed for the sum of five shekels, Num. xviii,
15, 16. The first-born of impure animals were redeemed or exchanged, but
the clean animals were not redeemed; they were sacrificed to the Lord,
their blood was sprinkled about the altar, and all the rest belonged to
the priest, Num. xviii, 17–19. The first fruits of trees, Lev. xix, 23,
24, that is, those that came on the fourth year, belonged also to the
priest. They gave also to the priests and Levites an allowance out of
the dough that they kneaded. They had the tithe of all the fruits of the
land, and of all animals which were fed under the shepherd’s crook, Lev.
xxvii, 31, 32. God also provided them with houses and accommodations, by
appointing them forty-eight cities for their habitations, Num. xxxv,
1–3. In the precincts of these cities they possessed as far as a
thousand cubits beyond the walls. Of these forty-eight cities six were
appointed to be cities of refuge, for the sake of those who should
commit any casual or involuntary manslaughter; the priests had thirteen
of these for their share, and all the others belonged to the Levites,
Josh. xxi, 19. One of the chief employments of the priests, next to
attending upon the sacrifices and the service of the tabernacle or
temple, was the instruction of the people and the deciding
controversies, distinguishing the several sorts of leprosy, the causes
of divorce, the waters of jealousy, vows, all causes relating to the
law, the uncleannesses that were contracted several ways; all these
things were brought before the priests, Hosea iv, 6; Mal. ii, 7, &c;
Lev. xiii, 14; Num. v, 14, 15. They publicly blessed the people in the
name of the Lord. In time of war their business was to carry the ark of
the covenant, to consult the Lord, to sound the holy trumpets, and
encourage and harangue the army.

The term priest is most properly given to Christ, of whom the high
priests under the law were types and figures, he being the high priest
especially ordained of God, who, by the sacrifice of himself, and by his
intercession, opens the way to reconciliation with God, Heb. viii, 17;
ix, 11–25. The word is also applied to every true believer who is
enabled to offer up himself “a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God
through Christ,” 1 Pet. ii, 5; Rev. i, 6. But it is likewise improperly
applied to Christian ministers, who have no sacrifices to offer; unless,
indeed, when it is considered as contracted from _presbyter_, which
signifies an elder, and is the name given in the New Testament to those
who were appointed to the office of teaching and ruling in the church of
God. See AARON.

PRISCILLA, a Christian woman, well known in the Acts, and in St. Paul’s
epistles; sometimes placed before her husband Aquila. From Ephesus this
pious pair went to Rome, where they were when St. Paul wrote his epistle
to the Romans, A. D. 58. He salutes them the first of all, with great
commendations, Rom. xvi, 3. They returned into Asia some time afterward;
and St. Paul, writing to Timothy, desires him to salute them on his
behalf, 2 Tim. iv, 19, A. D. 65.

PROFANE, an epithet applied to those who abuse and contemn holy things.
The Scripture calls Esau profane, because he sold his birthright, which
was considered a holy thing, not only because the priesthood was annexed
to it, but also because it was a privilege relating to Christ, and a
type of the title of believers to the heavenly inheritance, Heb. xii,
16. The priests of the race of Aaron were enjoined to distinguish
between sacred and profane, between pure and polluted, Lev. x, 10; xix,
7, 8. Hence they were prohibited the use of wine during their attendance
on the temple service, that their spirits might not be discomposed by
excitement. To profane the temple, to profane the Sabbath, to profane
the altar, are common expressions to denote the violation of the rest of
the Sabbath, the entering of foreigners into the temple, or the want of
reverence in those that entered it, and the impious sacrifices that were
offered on the altar of the Lord.

PROMISE, an assurance given by God, in his word, of bestowing blessings
upon his people, 2 Pet. i, 4. The word in the New Testament is usually
taken for the promises that God heretofore made to Abraham, and the
other patriarchs, of sending the Messiah, and conferring his Holy Spirit
and eternal life on those that should believe on him. It is in this
sense that the Apostle Paul commonly uses the word promise, Rom. iv, 13,
14; Gal. iii, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29. The promises of the new covenant
are called better than those of the old, Heb. viii, 6, because they are
more spiritual, clear, comprehensive, and universal than those of the
Mosaic covenant. The time of the promise, Acts vii, 17, is the time of
fulfilling the promise. The “children of the promise” are, 1. The
Israelites descended from Isaac, in opposition to the Ishmaelites
descended from Ishmael and Hagar. 2. The Jews converted to Christianity,
in opposition to the obstinate Jews, who would not believe in Christ. 3.
All true believers who are born again by the supernatural power of God,
and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ.

PROPHECY, the prediction of future events; it is especially understood
of those predictions which are contained in the Holy Scriptures; all of
which claim divine inspiration, and by their wonderful fulfilment are
proved to have proceeded from God, who only with certainty can know the
future. Prophecy is one great branch of the external evidence of the
truth of the Scriptures; and the nature and force of this kind of
evidence may here be properly pointed out. No argument _à priori_
against the possibility of prophecy can be attempted by any one who
believes in the existence and infinitely perfect nature of God. The
infidel author of “The Moral Philosopher,” indeed, rather insinuates
than attempts fully to establish a dilemma with which to perplex those
who regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a divine revelation. He
thinks that either prophecy must respect events necessary, as depending
upon necessary causes, which might be certainly foreknown and predicted;
or that, if human actions are free, and effects contingent, the
possibility of prophecy must be given up, as it implies foreknowledge,
which, if granted, would render them necessary. The first part of this
objection might be allowed, were there no predictions to be adduced in
favour of a professed revelation, except such as related to events which
human experience has taught to be dependent upon some cause, the
existence and necessary operation of which are within the compass of
human knowledge. But to foretel such events would not be to prophesy,
any more than to say that it will be light to-morrow at noon, or that on
a certain day and hour next year there will occur an eclipse of the sun
or moon, when that event has been previously ascertained by astronomical
calculation. If, however, it were allowed that all events depended upon
a chain of necessary causes, yet, in a variety of instances, the
argument from prophecy would not be at all affected; for the foretelling
of necessary results in certain circumstances is beyond human
intelligence, because they can only be known to him by whose power those
necessary causes on which they depend have been arranged, and who has
prescribed the times of their operation. To borrow a case, for the sake
of illustration, from the Scriptures, though the claims of their
predictions are not now in question; let us allow that such a prophecy
as that of Isaiah respecting the taking of Babylon by Cyrus was uttered,
as it purports to be, more than a century before Cyrus was born, and
that all the actions of Cyrus and his army, and those of the Babylonian;
monarch and his people, were necessitated is it to be maintained that
the chain of necessitating causes running through more than a century
could be traced by a human mind, so as to describe the precise manner in
which that fatality would unfold itself, even to the turning of the
river, the drunken carousal of the inhabitants, and the neglect of
shutting the gates of the city? This being by uniform and universal
experience known to be above all human apprehension, would therefore
prove that the prediction was made in consequence of a communication
from a superior and divine Intelligence. Were events, therefore,
subjected to invincible fate and necessity, there might nevertheless be
prophecy.

The other branch of the dilemma is founded on the notion that if we
allow the moral freedom of human actions, prophecy is impossible,
because certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, and fixes and
renders the event necessary. To this the reply is, that the objection is
founded on a false assumption, the divine foreknowledge having no more
influence in effectuating or making certain any event than human
foreknowledge in the degree in which it may exist, there being no moral
causality at all in knowledge. This lies in the will, which is the
determining acting principle in every agent; or, as Dr. Samuel Clarke
has expressed it, in answer to another kind of objector, “God’s
infallible judgment concerning contingent truths does no more alter the
nature of the things, and cause them to be necessary, than our judging
right at any time concerning a contingent truth makes it cease to be
contingent; or than our science of a present truth is any cause of its
being either true or present. Here, therefore, lies the fallacy of our
author’s argument. Because, from God’s foreknowing the existence of
things depending upon a chain of necessary causes, it follows that the
existence of the things must needs be necessary; therefore, from God’s
judging infallibly concerning things which depend not on necessary but
free causes, he concludes that these things also depend not upon free
but necessary causes. Contrary, I say, to the supposition in the
argument; for it must not be first supposed that things are in their own
nature necessary; but from the power of judging infallibly concerning
free events, it must be proved that things, otherwise supposed free,
will thereby unavoidably become necessary.” The whole question lies in
this, Is the simple knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of the
action? And the answer must be in the negative, as every man’s
consciousness will assure him. If the causality of influence, either
immediate, or by the arrangement of compelling events, be mixed up with
this, the ground is shifted; and it is no longer a question which
respects simple prescience. (See _Prescience_.) This metaphysical
objection having no foundation in truth, the force of the evidence
arising from predictions of events, distant, and beyond the power of
human sagacity to anticipate, and uttered as authentications of a divine
commission, is apparent. “Such predictions, whether in the form of
declaration, description, or representation of things future,” as Mr.
Boyle justly observes, “are supernatural things, and may properly be
ranked among miracles.” For when, for instance, the events are distant
many years or ages from the uttering of the prediction itself, depending
on causes not so much as existing when the prophecy was spoken and
recorded, and likewise upon various circumstances and a long arbitrary
series of things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of human volitions,
and especially when they depend not at all upon any external
circumstances nor upon any created being, but arise merely from the
counsels and appointment of God himself,--such events can be foreknown
only by that Being, one of whose attributes is omniscience, and can be
foretold by him only to whom the “Father of lights” shall reveal them;
so that whoever is manifestly endued with that predictive power must, in
that instance, speak and act by divine inspiration, and what he
pronounces of that kind must be received as the word of God; nothing
more being necessary to assure us of this than credible testimony that
such predictions were uttered before the event, or conclusive evidence
that the records which contain them are of the antiquity to which they
pretend.

The distinction between the prophecies of Scripture and the oracles of
Heathenism is marked and essential. In the Heathen oracles we cannot
discern any clear and unequivocal tokens of genuine prophecy. They were
destitute of dignity and importance, had no connection with each other,
tended to no object of general concern, and never looked into times
remote from their own. We read only of some few predictions and
prognostications, scattered among the writings of poets and
philosophers, most of which, beside being very weakly authenticated,
appear to have been answers to questions of merely local, personal, and
temporary concern, relating to the issue of affairs then actually in
hand, and to events speedily to be determined. Far from attempting to
form any chain of prophecies, respecting things far distant as to time
or place, or matters contrary to human probability, and requiring
supernatural agency to effect them, the Heathen priests and soothsayers
did not even pretend to a systematic and connected plan. They hardly
dared, indeed, to assume the prophetic character in its full force, but
stood trembling, as it were, on the brink of futurity, conscious of
their inability to venture beyond the depths of human conjecture. Hence
their predictions became so fleeting, so futile, so uninteresting, that,
though they were collected together as worthy of preservation, they soon
fell into disrepute and almost total oblivion. (See _Oracles_.) The
Scripture prophecies, on the other hand, constitute a series of divine
predictions, relating principally to one grand object, of universal
importance, the work of man’s redemption, and carried on in regular
progression through the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian
dispensations, with a harmony and uniformity of design, clearly
indicating one and the same divine Author. They speak of the agents to
be employed in it, and especially of the great agent, the Redeemer
himself; and of those mighty and awful proceedings of Providence as to
the nations of the earth, by which judgment and mercy are exercised with
reference both to the ordinary principles of moral government, and
especially to this restoring economy, to its struggles, its oppositions,
and its triumphs. They all meet in Christ, as in their proper centre,
and in him only; however many of the single lines, when considered
apart, may be imagined to have another direction, and though they may
pass through intermediate events. If we look, says Bishop Hurd, into the
prophetic writings, we find that prophecy is of a prodigious extent;
that it commenced from the fall of man, and reaches to the consummation
of all things; that for many ages it was delivered darkly to a few
persons, and with large intervals from the date of one prophecy to that
of another; but, at length, became more clear, more frequent, and was
uniformly carried on in the line of one people, separated from the rest
of the world,--among other reasons assigned, for this principally, to be
the repository of the divine oracles; that, with some intermission, the
spirit of prophecy subsisted among that people to the coming of Christ;
that he himself and his Apostles exercised this power in the most
conspicuous manner, and left behind them many predictions, recorded in
the books of the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant
events, and even run out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s
expression, to that period “when the mystery of God shall be perfected.”
Farther, beside the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity of the
Person whom it concerns deserves our consideration. He is described in
terms which excite the most august and magnificent ideas. He is spoken
of, indeed, sometimes as being “the seed of the woman,” and as “the Son
of man;” yet so as being at the same time of more than mortal
extraction. He is even represented to us as being superior to men and
angels; as far above all principality and power; above all that is
accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and wisdom
of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the Heir of all things, by
whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person. We have no words to denote greater ideas than
these; the mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of
such transcendent worth and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom
all the prophets bear witness! Lastly, the declared purpose for which
the Messiah, prefigured by so long a train of prophecy, came into the
world, corresponds to all the rest of the representation. It was not to
deliver an oppressed nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great
civil empire, that is, to achieve one of those acts which history
accounts most heroic. No: it was not a mighty state, a victor people,

         _Non res Romanæ perituraque regna_,
         [Not the empire of Rome and kingdoms about to perish,]

that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine Person.
It was another and far sublimer purpose, which he came to accomplish; a
purpose, in comparison of which all our policies are poor and little,
and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world
from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize human
nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be the
Saviour of men and the blessing of all nations. There is no exaggeration
in this account: a spirit of prophecy pervading all time, characterizing
one Person of the highest dignity, and proclaiming the accomplishment of
one purpose, the most beneficent, the most divine, the imagination
itself can project. Such is the Scriptural delineation of that economy
which we call prophetic.

The advantage of this species of evidence belongs then exclusively to
our revelation. Heathenism never made any clear and well founded
pretensions to it. Mohammedanism, though it stands itself as a proof of
the truth of Scripture prophecy, is unsupported by a single prediction
of its own.

The objection which has been raised to Scripture prophecy, from its
supposed obscurity, has no solid foundation. There is, it is true, a
prophetic language of symbol and emblem; but it is a language which is
definite and not equivocal in its meaning, and as easily mastered as the
language of poetry, by attentive persons. This, however, is not always
used. The style of the prophecies of Scripture very often differs in
nothing from the ordinary style of the Hebrew poets; and, in not a few
cases, and those too on which the Christian builds most in the argument,
it sinks into the plainness of historical narrative. Some degree of
obscurity is essential to prophecy: for the end of it was not to gratify
human curiosity, by a detail of future events and circumstances; and too
great clearness and speciality might have led to many artful attempts to
fulfil the predictions, and so far the evidence of their accomplishment
would have been weakened. The two great ends of prophecy are, to excite
expectation before the event, and then to confirm the truth by a
striking and unequivocal fulfilment; and it is a sufficient answer to
the allegation of the obscurity of the prophecies of Scripture, that
they have abundantly accomplished those objects, among the most
intelligent and investigating, as well as among the simple and
unlearned, in all ages. It cannot be denied, for instance, leaving out
particular cases which might be given, that by means of these
predictions the expectation of the incarnation and appearance of a
divine Restorer was kept up among the people to whom they were given,
and spread even to the neighbouring nations; that as these prophecies
multiplied, the hope became more intense; and that at the time of our
Lord’s coming, the expectation of the birth of a very extraordinary
person prevailed, not only among the Jews, but among other nations. This
purpose was then sufficiently answered, and an answer is given to the
objection. In like manner prophecy serves as the basis of our hope in
things yet to come; in the final triumph of truth and righteousness on
earth, the universal establishment of the kingdom of our Lord, and the
rewards of eternal life to be bestowed at his second appearing. In these
all true Christians agree; and their hope could not have been so
uniformly supported in all ages and under all circumstances, had not the
prophecies and predictive promises conveyed with sufficient clearness
the general knowledge of the good for which they looked, though many of
its particulars be unrevealed. The second end of prophecy is, to confirm
the truth by the subsequent event. Here the question of the actual
fulfilment of Scripture prophecy is involved; and it is no argument
against the unequivocal fulfilment of several prophecies, that many have
doubted or denied what the believers in revelation have on this subject
so strenuously contended for. How few of mankind have read the
Scriptures with serious attention, or been at the pains to compare their
prophecies with the statements in history. How few, especially of the
objectors to the Bible, have read it in this manner! How many of them
have confessed unblushingly their unacquaintance with its contents, or
have proved what they have not confessed by the mistakes and
misrepresentations into which they have fallen! As for the Jews, the
evident dominion of their prejudices, their general averseness to
discussion, and the extravagant principles of interpretation they have
adopted for many ages, which set all sober criticism at defiance, render
nugatory any authority which might be ascribed to their denial of the
fulfilment of certain prophecies in the sense adopted by Christians. We
may add to this, that among Christian critics themselves there may be
much disagreement. Eccentricities and absurdities are found among the
learned in every department of knowledge, and much of this waywardness
and affectation of singularity has infected interpreters of Scripture.
But, after all, there is a truth and reason in every subject, which the
understandings of the generality of men will apprehend and acknowledge
whenever it is fully understood and impartially considered; to this in
all such cases the appeal can only be made, and here it may be made with
confidence. Instances of the signal fulfilment of numerous prophecies
are scattered through various articles in this volume; so that it is not
necessary to repeat them here. A few words on the _double sense_ of
prophecy may, however, be added.

For want of a right apprehension of the true meaning of this somewhat
unfortunate term which has obtained in theology, an objection of another
kind has been raised, as though no definite meaning could be assigned to
the prophecies of Scripture. Nothing can be more unfounded. The double
sense of many prophecies in the Old Testament, says an able writer, has
been made a pretext by ill disposed men, for representing them as of
uncertain meaning, and resembling the ambiguity of the Pagan oracles.
But whoever considers the subject with due attention, will perceive how
little ground there is for such an accusation. The equivocations of the
Heathen oracles manifestly arose from their ignorance of future events,
and from their endeavours to conceal that ignorance by such indefinite
expressions, as might be equally applicable to two or more events of a
_contrary_ description. But the double sense of the Scripture
prophecies, far from originating in any doubt or uncertainty, as to the
fulfilment of them in either sense, springs from a foreknowledge of
their accomplishment in _both_; whence the prediction is purposely so
framed as to include both events, which, so far from being contrary to
each other, are typical the one of the other, and are thus connected
together by a mutual dependency or relation. This has often been
satisfactorily proved, with respect to those prophecies which referred,
in their primary sense, to the events of the Old Testament, and, in
their farther and more complex signification, to those of the New: and
on this double accomplishment of some prophecies is grounded our firm
expectation of the completion of others, which remain yet unfulfilled in
their secondary sense, but which we justly consider as equally uncertain
in their issue as those which are already past. So far, then, from any
valid objection lying against the credibility of the Scripture
prophecies, from these seeming ambiguities of meaning, we may urge them
as additional proofs of their coming from God. For, who but the Being
that is infinite in knowledge and in counsel could so construct
predictions as to give them a twofold application, to events distant
from, and, to human foresight, unconnected with, each other? What power
less than divine could so frame them as to make the accomplishment of
them in one instance a solemn pledge and assurance of their completion
in another instance, of still higher and more universal importance?
Where will the scoffer find any thing like this in the artifices of
Heathen oracles, to conceal their ignorance, and to impose on the
credulity of mankind? See ORACLES.

On this subject it may be observed, by way of general illustration, that
the remarkable personages under the old dispensation were sometimes in
the description of their characters, and in the events of their lives,
the representatives of the future dispensers of evangelical blessings,
as Moses and David were unquestionably types of Christ, Ezek. xxxiv, 23;
Matt. xi, 14; Heb. vi, 20; vii, 1–3. Persons likewise were sometimes
descriptive of things, as Sarah and Hagar were allegorical figures of
the two covenants, Gal. iv, 22–31; Rom. ix, 8–13. And, on the other
hand, things were used to symbolize persons, as the brazen serpent and
the paschal lamb were signs of our healing and spotless Redeemer, Exodus
xii, 46; John iii, 14; xix, 36. And so, lastly, ceremonial appointments
and legal circumstances were preördained as significant of Gospel
institutions, 1 Cor. x, 1–11; Heb. viii, 5; ix, x; 1 Pet. iii, 20, 22.
Hence it was that many of the descriptions of the prophets had a twofold
character; bearing often an immediate reference to present
circumstances, and yet being in their nature predictive of future
occurrences. What they reported of the type was often in a more signal
manner applicable to the thing typified, Psalm xxi, 4–6; xl, 1, 7–10;
xii, 4; Lam. xiii, 1–30; John xiii, 18; Dan. xi, 36, 37; what they spoke
literally of present, was figuratively descriptive of future
particulars; and what was applied in a figurative sense to existing
persons, was often actually characteristic of their distant archetypes,
Psalm xxii, 16–18, &c. Many passages then in the Old Testament, which in
their first aspect appear to be historical, are in fact prophetic, and
they are so cited in the New Testament, not by way of ordinary
accommodation, or casual coincidence, but as intentionally predictive,
as having a double sense, a literal and a mystical interpretation, Hosea
xi, 1; Matt. ii, 15.

Beside these historical passages, of which the covert allusions were
explained by the interpretation of the Gospel writers, who were
enlightened by the Spirit to unfold the mysteries of Scripture, the
prophets often uttered positive predictions which, in consequence of the
correspondence established between the two dispensations, were
descriptive of a double event, however they might be themselves ignorant
of the full extent of those prophecies which they delivered. For
instance, their promises of present success and deliverances were often
significant of distant benefits, and secular consolations conveyed
assurances of evangelical blessings, 2 Sam. vii, 13, 14; Heb. i, 5. Thus
their prophecies received completion in a first and secondary view. As
being in part signs to excite confidence, they had an immediate
accomplishment, but were afterward fulfilled in a more illustrious
sense, 1 Kings xiii, 2, 3; Isaiah vii, 14; Matt. i, 22; Dan. ix, 27;
xii, 7; 1 Macc. i, 54; Matt. xxiv, 15; the prophets being inspired, by
the suggestions of the Spirit, to use expressions magnificent enough to
include the substance in the description of the figure. That many of the
prophecies in the Old Testament were direct, and singly and exclusively
applicable to, and accomplished in, our Saviour, is certain, Gen. xlix,
10; Psalm xlii, xlv; Isaiah lii, liii; Daniel vii, 13, 14; Micah v, 2;
Zech. ix, 9; Mal. iii, 1.

It requires much attention to comprehend the full import and extent of
this typical dispensation, and the chief obscurities which prevail in
the sacred writings are to be attributed to the double character of
prophecy. To unravel this is, however, an interesting and instructive
study; though an admiration of the spiritual meaning should never lead
us to disregard or undervalue the first and evident signification; for
many great men have been so dazzled by their discoveries in this mode of
explication, as to be hurried into wild and extravagant excess; as is
evident from the writings of Origen and Jerom; as also from the
Commentaries of Austin, who acknowledges that he had too far indulged in
the fancies of an exuberant imagination, declaring that the other parts
of Scripture are the best commentaries. The Apostles and the evangelists
are, indeed, the best expositors; and where those infallible guides have
led the way, we need not hesitate to follow their steps by the light of
clear reason and just analogy.

It is this double character of prophecy which occasions those unexpected
transitions and sudden interchanges of circumstance so observable in the
prophetic books. Hence different predictions are sometimes blended and
mixed together; temporal and spiritual deliverances are foretold in one
prophecy; and greater and smaller events are combined in one point of
view. Hence, likewise, one chain of connected design runs through the
whole scheme of prophecy, and a continuation of events successively
fulfilling, and successively branching out into new predictions,
continued to confirm the faith, and to keep alive the expectations, of
the Jews. Hence was it the character of the prophetic spirit to be rapid
in its description, and regardless of the order of history; to pass with
quick and unexpected celerity from subject to subject, and from period
to period. “And we must allow,” says Lord Bacon, “for that latitude that
is agreeable and familiar to prophecy, which is of the nature of its
Author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day.” The whole of the
great scheme must have been at once present to the divine Mind; but God
described its parts in detail to mankind, in such measures and in such
proportions, that the connection of every link was obvious, and its
relations apparent in every point of view, till the harmony and entire
consistency of the plan were displayed to those who witnessed its
perfection in the advent of Christ.

PROPHETS. A prophet, in the strict and proper sense, was one to whom the
knowledge of secret things was revealed, that he might declare them to
others, whether they were things past, or present, or to come. The woman
of Samaria perceived our Saviour was a prophet, by his telling her the
secrets of her _past_ life, John iv, 19. The Prophet Elisha had the
_present_ conduct of his servant Gehazi revealed to him, 2 Kings v, 26.
And most of the prophets had revelations concerning _future_ events;
above all, concerning the coming and kingdom of the Messiah: “He has
raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,
as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the
world began,” Luke i, 69, 70. Nevertheless, in a more lax or analogical
sense, the title prophet is sometimes given to persons who had no such
revelation, nor were properly inspired. Thus Aaron is said to be Moses’s
prophet: “The Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to
Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet,” Exod. vii, 1:
because Aaron received the divine messages, which he carried immediately
from Moses; whereas other prophets receive their messages immediately
from God himself. In this respect, as Moses stood in the place of God to
Pharaoh, so Aaron acted in the character of his prophet. The title of
prophets is given also to the sacred musicians, who sung the praises of
God, or who accompanied the song with musical instruments. Thus “the
sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun,” are said to “prophesy
with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals,” 1 Chron. xxv, 1; and
they prophesied, it is said, “according to the order of the king.”
Perhaps Miriam, the sister of Aaron, may be called a prophetess only on
this account, that she led the concert of the women, who sung the song
of Moses with timbrels and with dances, Exodus xv, 20, 21. Thus the
Heathen poets, who sung or composed verses in praise of their gods, were
called by the Romans _vates_, or prophets; which is of the same import
with the Greek ϖροφήτης, a title which St. Paul gives to Epimenides, a
Cretan poet, Titus i, 12.

Godwin observes, that, for the propagation of learning, colleges and
schools were in divers places erected for the prophets. The first
intimation we have in Scripture of these schools is in 1 Sam. x, 5,
where we read of “a company of prophets coming down from the high place
with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp before them, and they did
prophesy.” They are supposed to be the students in a college of prophets
at גכעת, or “the hill,” as we render it, “of God.” Our translators
elsewhere retain the same Hebrew word, as supposing it to be the proper
name of a place, “Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that
was in Geba,” 1 Sam. xiii, 3. Some persons have imagined that the ark,
or at least a synagogue, or some place of public worship, was at this
time at Geba, and that this is the reason of its being styled in the
former passage גבעת האלהים, the hill of God. We read afterward of such
another company of prophets at Naioth in Ramah, “prophesying, and Samuel
standing as appointed over them,” 1 Sam. xix, 19, 20. The students in
these colleges were called sons of the prophets, who are frequently
mentioned in after ages, even in the most degenerate times. Thus we read
of the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel; and of another school
at Jericho; and of the sons of the prophets at Gilgal, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5;
iv, 38. It should seem, that these sons of the prophets were very
numerous; for of this sort were probably the prophets of the Lord, whom
Jezebel cut off; “but Obadiah took a hundred of them, and hid them by
fifty in a cave,” 1 Kings xviii, 4. In these schools young men were
educated under a proper master, who was commonly, if not always, an
inspired prophet, in the knowledge of religion, and in sacred music, 1
Sam. x, 5; xix, 20, and were thereby qualified to be public preachers,
which seems to have been part of the business of the prophets on the
Sabbath days and festivals, 2 Kings iv, 23. It should seem, that God
generally chose the prophets, whom he inspired, out of these schools.
Amos, therefore, speaks of it as an extraordinary case, that though he
was not one of the sons of the prophets, but a herdsman, “yet the Lord
took him as he followed the flock, and said unto him, Go, prophesy unto
my people Israel,” Amos vii, 14, 15. That it was usual for some of these
schools, or at least for their tutors, to be endued with a prophetic
spirit, appears from the relation of the prophecies concerning the
ascent of Elijah, delivered to Elisha by the sons of the prophets, both
at Jericho and at Bethel, 2 Kings ii, 3, 5.

The Hebrew prophets present a succession of men at once the most
singular and the most venerable that ever appeared, in so long a line of
time, in the world. They had special communion with God; they laid open
the scenes of the future; they were ministers of the promised Christ.
They upheld religion and piety in the worst times, and at the greatest
risks; and their disinterestedness was only equalled by their
patriotism. The houses in which they lived were generally mean, and of
their own building, 2 Kings vi, 2–4. Their food was chiefly pottage of
herbs, unless when the people sent them some better provision, as bread,
parched corn, honey, dried fruits, and the like, 1 Kings xiv, 3; 2 Kings
iv, 38, 39, 42. Their dress was plain and coarse, tied about with a
leathern girdle, Zech. xiii, 4; 2 Kings i, 8. Riches were no temptation
to them; therefore Elisha not only refused Naaman’s presents, but
punished his servant Gehazi very severely for clandestinely obtaining a
small share of them, 2 Kings v, 15, &c. To succeeding ages they have
left a character consecrated by holiness, and “visions of the Holy One,”
which still unveil to the church his most glorious attributes, and his
deepest designs. “Prophecy,” says the Apostle Peter, “came not of old
time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost,” 2 Pet. i, 21. They flourished in a continued succession
during a period of more than a thousand years, reckoning from Moses to
Malachi, all coöperating in the same designs, uniting in one spirit to
deliver the same doctrines, and to predict the same blessings to
mankind. Their claims to a divine commission were demonstrated by the
intrinsic excellency of their doctrine; by the disinterested zeal and
undaunted courage with which they prosecuted their ministry, and
persevered in their great design, and by the unimpeachable integrity of
their conduct. But even those credentials of a divine mission were still
farther confirmed by the exercise of miraculous powers, and by the
completion of many less important predictions which they uttered, Deut.
xiii, 1–3; xviii, 22; Joshua x, 13; 1 Sam. xii, 8; 2 Kings i, 10; Isa.
xxxviii, 8; xlii, 9; 1 Sam. ix, 6; 1 Kings xiii, 3; Jer. xxviii, 9;
Ezek. xxxiii, 33. When not immediately employed in the discharge of
their sacred office, they lived sequestered from the world, in religious
communities, or wandered “in deserts, in mountains, and in caves of the
earth;” distinguished by their apparel, and by the general simplicity of
their style of life, 2 Kings i, 8; iv, 10, 38; vi, 1; Isa. xx, 2; Matt.
iii, 4; Heb. xi, 38; Rev. xi, 3. They were the established oracles of
their country, and consulted upon all occasions when it was necessary to
collect the divine will on any civil or religious question. These
illustrious personages were likewise as well the types as the harbingers
of that greater Prophet whom they foretold; and in the general outline
of their character, as well as in particular events of their lives, they
prefigured to the Jews the future Teacher of mankind. Like him, also,
they laboured by every exertion to instruct and reclaim; reproving and
threatening the sinful, however exalted in rank, or encircled by power,
with such fearless confidence and sincerity as often excited respect.
The most intemperate princes were sometimes compelled unwillingly to
hear and to obey their directions, 1 Kings xii, 21–24; xiii, 2–6; xx,
42, 43; xxi, 27; 2 Chron. xxviii, 9–14; though often so incensed by
their rebuke, as to resent it by the severest persecutions. Then it was
that the prophets exhibited the integrity of their characters, by
zealously encountering oppression, hatred, and death, in the cause of
religion. Then it was that they firmly supported “trial of cruel
mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They
were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the
sword; they wandered about, destitute, afflicted, tormented,” evil
intreated for those virtues of which the memorial should flourish to
posterity, and martyred for righteousness, which, whenever resentment
should subside, it would be deemed honourable to reverence, Matthew
xxiii, 27–29.

The manner in which the prophets published their predictions was, either
by uttering them aloud in some public place, or by affixing them on the
gates of the temple, Jer. vii, 2; Ezek. iii, 10, where they might be
generally seen and read. Upon some important occasions, when it was
necessary to rouse the fears of a disobedient people, and to recall them
to repentance, the prophets, as objects of universal attention, appear
to have walked about publicly in sackcloth, and with every external mark
of humiliation and sorrow. They then adopted extraordinary modes of
expressing their convictions of impending wrath, and endeavoured to
awaken the apprehensions of their country, by the most striking
illustration of threatened punishment. Thus Jeremiah made bonds and
yokes, and put them upon his neck, Jer. xxvii, strongly to intimate the
subjection that God would bring on the nations whom Nebuchadnezzar
should subdue. Isaiah likewise walked naked, that is, without the rough
garment of the prophet, and barefoot, as a sign of the distress that
awaited the Egyptians, Isa. xx. So Jeremiah broke the potter’s vessel,
Jer. xix; and Ezekiel publicly removed his household goods from the
city, 2 Kings xxv, 4, 5; Ezek. xii, 7; more forcibly to represent by
these actions some correspondent calamities ready to fall on nations
obnoxious to God’s wrath; this mode of expressing important
circumstances by action, being customary and familiar among all eastern
nations. The great object of prophecy was, as has been before observed,
a description of the Messiah, and of his kingdom, Matt. xxvi, 56; Luke
i, 70; xviii, 31; xxiv, 44; John i, 45; Acts iii, 18, 24; x, 43; xiii,
29; xv, 15; xxviii, 23; 1 Pet. i, 10–12. These were gradually unfolded
by successive prophets in predictions more and more distinct. They were
at first held forth in general promises; they were afterward described
by figures, and shadowed out under types and allusive institutions, and
finally foretold in the full lustre of descriptive prophecy. The Hebrew
prophets were chosen of God to testify beforehand of the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow. See PROPHECY.

PROPITIATION. To propitiate is to appease, to atone, to turn away the
wrath of an offended person. In the case before us, the wrath turned
away is the wrath of God; the person making the propitiation is Christ;
the propitiating offering or sacrifice is his blood. All this is
expressed in most explicit terms in the following passages: “And he is
the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John ii, 2. “Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins,” 1 John iv, 10. “Whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” Rom. iii, 25. The word
used in the two former passages is ἱλασμὸς; in the last ἱλαϛήριον. Both
are from the verb ἱλάσκω, so often used by Greek writers to express the
action of a person who, in some appointed way, turned away the wrath of
a deity; and therefore cannot bear the sense which Socinus would put
upon it,--the destruction of sin. This is not supported by a single
example. With all Greek authorities, whether poets, historians, or
others, the word means to _propitiate_, and is, for the most part,
construed with an accusative case, designating the person whose
displeasure is averted. As this could not be denied, Crellius comes to
the aid of Socinus, and contends that the sense of this word was not to
be taken from its common use in the Greek tongue, but from the
Hellenistic use of it in the Greek of the New Testament, the LXX. and
the Apocrypha. But this will not serve him; for both by the LXX. and in
the Apocrypha, it is used in the same sense as in the Greek classic
writers. “He shall offer his ἱλασμὸν, _sin-offering_, saith the Lord
God,” Ezek. xliv, 27. “And the priest shall take the blood of the
ἐξιλασμοῦ, _sin-offering_,” Ezek. xlv, 19. Κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, “The ram
of the atonement,” Num. v, 8. To which may be added, out of the
Apocrypha, “Now as the high priest was making ἱλασμὸν, an _atonement_,”
2 Macc. iii, 33.

The propitiatory sense of the word ἱλασμὸς being thus fixed, the modern
Socinians have conceded, in their note on 1 John ii, 2, in their
Improved Version, that it means the “pacifying of an offended party;”
but they subjoin, that Christ is a propitiation, because by his Gospel
he brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the divine displeasure.
The concession is important; and the comment cannot weaken it, because
of its absurdity; for, in that interpretation of propitiation, Moses, or
any of the Apostles, or any minister of the Gospel now, who succeeds in
bringing sinners to repentance, is as truly a propitiation for sin as
Christ himself. On Rom. iii, 25, however, the authors of the Improved
Version continue to follow their master Socinus, and translate the
passage, “whom God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith in his
blood,” “whom God hath set forth _as_ a mercy seat in his own blood,”
and lay great stress upon this rendering, as removing that countenance
to the doctrine of atonement by vicarious sufferings which the common
translation affords. The word ἱλαϛὴριον is used in the Septuagint
version, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to express the mercy seat or
covering of the ark. But so little is to be gained by taking it in this
sense in this passage, that this rendering is adopted by several
orthodox commentators as expressing, by a figure, or rather by
emphatically supplying a type to the antitype,--the doctrine of our
Lord’s atonement. The mercy seat was so called, because, under the Old
Testament, it was the place where the high priest, on the feast of
expiation, sprinkled the blood of the sin-offerings, in order to make an
atonement for himself and the whole congregation; and, since God
accepted the offering which was then made, it was, for this reason,
accounted the medium through which God showed himself propitious to the
people. With reference to this, Jesus Christ may be called a mercy seat,
as being the person in or through whom God shows himself propitious to
mankind. And as, under the law, God was propitious to those who came to
him by appearing before his mercy seat with the blood of their
sin-offerings; so, under the Gospel dispensation, he is propitious to
those who come unto him by Jesus Christ, through faith in that blood
which is elsewhere called “the blood of sprinkling,” and which he shed
for the remission of sins. Some able critics have, however, argued, from
the force of the context, that the word ought to be taken actively, and
not merely declaratively; not as “a propitiatory,” but as “a
propitiation,” which, says Grotius, is shown by the mention which is
afterward made of blood, to which the power of propitiation is ascribed.
Others supply θῦμα or ἱερεῖον, and render it _expiatory sacrifice_. But,
whichever of these renderings be adopted, the same doctrine is held
forth to us. The covering of the ark was rendered a propitiatory only by
the blood of the victims sprinkled before and upon it; and when the
Apostle says, that God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory,
he immediately adds, having the ceremonies of the temple in his view,
“through faith in his blood.” The text, therefore, contains no
exhibition of any means of obtaining mercy but through the blood of
sacrifice, according to the rule laid down in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission;” and is in
strict accordance with Ephesians i, 7, “We have redemption through his
blood, the remission of sins.” It is only by his blood that Christ
reconciles us to God.

Unable as they who deny the vicarious nature of the sufferings of Christ
are to evade the testimony of the above passages which speak of our Lord
as “a propitiation,” their next resource often is to deny the existence
of wrath in God, in the hope of proving that propitiation, in a proper
sense, cannot be the doctrine of Scripture, whatever may be the force of
the mere terms which the sacred writers employ. In order to give
plausibility to their statement, they pervert the opinion of the
orthodox, and argue as though it formed a part of the doctrine of
Christ’s propitiation and oblation for sin, to represent God as
naturally an implacable and vengeful being, and only made placable and
disposed to show mercy by satisfaction being made to his displeasure
through our Lord’s sufferings and death. This is as contrary to
Scripture as it is to the opinions of all sober persons who hold the
doctrine of Christ’s atonement. God is love; but it is not necessary, in
order to support this truth, to assume that he is nothing else. He has
other attributes, which harmonize with this and with each other; though,
assuredly, that harmony cannot be established by any who deny the
propitiation for sin made by the death of Christ. It sufficiently proves
that there is not only no implacability in God, but a most tender and
placable affection toward the sinning human race itself, and that the
Son of God, by whom the propitiation was made, was the free gift of the
Father to us. This is the most eminent proof of his love, that, for our
sakes, and that mercy might be extended to us, “He spared not his own
Son; but delivered him up freely for us all.” Thus he is the fountain
and first moving cause of that scheme of recovery and salvation which
the incarnation and death of our Lord brought into full and efficient
operation. The true questions are, indeed, not whether God is love, or
whether he is of a placable nature; but whether God is holy and just;
whether we, his creatures, are under law or not; whether this law has
any penalty, and whether God, in his rectoral character, is bound to
execute and uphold that law. As the justice of God is punitive, (and if
it is not punitive, his laws are a dead letter,) then is there wrath in
God; then is God angry with the wicked; then is man, as a sinner,
obnoxious to this anger; and so a propitiation becomes necessary to turn
it away from him. Nor are these terms unscriptural; they are used in the
New Testament as emphatically as in the Old; though, the former is, in a
special sense, a revelation of the mercy of God to man. John declares
that, if any man believeth not on the Son of God, “the wrath of God
abideth upon him;” and St. Paul affirms, that “the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men.” The day of judgment is, with reference to the ungodly, said to be
“the day of wrath;” God is called “a consuming fire;” and, as such, is
the object of “reverence and godly fear.” Nor is this his displeasure
light, and the consequences of it a trifling and temporary
inconvenience. When we only regard the consequences which have followed
sin in society, from the earliest ages, and in every part of the world,
and add to these the many direct and fearful inflictions of punishment
which have proceeded from the “Judge of the whole earth,” then, to use
the language of Scripture, “our flesh may well tremble because of his
judgments.” But when we look at the future state of the wicked as
represented in Scripture, though it is expressed generally, and
surrounded with the mystery of a place, and a condition of being,
unknown to us in the present state, all evils which history has crowded
into the lot of man appear insignificant in comparison of banishment
from God, separation from good men, public condemnation, torment of
spirit, “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth,” “everlasting
destruction,” “everlasting fire.” Let men talk ever so much or
eloquently of the pure benevolence of God, they cannot abolish the facts
recorded in the history of human suffering in this world as the effects
of transgression; nor can they discharge these fearful comminations from
the pages of the book of God. These cannot be criticised away; and if it
is “Jesus who saves us from this wrath to come,” that is, from those
effects of the wrath of God which are to come, then, but for him, we
should have been liable to them. That principle in God, from which such
effects follow, the Scriptures call wrath; and they who deny the
existence of wrath in God, deny, therefore, the Scriptures.

It by no means follows, however, that this wrath is a passion in God; or
that, though we contend that the awful attribute of his justice requires
satisfaction, in order to the forgiveness of the guilty, we afford
reason to any to charge us with attributing vengeful affections to the
divine Being. “Our adversaries,” says Bishop Stillingfleet, “first make
opinions for us, and then show that they are unreasonable. They first
suppose that anger in God is to be considered as a passion, and that
passion a desire of revenge; and then tell us, that if we do not prove
that this desire of revenge can be satisfied by the sufferings of
Christ, then we can never prove the doctrine of satisfaction to be true;
whereas, we do not mean by God’s anger, any such passion, but the just
declaration of God’s will to punish, upon our provocation of him by our
sins; we do not make the design of the satisfaction to be that God may
please himself in revenging the sins of the guilty upon the most
innocent person, because we make the design of punishment not to be the
satisfaction of anger as a desire of revenge, but to be the vindication
of the honour and rights of the offended person by such a way as he
himself shall judge satisfactory to the ends of his government.” See
ATONEMENT and EXPIATION.

PROPITIATORY, among the Jews, was the cover or lid of the ark of the
covenant, which was lined both within and without with plates of gold,
insomuch that there was no wood to be seen. Some even take it to have
been one piece of massive gold. The cherubims spread their wings over
the propitiatory. This propitiatory was a type or figure of Christ. See
PROPITIATION.

PROSELYTE, Προσήλυτος, signifies _a stranger_, _a foreigner_; the Hebrew
word גר, or נכר, also denotes a stranger, one who comes from abroad, or
from another place. In the language נכר of the Jews, those were called
by this name who came to dwell in their country, or who embraced their
religion, being not Jews by birth. In the New Testament they are called
sometimes proselytes, and sometimes Gentiles, fearing God, Acts ii, 5;
x, ii, 22; xiii, 16, 50. The Jews distinguish two kinds of proselytes.
The first, proselytes of the gate; the others, proselytes of justice or
righteousness. The first dwelt in the land of Israel, or even out of
that country, and, without obliging themselves to circumcision, or to
any other ceremony of the law, feared and worshipped the true God,
observing the rules imposed on Noah. These were, according to the
rabbins, 1. To abstain from idolatry; 2. From blasphemy; 3. From murder;
4. From adultery; 5. From theft; 6. To appoint just and upright judges;
7. Not to eat the flesh of any animal cut off while it was alive.
Maimonides says, that the first six of these precepts were given to
Adam, and the seventh to Noah. The privileges of proselytes of the gate
were, first, that through holiness they might have hope of eternal life.
Secondly, they could dwell in the land of Israel, and share in the
outward prosperities of it. It is said they did not dwell in the cities,
but only in the suburbs and the villages; but it is certain that the
Jews often admitted into their cities, not only proselytes of
habitation, but also Gentiles and idolaters, as appears by the
reproaches on this account, throughout the Scriptures.

Proselytes of justice or of righteousness were those converted to
Judaism, who had engaged themselves to receive circumcision, and to
observe the whole law of Moses. Thus were they admitted to all the
prerogatives of the people of the Lord. The rabbins inform us that,
before circumcision was administered to them, and before they were
admitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the
motives of their conversion; whether the change was voluntary, or
whether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c. When the
proselyte was well proved and instructed, they gave him circumcision;
and when the wound of his circumcision healed, they gave him baptism, by
plunging his whole body into a cistern of water, by only one immersion.
Boys under twelve years of age, and girls under thirteen, could not
become proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents,
or, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of justice.
Baptism in respect of girls had the same effect as circumcision in
respect of boys. Each of them, by means of this, received, as it were, a
new birth, so that those who were their parents before were no longer
regarded as such after this ceremony, and those who before were slaves
now became free.

Many, however, are of opinion that there appears to be no ground
whatever in Scripture for this distinction of proselytes of the gate,
and proselytes of righteousness. “According to my idea,” says Dr.
Tomline, “proselytes were those, and those only, who took upon
themselves the obligation of the whole Mosaic law, but retained that
name till they were admitted into the congregation of the Lord as
adopted children. Gentiles were allowed to worship and offer sacrifices
to the God of Israel in the outer court of the temple; and some of them,
persuaded of the sole and universal sovereignty of the Lord Jehovah,
might renounce idolatry without embracing the Mosaic law; but such
persons appear to me never to be called proselytes in Scripture, or in
any ancient Christian writer.” He also observes that “the term
_proselytes of the gate_ is derived from an expression frequent in the
Old Testament; namely, ‘the stranger that is within thy gates;’ but I
think it evident that the strangers were those Gentiles who were
permitted to live among the Jews under certain restrictions, and whom
the Jews were forbidden ‘to vex or oppress,’ so long as they live in a
peaceable manner.” Dr. Lardner says, “I do not believe that the notion
of two sorts of Jewish proselytes can be found in any Christian writer
before the fourteenth century or later.” Dr. Jennings also observes that
“there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture
history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate, as the rabbins
mention; nor, indeed, of any who with propriety can be styled
proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.”

PROSEUCHÆ. That the Jews had houses, or places for prayer, called
ϖροσευχαὶ, appears from a variety of passages in Philo; and,
particularly in his oration against Flaccus, he complains that their
ϖροσευχαὶ were pulled down, and there was no place left in which they
might worship God and pray for Cæsar. Among those who make the
synagogues and _proseuchæ_ to be different places, are the learned Mr.
Joseph Mede and Dr. Prideaux; and they think the difference consists
partly in the form of the edifice; a synagogue, they say, being roofed
like our houses or churches; and a _proseucha_ being only encompassed
with a wall, or some other mound or enclosure, and open at the top, like
our courts. They make them to differ in situation; synagogues being in
towns and cities, _proseuchæ_ in the fields, and frequently by the river
side. Dr. Prideaux mentions another distinction in respect to the
service performed in them. In synagogues, he says, the prayers were
offered up in public forms in common for the whole congregation; but in
the _proseuchæ_ they prayed, as in the temple, every one apart for
himself. And thus our Saviour prayed in the _proseucha_ into which he
entered. Yet, after all, the proof in favour of this notion is not so
strong, but that it still remains a question with some, whether the
synagogues and the _proseuchæ_ were any thing more than two different
names for the same place; the one taken from the people’s assembling in
them, the other from the service to which they were more immediately
appropriated, namely, prayer. Nevertheless, the name _proseuchæ_ will
not prove that they were appropriated only to prayer, and therefore were
different from synagogues, in which the Scriptures were also read and
expounded; since the temple, in which sacrifices were offered, and all
the parts of divine service were performed, is called οικος προσευχης,
_a house of prayer_, Matt. xxi, 13.

PROTESTANT. The Emperor Charles V. called a diet at Spire, in 1529, to
request aid from the German princes against the Turks, and to devise the
most effectual means for allaying the religious disputes which then
raged in consequence of Luther’s opposition to the established religion.
In this diet it was decreed by Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, and other
popish princes, that in the countries which had embraced the new
religion it should be lawful to continue in it till the meeting of a
council; but that no Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran,
and that the reformers should deliver nothing in their sermons contrary
to the received doctrine of the church. Against this decree, six
Lutheran princes, namely, John and George, the electors of Saxony and
Brandenburg, Ernest and Francis, the two dukes of Lunenburg, the
landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of
thirteen imperial towns, namely, Strasburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, Constance,
Rottingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Nortlingen, Lindaw, Kempten, Hailbron,
Wissemburg, and St. Gall, formally and solemnly _protested_ and declared
that they appealed to a general council; and hence the name of
Protestants, by which the followers of Luther have ever since been
known. Nor was it confined to them; for it soon after included the
Calvinists, and has now of a long time been applied generally to the
Christian sects, of whatever denomination, and in whatever country they
may be found, which have separated from the see of Rome.

Mr. Chillingworth, addressing himself to a writer in favour of the
church of Rome, speaks of the religion of the Protestants in the
following excellent terms: “Know then, sir, that when I say the religion
of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours, on the one
side, I do not understand by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine,
or Baronius, or any other private man among you, nor the doctrine of the
Sorbonne, of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other
particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess
to agree, the doctrine of the council of Trent; so, accordingly, on the
other side, by the religion of Protestants, I do not understand the
doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon, nor the confession of
Augsburg, or Geneva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the articles
of the church of England; no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions;
but that in which they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a
greater harmony, as a perfect rule of faith and action; that is, the
Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.
Whatsoever else they believe beside it, and the plain, irrefragable,
indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of
opinion; but as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with
coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require belief
of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I,
for my part, after a long, and, as I verily believe and hope, impartial,
search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that I
cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I
see plainly, and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes,
and councils against councils; some fathers against other fathers, the
same fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against
a consent of fathers of another age; traditive interpretations of
Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found; no
tradition but that of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but
may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age
after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is
no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to
build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe.
This I will profess; according to this I will live; and for this, if
there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly, lose my
life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me.
Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe or
no, and, seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will
subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be
stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other
things, I will take no man’s liberty of judging from him; neither shall
any man take mine from me.”

Under such views the Bible is held as the only sure foundation upon
which all true Protestants build every article of the faith which they
profess, and every point of doctrine which they teach; and all other
foundations, whether they be the decisions of councils, the confessions
of churches, the prescripts of popes, or the expositions of private men,
are considered by them as sandy and unsafe, or as in nowise to be
ultimately relied on. Yet, on the other hand, they by no means
fastidiously reject them as of no use; for while they admit the Bible,
or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be the only
infallible rule by which we must measure the truth or falsehood of every
religious opinion, they are sensible that all men are not equally fitted
to understand or to apply this rule; and that the wisest men want, on
many occasions, all the helps afforded by the learning and research of
others to enable them to understand its precise nature, and to define
its certain extent. These helps are great and numerous, having been
supplied, in every age of the church, by the united labours of learned
men in every country, and by none in greater abundance than by those in
Protestant communions.

PROVERBS, short aphorisms, and sententious moral and prudential maxims,
usually expressed in numbers, or rhythm, or antithesis, as being more
easily remembered, and of more use, than abstruse and methodical
discourses. This method of instruction appears to be peculiarly suited
to the disposition and genius of the Asiatics, among whom it has
prevailed from the earliest ages. The Gymnosophists of India delivered
their philosophy in brief enigmatical sentences; a practice adopted and
carried to a great extent by the ancient Egyptians. The mode of
conveying instruction by compendious maxims obtained among the Jews,
from the first dawn of their literature, to its final extinction in the
east through the power of the Mohammedan arms; and it was familiar to
the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, as we learn from the testimony
of St. Jerom. The eloquence of Arabia was mostly exhibited in detached
and unconnected sentences, which, like so many loose gems, attracted
attention by the fulness of the periods, the elegance of the
phraseology, and the acuteness of proverbial sayings. Nor do the
Asiatics at present differ, in this respect, from their ancestors, as
numerous _amthâl_, or moral sentences, are in circulation throughout the
regions of the east, some of which have been published by Hottinger,
Erpenius, the younger Schultens, and others who have distinguished
themselves by the pursuit of oriental learning. “The moralists of the
east,” says Sir William Jones, “have, in general, chosen to deliver
their precepts in short sententious maxims, to illustrate them by
sprightly comparisons, or to inculcate them in the very ancient forms of
agreeable apologues: there are, indeed, both in Arabic and Persian,
philosophical tracts on ethics, written with sound ratiocination and
elegant perspicuity; but in every part of the eastern world, from Pekin
to Damascus, the popular teachers of moral wisdom have immemorially been
poets; and there would be no end of enumerating their works, which are
still extant in the five principal languages of Asia.” The ingenious but
ever disputing and loquacious Greeks were indebted to the same means for
their earliest instruction in wisdom. The sayings of the seven wise men,
the golden verses of Pythagoras, the remains of Theognis and Phocylides,
if genuine, and the _gnomai_ of the older poets, testify the prevalence
of aphorisms in ancient Greece. Had no specimens remained of Hellenic
proverbs, we might have concluded this to have been the case; for the
Greeks borrowed the rudiments, if not the principal part, of their
knowledge from those whom they arrogantly termed barbarians; and it is
only through the medium of compendious maxims and brief sentences that
traditionary knowledge can be preserved. This mode of communicating
moral and practical wisdom accorded with the sedate and deliberative
character of the Romans; and, in truth, from its influence over the
mind, and its fitness for popular instruction, proverbial expressions
exist in all ages and in all languages.

Proverbs, in the Hebrew language, are called _meshalim_, which is
derived from a verb signifying both “to rule,” “to have dominion,” and
“to compare,” “to liken,” “to assimilate:” hence the term denotes the
highly figurative and poetical style in general, and likewise those
compendious and authoritative sentences in particular which are commonly
denominated proverbs. This term, which our translators have adopted
after the Vulgate, denotes, according to our great lexicographer, “a
short sentence frequently repeated by the people, a saw, an adage;” and
no other word can, perhaps, be substituted more accurately expressing
the force of the Hebrew; or, if there could, it has been so long
familiarized by constant use, that a change is totally inadmissible.

The _Meshalim_, or Proverbs of Solomon, on account of their intrinsic
merit, as well as of the rank and renown of their author, would be
received with submissive deference; in consequence of which, they would
rapidly spread through every part of the Jewish territories. The pious
instructions of the king would be listened to with the attention and
respect they deserve, and, no doubt, would be carefully recorded by a
people attached to his person, and holding his wisdom in the highest
admiration. These, either preserved in writing, or handed down by oral
communication, were subsequently collected into one volume, and
constitute the book in the sacred canon, entitled, “The Proverbs of
Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.” The genuineness and
authenticity of this title, and those in chap. x, 1, and xxv, 1, cannot
be disputed; not the smallest reason appears for calling them in
question. One portion of the book, from the twenty-fifth chapter to the
end of the twenty-ninth, was compiled by the men of Hezekiah, as appears
from the title prefixed to it. Eliakim, Shebna, Joah, Isaiah, Hosea, and
Micah, personages of eminence and worth, were contemporary with
Hezekiah; but whether these or others executed the compilation, it is
now impossible to determine. They were persons, however, as we may
reasonably suppose, well qualified for the undertaking, who collected
what were known to be the genuine proverbs of Solomon from the various
writings in which they were dispersed, and arranged them in their
present order. Whether the preceding twenty-four chapters, which,
doubtless, existed in a combined form previous to the additional
collection, were compiled by the author, or some other person, is quite
uncertain. Both collections, however, being made at so early a period,
is a satisfactory evidence that the Proverbs are the genuine production
of Solomon, to whom they are ascribed; for, from the death of Solomon to
the reign of Hezekiah, according to the Bible chronology, was a period
of two hundred and forty-nine years, or, according to Dr. Hales, two
hundred and sixty-five years; too short a space to admit of any forgery
or material error, as either must have been immediately detected by the
worthies who flourished during the virtuous reign of Hezekiah.

PROVIDENCE, the conduct and direction of the several parts of the
universe, by a superior intelligent Being. The notion of a providence is
founded upon this truth, that the Creator has not so fixed and
ascertained the laws of nature, nor so connected the chain of second
causes, as to leave the world to itself, but that he still preserves the
reins in his own hands, and occasionally intervenes, alters, restrains,
enforces, suspends, &c, those laws by a particular providence. Some use
the word _providence_ in a more general sense, signifying by it that
power or action by which the several parts of the creation are
ordinarily directed. Thus Damascenus defines providence to be that
divine will by which all things are ordered and directed to the proper
end: which notion of providence supposes no laws at all fixed by the
author of nature at the creation, but that he reserved it at large, to
be governed by himself immediately. The Epicureans denied any divine
providence, as thinking it inconsistent with the ease and repose of the
divine nature to meddle at all with human affairs. Simplicius argues
thus for a providence: If God does not look to the affairs of the world,
it is either because he cannot or will not; but the first is absurd,
since, to govern cannot be difficult where to create was easy; and the
latter is both absurd and blasphemous. In Plato’s Tenth Dialogue of
Laws, he teaches excellently, that (since what is self-moving is, by its
nature, before that which moves only in consequence of being moved) mind
must be prior to matter, and the cause of all its modifications and
changes; and that, therefore, there is a universal Mind possessed of all
perfection, which produced and which actuates all things. After this he
shows that the Deity exercises a particular providence over the world,
taking care of small no less than great things. In proving this he
observes “that a superior nature of such excellence as the divine, which
hears, sees, and knows all things, cannot, in any instance, be subject
to negligence or sloth; that the meanest and the greatest part of the
world are all equally his work or possession; that great things cannot
be rightly taken care of without taking care of small; and that, in all
cases, the more able and perfect any artist is, (as a physician, an
architect, or the ruler of the state,) the more his skill and care
appear in little as well as great things. Let us not, then,” says he,
“conceive of God as worse than even mortal artists.”

The term providence, in its primary signification, simply denotes
foresight; and if we allow the existence of a supreme Being who formed
the universe at first, we must necessarily allow that he has a perfect
foresight of every event which at any time takes place in the natural or
moral world. Matter can have no motion, nor spirit any energy, but what
is derived from him; nor can he be ignorant of the effects which they
will, either separately or conjointly, produce. A common mechanic has
knowledge of the work of his own hands: when he puts the machine which
he has made in motion, he foresees how long it will go, and what will be
the state and position of its several parts at any particular point of
time; or, if he is not perfectly able to do this, it is because he is
not perfectly acquainted with all the powers of the materials which he
has used in its construction: they are not of his making, and they may
therefore have qualities which he does not understand, and consequently
cannot regulate. But in the immense machine of the universe there is
nothing except that which God has made; all the powers and properties,
relations and dependencies, which created things have, they have, both
in kind and degree, from him. Nothing, therefore, it should seem, can
come to pass at any time, or in any part of the universe, which its
incomprehensible Architect did not, from the moment his almighty fiat
called it into existence, clearly foresee. The providence of God is
implied in his very existence as an intelligent Creator; and it imports
not only an abstract foresight of all possible events, but such a
predisposition of causes and effects, such an adjustment of means and
ends, as seems to us to exclude that contingency of human actions with
which, as expectants of positive rewards and punishments in another
world, we firmly believe it to be altogether consistent.

By providence we may understand, not merely foresight, but a uniform and
constant operation of God subsequent to the act of creation. Thus, in
every machine formed by human ingenuity, there is a necessity for the
action of some extraneous power to put the machine in motion: a proper
construction and disposition of parts not being sufficient to effect the
end: there must be a spring, or a weight, or an impulse of air or water,
or some substance or other, on which the motion of the several parts of
the machine must depend. In like manner, the machine of the universe
depends upon its Creator for the commencement and the conservation of
the motion of its several parts. The power by which the insensible
particles of matter coalesce into sensible lumps, as well as that by
which the great orbs of the universe are reluctantly, as it were,
retained in their courses, admits not an explanation from mechanical
causes: the effects of both of them are different from such as mere
matter and motion can produce; they must ultimately be referred to God.
Vegetable and animal life and increase cannot be accounted for, without
recurring to him as the primary cause of both. In all these respects the
providence of God is something more than foresight; it is a continual
influence, a universal agency; “by him all things consist,” and “in him
we live, and move, and have our being.”

Much labour has been employed to account for all the phenomena of nature
by the powers of mechanism, or the necessary laws of matter and motion.
But this, as we imagine, cannot be done. The primary causes of things
must certainly be some powers and principles not mechanical, otherwise
we shall be reduced to the necessity of maintaining an endless
progression of motions communicated from matter to matter, without any
first mover; or of saying that the first impelling matter moved itself.
The former is an absurdity too great to be embraced by any one; and
there is reason to hope that the essential inactivity of matter is at
present so well understood, and so generally allowed, notwithstanding
some modern oppugners of this hypothesis, that there can be but few who
will care to assert the latter. All our reasonings about bodies, and the
whole of natural philosophy, are founded on the three laws of motion
laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, at the beginning of the “_Principia_.”
These laws express the plainest truths; but they would have neither
evidence nor meaning, were not inactivity contained in our idea of
matter. Should it be said that matter, though naturally inert, may be
made to be otherwise by divine power, this would be the same with saying
that matter may be made not to be matter. If inactivity belong to it at
all, it must belong to it as matter, or solid extension, and therefore
must be inseparable from it. Matter is figured, movable, discerptable,
inactive, and capable of communicating motion by impulse to other
matter: these are not accidental but primary qualities of matter.
Beside, matter void of inactivity, if we were to suppose it possible,
could produce no effects. The communication of motion, its direction,
the resistance it suffers, and its cessation, in a word, the whole
doctrine of motion cannot be consistently explained or clearly
understood without supposing the inertia of matter. Self-moving matter
must have thought and design, because, whenever matter moves, it must
move in some particular direction, and with some precise degree of
velocity; and as there is an infinity of these equally possible, it
cannot move itself without selecting one of these preferably to and
exclusively of all others, and therefore not without design. Moreover,
it may be plainly proved that matter cannot be the ultimate cause of the
phenomena of nature, or the agent which, by any powers inherent in
itself, produces the general laws of nature, without possessing the
highest degree of knowledge and wisdom; which might be easily evinced or
exemplified by adverting to the particular law of gravitation. “The
philosopher,” says an excellent writer, “who overlooks the laws of an
all-governing Deity in nature, contenting himself with the appearance of
the material universe only, and the mechanical laws of motion, neglects
what is most excellent, and prefers what is imperfect to what is
supremely perfect, finitude to infinity, what is narrow and weak to what
is unlimited and almighty, and what is perishing to what endures for
ever. Sir Isaac Newton thought it most unaccountable to exclude the
Deity _only_ out of the universe. It appeared to him much more just and
reasonable to suppose that the whole chain of causes, or the several
series of them, should centre in him as their source; and the whole
system appear depending on him the only independent cause.” If, then,
the Deity pervades and actuates the material world, and his unremitting
energy is the cause to which every effect in it must be traced; the
spiritual world, which is of greater consequence, cannot be disregarded
by him. Is there not one atom of matter on which he does not act; and is
there one living being about which he has no concern? Does not a stone
fall without him; and does, then, a man suffer without him? The
inanimate world is of no consequence, abstracted from its subserviency
to the animate and reasonable world: the former, therefore, must be
preserved and governed entirely with a view to the latter. But it is not
mere energy or the constant exertion of power that is discernible in the
frame or laws of the universe, in maintaining the succession of men, and
in producing men and other beings; but wisdom and skill are also
conspicuous in the structure of every object in the inanimate creation.
After a survey of the beauty and elegance of the works of nature, aided
by the perusal of Matt. vi, 28, &c, we may ask ourselves, Has God, in
the lowest of his works, been lavish of wisdom, beauty, and skill; and
is he sparing of these in the concerns of reasonable beings? Or does he
less regard order, propriety, and fitness in the determination of their
states? The answer is obvious. Providence also implies a particular
interposition of God in administering the affairs of individuals and
nations, and wholly distinct from that general and incessant exertion of
his power, by which he sustains the universe in existence.

The doctrine of providence may be evinced from the consideration of the
divine perfections. The first cause of all things must be regarded as a
being absolutely perfect; and the idea of absolute perfection
comprehends infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; hence we deduce the
doctrine of providence. The Deity cannot be an indifferent spectator of
the series of events in that world to which he has given being. His
goodness will as certainly engage him to direct them agreeably to the
ends of goodness, as his wisdom and power enable him to do it in the
most effectual manner. This conclusion is conformable to all our ideas
of those attributes. Could we call that being good who would refuse to
do any good which he is able to do without the least labour or
difficulty? God is present every where. He sees all that happens, and it
is in his power, with perfect ease, to order all for the best. Can he
then possess goodness, and at the same time not do this? A God without a
providence is undoubtedly a contradiction. Nothing is plainer than that
a being of perfect reason will, in every instance, take such care of the
universe as perfect reason requires. That supreme intelligence and love,
which are present to all things, and from whence all things sprung, must
govern all occurrences. These considerations prove what has been called
a _particular_, in opposition to a _general_, providence. We cannot
conceive of any reasons that can influence the Deity to exercise _any_
providence over the world, which are not likewise reasons for extending
it to _all_ that happens in the world. As far as it is confined to
generals, or overlooks _any_ individual, or _any_ event, it is
incomplete, and therefore unsuitable to the idea of a perfect being.

One common prejudice against this doctrine arises from the apprehension
that it is below the dignity of the Deity to watch over, in the manner
implied in it, the meanest beings, and the minutest affairs. To which it
may be replied, that a great number of minute affairs, if they are each
of them of some consequence, make up a sum which is of great
consequence; and that there is no way of taking care of this sum,
without taking care of each particular. This objection, therefore, under
the appearance of honouring God, plainly dishonours him. Nothing is
absolutely trifling in which the happiness of any individual, even the
most insignificant, is at all concerned; nor is it beneath a wise and
good being to interpose in any thing of this kind. To suppose the Deity
above this, is to suppose him above acting up to the full extent of
goodness and rectitude. The same eternal benevolence that first engaged
him to produce beings, must also engage him to exercise a particular
providence over them; and the very lowest beings, as well as the
highest, seem to have a kind of right to his superintendence, from the
act itself of bringing them into existence. Every apprehension that this
is too great a condescension in him is founded on the poorest ideas;
for, surely, whatever it was not too great condescension in him to
create, it cannot be too great a condescension in him to take care of.
Beside, with regard to God, all distinctions in the creation vanish. All
beings are infinitely, that is, equally, inferior to him.

Accident, and chance, and fortune, are words which we often hear
mentioned, and much is ascribed to them in the life of man. But they are
words without meaning; or, as far as they have any signification, they
are no other than names for the unknown operations of providence; for it
is certain that in God’s universe nothing comes to pass causelessly, or
in vain. Every event has its own determined direction. That chaos of
human affairs and intrigues where we can see no light, that mass of
disorder and confusion which they often present to our view, is all
clearness and order in the sight of Him who is governing and directing
the whole, and bringing forward every event in its due time and place.
“The Lord sitteth on the flood. The Lord maketh the wrath of man to
praise him,” as he maketh the “hail and rain to obey his word. He hath
prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. A
man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.” No
other principle than this, embraced with a steady faith, and attended
with a suitable practice, can ever be able to give repose and
tranquillity to the mind; to animate our hopes, or extinguish our fears;
to give us any true satisfaction in the enjoyments of life, or to
minister consolation under its adversities. If we are persuaded that God
governs the world, that he has the superintendence and direction of all
events, and that we are the objects of his providential care; whatever
may be our distress or our danger, we can never want consolation; we may
always have a fund of hope, always a prospect of relief. But take away
this hope and this prospect, take away the belief of God and of a
superintending providence, and man would be of all creatures the most
miserable; destitute of every comfort, every support, under present
sufferings, and of every security against future dangers.

PSALMS. The book of Psalms is a collection of hymns, or sacred songs, in
praise of God, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the
productions of different persons, but are generally called the Psalms of
David, because a great part of them was composed by him, and David
himself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now
ascertain all the Psalms written by David, but their number probably
exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover the authors of
the other Psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed. A few
of them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. The
titles prefixed to them are of very questionable authority; and in many
cases they are not intended to denote the writer but refer only to the
person who was appointed to set them to music. David first introduced
the practice of singing sacred hymns in the public service of God; and
it was restored by Ezra. The authority of the Psalms is established not
only by their rank among the sacred writings, and by the unvaried
testimony of ages, but likewise by many intrinsic proofs of inspiration.
Not only do they breathe through every part a divine spirit of
eloquence, but they contain numberless illustrious prophecies that were
remarkably accomplished, and are frequently appealed to by the
evangelical writers. The sacred character of the whole book is
established by the testimony of our Saviour and his Apostles, who, in
various parts of the New Testament, appropriate the predictions of the
Psalms as obviously apposite to the circumstances of their lives, and as
intentionally composed to describe them. The veneration for the Psalms
has in all ages of the church been considerable. The fathers assure us,
that in the earlier times the whole book of Psalms was generally learned
by heart; and that the ministers of every gradation were expected to be
able to repeat them from memory. These invaluable Scriptures are daily
repeated without weariness, though their beauties are often overlooked
in familiar and habitual perusal. As hymns immediately addressed to the
Deity, they reduce righteousness to practice; and while we acquire the
sentiments, we perform the offices of piety; while we supplicate for
blessings, we celebrate the memorial of former mercies; and while in the
exercise of devotion, faith is enlivened by the display of prophecy.
Josephus asserts, and most of the ancient writers maintain, that the
Psalms were composed in metre. They have undoubtedly a peculiar
conformation of sentences, and a measured distribution of parts. Many of
them are elegiac, and most of David’s are of the lyric kind. There is no
sufficient reason however to believe, as some writers have imagined,
that they were written in rhyme, or in any of the Grecian measures. Some
of them are acrostic; and though the regulations of the Hebrew measure
are now lost, there can be no doubt, from their harmonious modulation,
that they were written with some kind of metrical order; and they must
have been composed in accommodation to the measure to which they were
set. (See _Poetry of the Hebrews_.) The Hebrew copies and the Septuagint
version of this book contain the same number of Psalms; only the
Septuagint translators have, for some reason which does not appear,
thrown the ninth and tenth into one, as also the one hundred and
fourteenth and one hundred and fifteenth, and have divided the one
hundred and sixteenth and one hundred and forty-seventh each into two.

It is very justly observed by Dr. Allix, that, “although the sense of
near fifty Psalms be fixed and settled by divine authors, yet Christ and
his Apostles did not undertake to quote all the Psalms they could, but
only to give a key to their hearers, by which they might apply to the
same subjects the Psalms of the same composure and expression.” With
regard to the Jews, Bishop Chandler very pertinently remarks, that “they
must have understood David, their prince, to have been a figure of
Messiah. They would not otherwise have made his Psalms part of their
daily worship; nor would David have delivered them to the church to be
so employed, were it not to instruct and support them in the knowledge
and belief of this fundamental article. Were the Messiah not concerned
in the Psalms, it would have been absurd to celebrate twice a day, in
their public devotions, the events of one man’s life, who was deceased
so long ago, as to have no relation now to the Jews and the
circumstances of their affairs; or to transcribe whole passages from
them into their prayers for the coming of the Messiah.” Upon the same
principle it is easily seen that the objections, which may seem to lie
against the use of Jewish services in Christian congregations, may cease
at once. Thus it may be said, Are we concerned with the affairs of David
and of Israel? Have we any thing to do with the ark and the temple? They
are no more. Are we to go up to Jerusalem, and to worship on Sion? They
are desolated, and trodden under foot by the Turks. Are we to sacrifice
young bullocks according to the law? The law is abolished, never to be
observed again. Do we pray for victory over Moab, Edom, and Philistia;
or for deliverance from Babylon? There are no such nations, no such
places in the world. What then do we mean, when, taking such expressions
into our mouths, we utter them in our own persons, as parts of our
devotions, before God? Assuredly we must mean a spiritual Jerusalem and
Sion; a spiritual ark and temple; a spiritual law; spiritual sacrifices;
and spiritual victories over spiritual enemies; all described under the
old names, which are still retained, though “old things are passed away,
and all things are become new,” 2 Cor. v, 17. By substituting Messiah
for David, the Gospel for the law, the church Christian for that of
Israel, and the enemies of the one for those of the other, the Psalms
are made our own. Nay, they are with more fulness and propriety applied
now to the substance, than they were of old to the “shadow of good
things then to come,” Heb. x, 1. For let it not pass unobserved, that
when, upon the first publication of the Gospel, the Apostles had
occasion to utter their transports of joy, on their being counted worthy
to suffer for the name of their Lord and Master, which was then opposed
by Jew and Gentile, they brake forth into an application of the second
Psalm to the transactions then before their eyes, Acts iv, 25. The
Psalms, thus applied, have advantages which no fresh compositions,
however finely executed, can possibly have; since, beside their
incomparable fitness to express our sentiments, they are at the same
time memorials of, and appeals to, former mercies and deliverances; they
are acknowledgments of prophecies accomplished; they point out the
connection between the old and new dispensations, thereby teaching us to
admire and adore the wisdom of God displayed in both, and furnishing
while we read or sing them, an inexhaustible variety of the noblest
matter that can engage the contemplations of man.

Very few of the Psalms, comparatively, appear to be simply prophetical,
and to belong only to Messiah, without the intervention of any other
person. Most of them, it is apprehended, have a double sense, which
stands upon this ground and foundation, that the ancient patriarchs,
prophets, priests, and kings, were typical characters, in their several
offices, and in the more remarkable passages of their lives, their
extraordinary depressions and miraculous exaltations foreshowing him who
was to arise as the head of the holy family, the great prophet, the true
priest, the everlasting king. The Israelitish polity, and the law of
Moses, were purposely framed after the example and shadow of things
spiritual and heavenly; and the events which happened to the ancient
people of God were designed to shadow out parallel occurrences, which
should afterward take place in the accomplishment of man’s redemption,
and the rise and progress of the Christian church. (See _Prophecy_.) For
this reason, the Psalms composed for the use of Israel, and by them
accordingly used at the time, do admit of an application to us, who are
now “the Israel of God,” Gal. vi, 16, and to our Redeemer, who is the
King of this Israel. It would be an arduous and adventurous undertaking
to attempt to lay down the rules observed in the conduct of the mystic
allegory, so diverse are the modes in which the Holy Spirit has thought
proper to communicate his counsels to different persons on different
occasions; inspiring and directing the minds of the prophets according
to his good pleasure; at one time vouchsafing more full and free
discoveries of future events; while, at another, he is more obscure and
sparing in his intimations. From hence, of course, arises a great
variety in the Scripture usage of this kind of allegory as to the manner
in which the spiritual sense is couched under the other. Sometimes it
can hardly break forth and show itself at intervals through the literal,
which meets the eye as the ruling sense, and seems to have taken entire
possession of the words and phrases. On the contrary, it is much oftener
the capital figure in the piece, and stands confessed at once by such
splendour of language, that the letter, in its turn, is thrown into
shade, and almost totally disappears. Sometimes it shines with a
constant equable light, and sometimes it darts upon us on a sudden, like
a flash of lightning from the clouds. But a composition is never more
truly elegant and beautiful, than when the two senses, alike
conspicuous, run parallel together through the whole poem, mutually
corresponding with and illustrating each other.

Thus the establishment of David upon his throne, notwithstanding the
opposition made to it by his enemies, is the subject of the second
Psalm. David sustains in it a twofold character, literal and
allegorical. If we read over the Psalm first with an eye to the literal
David, the meaning is obvious, and put out of all dispute by the sacred
history. There is indeed an uncommon glow in the expression, and
sublimity in the figures; and the diction is now and then exaggerated,
as it were, on purpose to intimate and lead us to the contemplation of
higher and more important matters concealed within. In compliance with
this admonition, if we take another survey of the Psalm, as relative to
the person and concerns of the spiritual David, a nobler series of
events instantly rises to view, and the meaning becomes more evident, as
well as exalted. The colouring, which may perhaps seem too bold and
glaring for the king of Israel, will no longer appear so, when laid upon
his great antitype. After we have thus attentively considered the
subject apart, let us look at them together, and we shall behold the
full beauty and majesty of this most charming poem. We shall perceive
the two senses very distinct from each other, yet conspiring in perfect
harmony, and bearing a wonderful resemblance in every feature and
lineament, while the analogy between them is so exactly preserved, that
either may pass for the original, from whence the other was copied. New
light is continually cast upon the phraseology, fresh weight and dignity
are added to the sentiment, till gradually ascending from things below
to things above, from human affairs to those which are divine, they bear
the great important theme upward with them, and at length place it in
the height and brightness of heaven. What has been observed with regard
to this Psalm, may also be applied to the seventy-second; the subject of
which is of the same kind, and treated in the same manner. Its title
might be, “The Inauguration of Solomon.” The scheme of the allegory is
alike in both; but a diversity of matter occasions an alteration in the
diction. For whereas one is employed in celebrating the magnificent
triumphs of victory, it is the design of the other to draw a pleasing
picture of peace, and of that felicity which is her inseparable
attendant. The style is therefore of a more even and temperate sort, and
more richly ornamented. It abounds not with those sudden changes of the
person speaking which dazzle and astonish; but the imagery is borrowed
from the delightful scenes with which creation cheers the sight, and the
pencil of the divine artist is dipped in the softer colours of nature.
And here we may take notice how peculiarly adapted to the genius of this
kind of allegory the parabolical style is, on account of that great
variety of natural images to be found in it. For as these images are
capable of being employed in the illustration of things divine and
human, between which there is a certain analogy maintained, so they
easily afford that ambiguity which is necessary in this species of
composition, where the language is applicable to each sense, and obscure
in neither; it comprehends both parts of the allegory, and may be
clearly and distinctly referred to one or the other.

On this book Bishop Horsley remarks:--These Psalms go, in general, under
the name of the Psalms of David. King David gave a regular and noble
form to the musical part of the Jewish service. He was himself a great
composer, both in poetry and music, and a munificent patron, no doubt,
of arts in which he himself so much delighted and excelled. The Psalms,
however, appear to be compositions of various authors, in various ages;
some much more ancient than the times of King David, some of a much
later age. Of many, David himself was undoubtedly the author; and that
those of his composition were prophetic, we have David’s own authority,
which may be allowed to overpower a host of modern expositors. For thus
King David, at the close of his life, describes himself and his sacred
songs: “David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on
high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of
Israel, said, The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my
tongue.’ It was the word, therefore, of Jehovah’s Spirit which was
uttered by David’s tongue. But it should seem, the Spirit of Jehovah
would not be wanting to enable a mere man to make complaint of his own
enemies, to describe his own sufferings just as he felt them, and his
own escapes just as they happened. But the Spirit of Jehovah described
by David’s utterance what was known to that Spirit only, and that Spirit
only could describe. So that, if David be allowed to have had any
knowledge of the true subject of his own compositions, it was nothing in
his own life, but something put into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God;
and the misapplication of the Psalms to the literal David has done more
mischief than the misapplication of any other parts of the Scriptures
among those who profess the belief of the Christian religion.

The Psalms are all poems of the lyric kind, that is, adapted to music,
but with great variety in the style of composition. Some are simply
odes. An ode is a dignified sort of song, narrative of the facts, either
of public history or private life, in a highly adorned and figured
style. But the figure in the Psalms is that which is peculiar to the
Hebrew language, in which the figure gives its meaning with as much
perspicuity as the plainest speech. Some are of the sort called elegiac,
which are pathetic compositions upon mournful subjects. Some are ethic,
delivering grave maxims of life, or the precepts of religion, in solemn,
but for the most part simple, strains. Some are enigmatic, delivering
the doctrines of religion in enigmata, contrived to strike the
imagination forcibly, and yet easy to be understood. In all these the
author delivers the whole matter in his own person. But a very great, I
believe the far greater, part are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of
dialogues between persons sustaining certain characters. In these
dialogue Psalms the persons are frequently the psalmist himself, or the
chorus of priests and Levites, or the leader of the Levitical band,
opening the ode with a proem declarative of the subject, and very often
closing the whole with a solemn admonition drawn from what the other
persons say. The other persons are Jehovah, sometimes as one, sometimes
as another, of the three Persons; Christ in his incarnate state,
sometimes before, sometimes after, his resurrection; the human soul of
Christ as distinguished from the divine essence. Christ, in his
incarnate state, is personated sometimes as a priest, sometimes as a
king, sometimes as a conqueror; and in those Psalms in which he is
introduced as a conqueror, the resemblance is very remarkable between
this conqueror in the book of Psalms and the warrior on the white horse
in the book of Revelation, who goes forth with a crown on his head, and
a bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer. And the conquest in the
Psalms is followed, like the conquest in the Revelation, by the marriage
of the conqueror. These are circumstances of similitude which, to any
one versed in the prophetic style, prove beyond a doubt that the
mystical conqueror is the same personage in both.

PSALMODY. The service of the ancient Christian church usually began with
reading or with the singing of psalms. We are not to understand this as
if their psalmody was performed in one course of many psalms together,
without intermission, but rather, with some respite, and a mixture of
other parts of divine service, to make the whole more agreeable and
delightful. As to the persons concerned in singing the Psalms publicly
in the church, they may be considered in four different respects,
according to the different ways of psalmody; for sometimes the Psalms
were sung by one person alone; and sometimes the whole assembly joined
together, men, women, and children: this was the most ancient and
general practice. At other times the Psalms were sung alternately; the
congregation dividing themselves into two parts, and singing verse for
verse. Beside all these, there was yet a fourth way of singing, pretty
common in the fourth century, which was, when a single person began the
verse, and the people joined with him in the close.

Psalmody was always esteemed a considerable part of devotion, and upon
that account was usually performed in the standing posture. As to the
voice or pronunciation, used in singing, it was of two sorts, the plain
song, and the more artificial; the plain song was only a gentle
inflexion, or turn of the voice, not very different from the chanting in
our cathedrals; the artificial song seems to have been a regular musical
composition, like our anthems. It was no objection against the psalmody
of the church, that she sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human
composition, beside those of the inspired writers. St. Augustine himself
made a psalm of many parts, in imitation of the hundred and nineteenth,
to preserve his people from the errors of the Donatists. St. Hilary and
St. Ambrose likewise made many hymns, which were sung in their
respective churches. But two corruptions crept into the psalmody, which
the fathers declaim against with great zeal. The first was, the
introducing secular music, or an imitation of the light airs of the
theatre, in the devotions of the church. The other was, the regarding
more the sweetness of the composition than the sense and meaning;
thereby pleasing the ear, without raising the affections of the soul.

The use of musical instruments in singing of psalms, seems to be as
ancient as psalmody itself. The first psalm we read of was sung to a
timbrel, namely, that which Moses and Miriam sung after the deliverance
of the children of Israel from Egypt; and afterward, at Jerusalem, when
the temple was built, musical instruments were constantly used at their
public services. And this has been the common practice in all ages of
the church. When the use of organs was first introduced, is not
certainly known; but we find, that about A. D. 660, Constantine
Copronymus, emperor of Constantinople, sent a present of an organ to
King Pepin of France.

Clement Marot, groom of the bed chamber to Francis I., king of France,
was the first who engaged in translating the Psalms into metre. He
versified the first fifty at the instigation of Vatablus, Hebrew
professor at Paris; and afterward, upon his return to Geneva, he made an
acquaintance with Beza, who versified the rest, and had tunes set to
them; and thus they began to be sung in private houses, and afterward
were brought into the churches of the French and other countries. In
imitation of this version, Sternhold, one of the grooms of the privy
chamber to our King Edward VI., undertook a translation of the Psalms
into metre. He went through but thirty-seven of them, the rest being
soon after finished by Hopkins and others. This translation was at first
discountenanced by many of the clergy, who looked upon it as done in
opposition to the practice of chanting the Psalms in the cathedrals.

Early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, metrical psalmody was introduced
into this country. The new morning prayer began at St. Antholin’s,
London, when a psalm was sung in the Geneva fashion, all the
congregation, men, women, and boys singing together. Bishop Jewel says,
that “the singing of psalms, begun in one church in London, did quickly
spread itself, not only through the city, but in the neighbouring
places; sometimes at Paul’s Cross six thousand people singing together.”

A curious controversy on this subject arose among the Dissenters in the
end of the seventeenth century. Whether singing in public worship had
been partially discontinued during the times of persecution to avoid
informers, or whether the miserable manner in which it was performed
gave persons a distaste to it, so it appears, that in 1691, Mr. Benjamin
Keach published a tract entitled, “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship:
or, Psalms, Hymns, &c, proved to be a Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ.”
To us it may appear strange that such a point should be disputed; but
Mr. Keach was obliged to labour earnestly, and with a great deal of
prudence and caution, to obtain the consent of his people to sing a hymn
at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. After six years more, they
agreed to sing on the thanksgiving days; but it required still fourteen
years more before he could persuade them to sing every Lord’s day; and
then it was only after the last prayer, that those who chose it might
withdraw without joining in it! Nor did even this satisfy these
scrupulous consciences; for, after all, a separation took place, and the
inharmonious seceders formed a new church in May’s Pond, where it was
above twenty years longer before singing the praises of God could be
endured. It is difficult at this period to believe it; but Mr. Ivimey
quotes Mr. Crosby, as saying, that Mr. Keach’s was the first church in
which psalm singing was introduced. This remark, however, must probably
be confined to the Baptist churches. The Presbyterians, it seems, were
not quite so unmusical; for the Directory of the Westminster divines
distinctly stated, that “it is the duty of Christians to praise God
publicly by singing of Psalms together in the congregation.” And beside
the old Scotch Psalms, Dr. John Patrick, of the Charter house, made a
version which was in very general use among Dissenters, Presbyterians,
and Independents, before it was superseded by the far superior
compositions of Dr. Watts. These Psalms, however, like those of the
English and Scotch establishment, were drawled out in notes of equal
length, without accent or variety. Even the introduction of the
triple-time tunes, probably about the time of Dr. Watts’s psalms, gave
also great offence to some people, because it marked the accent of the
measure. Old Mr. Thomas Bradbury used to call this time “a long leg and
a short one.” The beautiful compositions of Dr. Watts, Mr. C. Wesley,
and others, have produced a considerable revolution in modern psalmody.
Better versions of the Psalms, and many excellent collections of hymns,
are now in use, and may be considered as highly important gifts bestowed
upon the modern church of God.

PSALTERY. See MUSIC.

PTOLEMAIS. See ACCHO.

PUBLICAN, a collector or receiver of the Roman revenues. Judea being
added to the provinces of the Roman empire, and the taxes paid by the
Jews directly to the emperor, the publicans were the officers appointed
to collect them. The ordinary taxes which the Romans levied in the
provinces were of three sorts: 1. Customs upon goods imported and
exported; which tribute was therefore called _portorium_, from _portus_,
“a haven.” 2. A tax upon cattle fed in certain pastures belonging to the
Roman state, the number of which being kept in writing, this tribute was
called _scriptura_. 3. A tax upon corn, of which the government demanded
a tenth part. This tribute was called _decuma_. These publicans are
distinguished by Sigonius into three sorts or degrees,--the farmers of
the revenue, their partners, and their securities; in which he follows
Polybius. These are called the _mancipes_, _socii_, and _prædes_, who
were all under the _quæstore særarii_, that presided over the finances
at Rome. The _mancipes_ farmed the revenue of large districts or
provinces, had the oversight of the inferior publicans, received their
accounts and collections, and transmitted them to the _quæstores
ærarii_. They often let out their provinces in smaller parcels to the
_socii_; so called, because they were admitted to a share in the
contract, perhaps for the sake of more easily raising the purchase
money; at least to assist in collecting the tribute. Both the _mancipes_
and _socii_ are therefore properly styled τελῶναι, from τελος,
_tributum_, and ὠνέομαι, _emo_. They were obliged to procure _prædes_,
or sureties, who gave security to the government for the fulfilment of
the contract. The distribution of Sigonius, therefore, or rather of
Polybius, is not quite exact, since there were properly but two sorts of
publicans, the _mancipes_ and the _socii_. The former are, probably,
those whom the Greeks call ἀρχιτελώναι, _chiefs of the publicans_; of
which sort was Zaccheus. As they were superior to the common publicans
in dignity, being mostly of the equestrian order, so they were generally
in their moral character. But as for the common publicans, the
collectors or receivers, as many of the _socii_ were, they are spoken of
with great contempt, by Heathens as well as Jews; and particularly by
Theocritus, who said, that “among the beasts of the wilderness, bears
and lions are the most cruel; among the beasts of the city, the publican
and parasite.” The reason of the general hatred to them was, doubtless,
their rapine and extortion. For, having a share in the farm of the
tribute, at a certain rate, they were apt to oppress the people with
illegal exactions, to raise as large a fortune as they could for
themselves. Beside, publicans were particularly odious to the Jews, who
looked upon them to be the instruments of their subjection to the Roman
emperors, to which they generally held it sinful for them to submit.
They considered it as incompatible with their liberty to pay tribute to
any foreign power, Luke xx, 22, &c; and those of their own nation that
engaged in this employment they regarded as Heathens, Matthew xviii, 17.
It is even said, that they would not allow them to enter into their
temple or synagogues, nor to join in prayers, nor even allow their
evidence in a court of justice on any trial; nor would they accept of
their offerings in the temple.

It appears by the Gospel that there were many publicans in Judea at the
time of our Saviour. Zaccheus, probably, was one of the principal
receivers, since he is called the chief of the publicans, Luke xix, 2;
but St. Matthew was only an inferior publican. The Jews reproached our
Saviour for showing kindness to these persons, Luke vii, 34; and he
himself ranks them with harlots, Matt. xxi, 31. Some of them, it should
seem, had humbling views of themselves, Luke xviii, 10. Zaccheus assures
our Lord, who had honoured him with a visit, that he was ready to give
the half of his goods to the poor, Luke xix, 8, and to return fourfold
of whatever he had unjustly acquired.

PUBLIUS, the governor of Melita, Acts xxviii, 7–9. When St. Paul was
shipwrecked on this island, Publius received him and his company into
his house very kindly, and treated them for three days with great
humanity.

PUL, king of Assyria. He came into the land of Israel in the time of
Manahem, king of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xv, 19, &c, and invaded the
kingdom on the other side of Jordan. But Manahem, by a present of one
thousand talents of silver, prevailed on the king of Assyria, not only
to withdraw his forces, but to recognize his title to the crown of
Israel before he left the kingdom. This is the first time that we find
any mention made of the kingdom of Assyria since the days of Nimrod; and
Pul is the first monarch of that nation who invaded Israel, and began
their transportation out of their own country.

PULSE, קלי, Lev. xxiii, 14; 1 Sam. xvii, 17; 2 Sam. xvii, 28; a term
applied to those grains or seeds which grow in pods, as beans, peas,
vetches, &c, from פול, _a bean_. The Vulgate renders this _kali_ in 2
Sam. xvii, 28, _frixum cicer_, “parched peas.” In Daniel i, 12, 16, the
word זרעים, rendered _pulse_, may signify seeds in general.

PUNISHMENTS OF THE HEBREWS. There were several sorts of punishments in
use among the Jews which are mentioned in the Scripture. 1. The
punishment of the cross. (See _Cross_.) 2. Suspension, Esther vii, 10;
Joshua viii, 29; 2 Samuel xxi, 12. 3. Stoning. 4. Fire. This punishment
was common, Gen. xxxviii, 24; Leviticus xxi, 9. 5. The rack or tympanum,
mentioned Heb. xi, 35. Commentators are much divided about the meaning
of this punishment; but most of them are of opinion that the bastinado,
or the punishment of the stick, is intended, and that the Apostle
alludes to the cruelties exercised upon old Eleazar; for, in 2 Mac. vi,
19, where his martyrdom is spoken of, it is said that he came to the
tympanum. 6. The precipice, or throwing persons headlong from a rock,
with a stone tied about the neck, 2 Chron. xxv, 12. 7. Decapitation,
Gen. xl, 19; Judges ix, 5; 2 Kings x, 7; Matt. xiv, 8. 8. The punishment
of the saw, or to be cut asunder in the middle, Heb. xi, 37. This
punishment was not unknown to the Hebrews. Some think it was originally
from the Persians or Chaldeans. 9. Plucking out the eyes, Exod. xxi, 24.
Some think this punishment was seldom executed, but the offender was
made to suffer in his property rather than in his person: yet there are
some instances on record, Judges xvi, 21; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7.
10. The cutting off the extremities of the feet and hands, Judges i,
5–7; 2 Sam. iv, 12.

PUR, פור, κλῆρος, signifies _lot_. Pur, Phur, or Purim, was a solemn
feast of the Jews, instituted in memory of the lots cast by Haman, the
enemy of the Jews, Esther iii, 7. These lots were cast in the first
month of the year, and gave the twelfth month of the same year for the
execution of Haman’s design, to destroy all the Jews in Persia. Thus the
superstition of Haman, in crediting these lots, caused his own ruin, and
the preservation of the Jews, who, by means of Esther, had time to avert
this blow. The Jews have exactly kept this feast down to our times. See
HAMAN, ESTHER, and MORDECAI.

PURGATORY, a place in which, according to the church of Rome, the just,
who depart out of this life, are supposed to expiate certain offences
which do not merit eternal damnation. Broughton has endeavoured to prove
that this notion has been held by Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, as well
as by Christians; and that in the days of the Maccabees, the Jews
believed that sin might be expiated by sacrifice after the death of the
sinner. The arguments advanced for purgatory by the papists are these:
Every sin, how slight soever, though no more than an idle word, as it is
an offence to God, deserves punishment from him, and will be punished by
him hereafter, if not cancelled by repentance here. 2. Such small sins
do not deserve eternal punishment. 3. Few depart this life so pure as to
be totally exempt from spots of this nature, and from every kind of debt
due to God’s justice. 4. Therefore, few will escape without suffering
something from his justice for such debts as they have carried with them
out of this world, according to the rule of divine justice, by which he
treats every soul hereafter according to his works, and according to the
state in which he finds it in death. From these positions, which the
papist considers as so many self-evident truths, he infers that there
must be some third place of punishment; for since the infinite holiness
of God can admit nothing into heaven that is not clean and pure from all
sin, both great and small, and his infinite justice can permit none to
receive the reward of bliss, who as yet are not out of debt, but have
something in justice to suffer, there must, of necessity, be some place
or state, where souls departing this life, pardoned as to the eternal
guilt of sin, yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty, or with the guilt
of some venial faults, are purged and purified before their admittance
into heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning purgatory; though
he know not where it is, of what nature the pains are, or how long each
soul is detained there, yet he believes that those who are in this place
are relieved by the prayers of their fellow members here on earth, as
also by alms and masses offered up to God for their souls. And as for
such as have no relations or friends to pray for them, or give alms to
procure masses for their relief, they are not neglected by the church,
which makes a general commemoration of all the faithful departed, in
every mass, and in every one of the canonical hours of the divine
office. Beside the above arguments, the following passages are alleged
as proofs: 2 Macc. xii, 43–45; Matt. xii, 31, 32; 1 Cor. iii, 15; 1
Peter iii, 19. But it may be observed, 1. That the books of Maccabees
have no evidence of inspiration, therefore quotations from them are not
to be regarded. 2. If they were, the texts referred to would rather
prove that there is no such place as purgatory, since Judas did not
expect the souls departed to reap any benefit from the sin-offering till
the resurrection. The texts quoted from the Scriptures have no reference
to the doctrine, as may be seen by consulting the context, and any just
commentator upon it. 3. The Scriptures, in general, speak of departed
souls going immediately, at death, to a fixed state of happiness or
misery, and give us no idea of purgatory, Isaiah lvii, 2; Rev. xiv, 13;
Luke xvi, 22; 2 Cor. v, 8. 4. It is derogatory from the doctrine of the
satisfaction of Christ. If Christ died for us, and redeemed us from sin
and hell, as the Scripture speaks, then the idea of farther meritorious
suffering detracts from the perfection of his sacrifice, and places
merit still in the creature; a doctrine exactly opposite to the
Scriptures.

PURITANS. In England, the term Puritans was applied to those who wished
for a farther degree of reformation in the church than was adopted by
Queen Elizabeth; and a purer form, not of faith, but of discipline and
worship. It was a common name given to all who, from conscientious
motives, though on different grounds, disapproved of the established
religion, from the reformation under Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity
in 1662. From that time to the revolution in 1688, as many as refused to
comply with the established worship, (among whom were about two thousand
clergymen, and perhaps five hundred thousand people,) were denominated
Nonconformists. From the passing of the Act of Toleration on the
accession of William and Mary, the name of Nonconformists was changed to
that of Protestant Dissenters. Prior to the grand rebellion in 1640, the
Puritans were, almost without exception, Episcopalians; but after the
famous “League and Covenant” of those turbulent times the greater part
of them became Presbyterians. Some, however, were Independents, and some
Baptists. The objections of the latter were more fundamental; they
disapproved of all national churches, as such, and disavowed the
authority of human legislation in matters of faith and worship. The
persecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reigns of
Elizabeth and the Stuarts served to lay the foundation of a new empire,
and eventually a vast republic, in the western world. Thither, as into a
wilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors; and, being
protected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase,
until at length they became an independent nation. The different
principles, however, on which they had originally divided from the
church establishment at home, operated in a way that might have been
expected, when they came to the possession of the civil power abroad.
Those who formed the colony of Massachusetts having never relinquished
the principle of a national church, and of the power of the civil
magistrate in matters of faith and worship, were less tolerant than
those who settled at New Plymouth, at Rhode Island, and Providence
Plantations. The very men who had just escaped the persecutions of the
English prelates, now, in their turn, persecuted others who dissented
from them; until, at length, the liberal system of toleration
established in the parent country at the revolution, extended to the
colonies, and in a good measure put an end to these censurable
proceedings.

PURPLE, ארגמן, Exodus xxv, 4, &c; ϖορφύρα, Mark xv, 17, 20; Luke xvi,
19; John xix, 2, 5; Rev. xvii, 4; xviii, 12, 16. This is supposed to be
the very precious colour extracted from the _purpura_ or _murex_, a
species of shell fish; and the same with the famous Tyrian dye, so
costly, and so much celebrated in antiquity. The purple dye is called in
1 Macc. iv, 23, “purple of the sea,” or sea purple; it being the blood
or juice of a turbinated shell fish, which the Jews call חלזון. (See
_Scarlet_.) Among the blessings pronounced by Moses upon the tribes of
Israel, those of Zebulun and Issachar are, “They shall suck of the
abundance of the seas, and of the treasures hid in the sand,” Deut.
xxxiii, 19. Jonathan Ben Uzziel explains the latter clause thus: “From
the sand are produced looking glasses, and glass in general; the
treasures, the method of finding and working which, was revealed to
these tribes.” Several ancient writers inform us, that there were havens
in the coasts of the Zebulunites, in which the sand proper for making
glass was found. The words of Tacitus are remarkable: “_Et Belus amnis
Judaico mari illabitur, circa ejus os lectæ arenæ admixto nitro in
vitrum excoquuntur_.” “The river Belus falls into the Jewish sea, about
whose mouth those sands mixed with nitre are collected, out of which
glass is formed.” But it seems much more natural to explain “the
treasures hid in the sand,” of those highly valuable _murices_ and
_purpuræ_ which were found on the sea coast, near the country of Zebulun
and Issachar, and of which those tribes partook in common with their
Heathen neighbours of Tyre, who rendered the curious dyes made from
those shell fish so famous among the Romans by the names of _Sarranum
ostrum_, _Tyrii colores_. In reference to the purple vestment, Luke xvi,
19, it may be observed that this was not appropriately a royal robe. In
the earlier times it was the dress of any of high rank. Thus all the
courtiers were styled by the historians _purpurati_. This colour is more
properly crimson than purple; for the LXX., Josephus, and Philo,
constantly use ϖορφύραν to express the Hebrew ארגמן, by which the
Talmudists understood crimson; and that this Hebrew word expressed, not
the Tyrian purple, but that brought to the city from another country,
appears from Ezek. xxvii, 7. The purple robe put on our Saviour, John
xix, 2, 5, is explained by a Roman custom, the dressing of a person in
the robes of state, as the investiture of office. Hence the robe brought
by Herod’s or the Roman soldiers, scoffingly, was as though it had been
the _pictæ vestes_ usually sent by the Roman senate. In Acts xvi, 14,
Lydia is said to be “a seller of purple.” Mr. Harmer styles purple the
most sublime of all earthly colours, having the gaudiness of red, of
which it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue.

PUTEOLI, so called from its baths of hot water, a city of Campania, in
Italy; now called Pozzuoli, in a province of the kingdom of Naples,
called Terra di Lavoro, and about eight miles from Naples. St. Paul
stayed a week with the Christians of this place, in his journey as a
prisoner to Rome, Acts xxviii, 13. The Alexandrian merchant vessels
preferred Puteoli to all the harbours in Italy, and here they deposited
their rich freights. They conducted the ships adorned with wreaths and
festive garments, in the form of a fleet, one after another, into the
harbour, where they were received with the greatest demonstrations of
friendship. Such was the case with the sale of Alexandrian commodities
throughout Italy. According to the course then pursued, the vessel in
which St. Paul sailed went direct into this harbour.


QUAIL, שלו, Exod. xvi, 13; Num. xi, 31, 32; Psalm cv, 10; a bird of the
gallinaceous kind. Hasselquist, mentioning the quail of the larger kind,
says, “It is of the size of the turtle dove. I have met with it in the
wilderness of Palestine, near the shores of the Dead Sea and the Jordan,
between Jordan and Jericho, and in the deserts of Arabia Petrea. If the
food of the Israelites was a bird, this is certainly it; being so common
in the places through which they passed.” It is said that God gave
quails to his people in the wilderness upon two occasions: first, within
a few days after they had passed the Red Sea, Exod. xvi, 3–13. The
second time was at the encampment at the place called in Hebrew,
Kibroth-hataavah, the graves of lust, Num. xi, 32; Psalm cv, 40. Both of
these happened in the spring, when the quails passed from Asia into
Europe. They are then to be found in great quantities upon the coast of
the Red Sea and Mediterranean. God caused a wind to arise that drove
them within and about the camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that
the miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably to this
place, and in so great number as to furnish food for above a million of
persons for more than a month. The Hebrew word _shalav_ signifies “a
quail,” by the agreement of the ancient interpreters. And the Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic languages call them nearly by the same name. The
Septuagint, Symmachus, and most of commentators, both ancient and
modern, understand it in the same manner; and with them agree Philo,
Josephus, Apollinaris, and the rabbins; but Ludolphus has endeavoured to
prove that a species of locust is spoken of by Moses. Dr. Shaw answers,
that the holy psalmist, in describing this particular food of the
Israelites, by calling the animals feathered fowls, entirely confutes
this supposition. And it should be recollected, that this miracle was
performed in compliance with the wish of the people that they might have
flesh to eat.

QUAKERS. See FRIENDS.

QUESTIONS. Among the ancients no pastime was more common than that of
proposing and answering difficult questions. The person who solved the
question was honoured with a reward; he who failed in the attempt
suffered a certain punishment; both the rewards and penalties were
varied according to the disposition of the company. That the custom of
proposing riddles was very ancient, and derived from the eastern
nations, appears from the story of Samson, in the book of Judges, who
proposed one to the Philistines at his nuptial feast. Nor were these
questions confined to entertainments, but, in the primitive times, were
proposed on other occasions, by those who desired to make proof of
another’s wisdom and learning. Agreeably to this custom, the queen of
Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions, 1 Kings x, 1.

QUIETISTS, the disciples of Michael de Molinos, a Spanish priest, who
flourished in the seventeenth century, and wrote a book called “The
Spiritual Guide.” He had many disciples in Spain, Italy, France, and the
Netherlands. Some pretend that he borrowed his principles from the
Spanish Illuminati; and M. Gregoire will have it that they came
originally from the Persian Soofees; while others no less confidently
derive them from the Greek Hesycasts. The Quietists, however, deduce
their principles from the Scriptures. They argue thus: “The Apostle
tells us, that ‘the Spirit makes intercession for’ or _in_ ‘us.’ Now if
the Spirit pray in us, we must resign ourselves to his impulses, by
remaining in a state of absolute rest, or quietude, till we attain the
perfection of the unitive life,” a life of union with, and, as it should
seem, of absorption in, the Deity. They contend, that true religion
consists in the present calm and tranquillity of a mind removed from all
external and finite things, and centered in God; and in such a pure love
of the supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or
reward. To prove that our love to the Deity must be disinterested, they
allege, that the Lord hath made all things for himself, as saith the
Scripture; and it is for his glory that he wills our happiness. To
conform, therefore, to the great end of our creation, we must prefer God
to ourselves, and not desire our own happiness but for his glory;
otherwise we shall go contrary to his order. As the perfections of the
Deity are intrinsically amiable, it is our glory and perfection to go
out of ourselves, to be lost and absorbed in the pure love of infinite
beauty. Madam Guion, a woman of fashion in France, born 1648, becoming
pious, was a warm advocate of these principles. She asserted, that the
means of arriving at this perfect love, are prayer and the self-denial
enjoined in the Gospel. Prayer she defines to be the entire bent of the
soul toward its divine origin. Some of her pious canticles were
translated by the poet Cowper, and represent her sentiments to the best
advantage. Fenelon, the amiable archbishop of Cambray, also favoured
these sentiments in his celebrated publication, entitled, “The Maxims of
the Saints.” The distinguishing tenet in his theology was the doctrine
of the disinterested love of God for his own excellencies, independent
of his relative benevolence: an important feature also in the system of
Madam Guion, who, with the good archbishop, was persecuted by the pope
and by Bossuet. See MYSTICS.

RAB. The title rabbi, with several others from the same root, רבב,
_magnus est, vel multiplicatus est_, began first to be assumed,
according to Godwin, as a distinguishing title of honour by men of
learning, about the time of the birth of Christ. We find it anciently
given, indeed, to several magistrates and officers of state. In Esther
i, 8, it is said, the king appointed כל-רב ביתו, which we render “all
the officers of his house.” In Jeremiah xli, 1, we read of the ורּי
המלך, “the princes of the king.” In Job xxxii, 9, it is said, that the
רבים, which we render “great men, are not always wise;” a rendering
which well expresses the original meaning of the word. It was not
therefore in those days properly a title of honour, belonging to any
particular office or dignity, in church or state; but all who were of
superior rank, and condition in life were called רבים. We do not find
the prophets, or other men of learning in the Old Testament, affecting
any title beside that which denoted their office; and they were
contented to be addressed by their bare names. The first Jewish rabbi,
said to have been distinguished with any title of honour, was Simeon,
the son of Hillel, who succeeded his father as president of the
sanhedrim; and his title was that of rabban. The later rabbies tell us,
this title was conferred with a good deal of ceremony. When a person had
gone through the schools and was thought worthy of the degree of rabbi,
he was first placed in a chair somewhat raised above the company; then
were delivered to him a key and a table book: the key, as a symbol of
the power or authority now conferred upon him, to teach that knowledge
to others which he had learned himself; and this key he afterward wore
as a badge of his honour, and when he died it was buried with him: the
table book was a symbol of his diligence in his studies, and of his
endeavouring to make farther improvements in learning. The next ceremony
in the creation of a rabbi was the imposition of hands on him by the
delegates of the sanhedrim, practised in imitation of Moses’s ordaining
Joshua by this rite, to succeed him in his office, Num. xxvii, 18; Deut.
xxxiv, 9. And then they proclaimed his title.

According to Maimonides, the imposition of hands was not looked upon to
be essential; but was sometimes omitted. They did not always, saith he,
lay their hands on the head of the elder to be ordained; but called him
rabbi, and said, “Behold thou art ordained, and hast power,” &c. We find
this title given to John the Baptist, John iii, 26; and frequently to
our blessed Saviour; as by John’s disciples, by Nicodemus, and by the
people that followed, John i, 38; iii, 2; vi, 20. The reason of our
Saviour’s prohibiting his disciples to be called rabbi is expressed in
these words: “Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master, even
Christ,” καθηγητὴς, your guide and conductor, on whose word and
instructions alone you are to depend in matters of religion and
salvation. Accordingly the inspired Apostles pretend to nothing more
than, as the ambassadors of Christ, to deliver his instructions; and,
for their own part, they expressly disclaim all dominion over the faith
and consciences of men, 2 Cor. i, 24; v, 20. The Jewish writers
distinguish between the titles rab, rabbi, rabban. As for rab and rabbi,
the only difference between them is, that rab was the title of such as
had had their education, and taken their degree, in some foreign Jewish
school; suppose at Babylon, where there was a school or academy of
considerable note; rabbi was the title of such as were educated in the
land of Judea, who were accounted more honourable than the others. But
as for rabban, it was the highest title; which, they say, was never
conferred on more than seven persons, namely, on R. Simeon, five of his
descendants, and on R. Jochanan, who was of a different family. It was
on this account, it should seem, that the blind man gave this title to
Christ, Mark x, 51; being convinced that he was possessed of divine
power, and worthy of the most honourable distinctions. And Mary
Magdalene, when she saw Christ after his resurrection, “said unto him,
Rabboni,” John xx, 16, that is, my rabban, like _my lord_ in English;
for rabbon is the same with rabban, only pronounced according to the
Syriac dialect.

There were several gradations among the Jews before the dignity of
rabbin, as among us, before the degree of doctor. The head of a school
was called _chacham_, or wise. He had the head seat in the assemblies
and in the synagogues. He reprimanded the disobedient, and could
excommunicate them; and this procured him great respect. In their
schools they sat upon raised chairs, and their scholars were seated at
their feet. Hence St. Paul is said to have studied at the feet of Rabbi
Gamaliel, Acts xxii, 3. The studies of the rabbins are employed either
on the text of the law, or the traditions, or the cabbala; these three
objects form so many different schools and different sorts of rabbins.
Those who chiefly apply to the letter of Scripture are called Caraites,
Literalists. Those who chiefly study the traditions and oral laws of the
Talmud are called Rabbanists. Those who give themselves to their secret
and mysterious divinity, letters and numbers, are called Cabbalists,
Traditionaries. The rabbins are generally very ignorant in history,
chronology, philology, antiquity, and geography. They understand the
holy language but imperfectly. They know not the true signification of a
multitude of words in the sacred text. They are prodigiously conceited
about their traditions, so that there is very little profit in reading
them; and experience shows that most who have applied themselves to
peruse their books, have been but little benefited by them, and have
entertained a perfect contempt of their understanding and their works.
The chief function of the rabbins is to preach in the synagogue, to make
public prayers there, and to interpret the law; they have the power of
binding and loosing, that is, of declaring what is forbidden, and what
allowed. When the synagogue is poor and small, there is but one rabbin,
who at the same time discharges the office of a judge and a teacher. But
when the Jews are numerous and powerful, they appoint three pastors, and
a house of judgment, where all their civil affairs are determined. Then
the rabbin applies himself to instruction only, unless it be thought
proper to call him into the council to give his advice, in which case he
takes the chief place.

RABBATH, or RABBAT-AMMON, the capital city of the Ammonites, situated
beyond Jordan. See AMMON.

RABBATH-MOAB, the capital city of the Moabites, called otherwise Ar, or
Areopolis. See MOAB.

RABBI. See RAB.

RABSHAKEH, a chief butler, or cupbearer. This is a term of dignity, and
not a proper name. Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib, king of Assyria,
to summon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem, 2 Kings xviii, 17, 18; xix,
4; Isaiah xxxvi.

RACA, a Syriac word which properly signifies _empty_, _vain_,
_beggarly_, _foolish_, and which includes in it a strong idea of
contempt. Our Saviour pronounces a censure on every person using this
term to his neighbour, Matt. v, 22. Lightfoot assures us that, in the
writings of the Jews, the word _raca_ is a term of the utmost contempt,
and that it was usual to pronounce it with marked signs of indignation.

RACHEL, the daughter of Laban, and sister of Leah. The Prophet Jeremiah,
xxxi, 15, and St. Matthew, ii, 18, have put Rachel for the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, the son of Rachel. This
prophecy was completed when these two tribes were carried into captivity
beyond the Euphrates; and St. Matthew made application of it to what
happened at Bethlehem, when Herod put to death the children of two years
old and under. Then Rachel, who was buried there, might be said to make
her lamentations for the death of so many innocent children sacrificed
to the jealousy of a wicked monarch.

RAHAB was a hostess of the city of Jericho, who received and concealed
the spies sent by Joshua. The Hebrew calls her Zona, Joshua ii, 1, which
Jerom and many others understand of a prostitute. Others think she was
only a hostess or innkeeper, and that this is the true signification of
the original word. Had she been a woman of ill fame, would Salmon, a
prince of the tribe of Judah, have taken her to wife? Or could he have
done it by the law? Beside, the spies of Joshua would hardly have gone
to lodge with a common harlot, they who were charged with so nice and
dangerous a commission. Those who maintain that she was a harlot,
pretend that she was perhaps one of those women who prostituted
themselves in honour of the Pagan deities; as if this could extenuate
her crime, or the scandal of her profession if she was a public woman.
It is also observable that such women are called _kadeshah_, not _zona_,
in the Hebrew. Rahab married Salmon, a prince of Judah, by whom she had
Boaz, from whom descended Obed, Jesse, and David. Thus Jesus Christ
condescended to reckon this Canaanitish woman among his ancestors. St.
Paul magnifies the faith of Rahab, Heb. xi, 31.

Rahab is also a name of Egypt, Isa. xxx, 7; li, 9.

RAIMENT. In addition to what occurs under the article _Habits_, it may
be observed that to make presents of changes of raiment, Gen. xlv, 22,
has always been common among all ranks of orientals. The perfuming of
raiment with sweet-scented spices or extracts is also still a custom,
which explains the smell of Jacob’s raiment. A coat or robe of many
colours, such as Jacob gave to Joseph, is also a mark of distinction.
The Turks at Aleppo thus array their sons; and, in the time of Sisera, a
coat of divers colours is mentioned among the rich spoils which fell to
the conquerors. A frequent change of garments is also very common both
to show respect and to display opulence. Is there an allusion to this in
Psalm cii, 26: “As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be
changed?” If so, it conveys the magnificent idea of the almighty Creator
investing himself with the whole creation as with a robe, and having
laid that aside, by new creations, or the successive production of
beings, clothing himself with others, at his pleasure.

RAIN, the vapours exhaled by the sun, which descend from the clouds to
water the earth, Eccles. xi, 3. The sacred writers often speak of the
rain of the former and latter season, Deut. xi, 14; Hosea vi, 3. Twice
in the year there generally fell plenty of rain in Judea; in the
beginning of the civil year, about September or October; and half a year
after, in the month of Abib, or March, which was the first month in the
ecclesiastical or sacred year, whence it is called the latter rain in
the first month, Joel ii, 23. (See _Canaan_.) The ancient Hebrews
compared elocution, and even learning or doctrine, to rain: “My doctrine
shall drop as the rain,” Deut. xxxii, 2.

RAMESES, or RAAMSES, a city supposed to have been situated in the
eastern part of Egypt, called the land of Goshen, which was also hence
termed the land of Rameses. It was one of the cities built by the
Israelites as a treasure city, as it is translated in our Bibles;
probably a store city, or, as others interpret it, a fortress. Its
position may be fixed about six or eight miles above the modern Cairo, a
little to the south of the Babylon of the Persians, the ancient
Letopolis; as Josephus says that the children of Israel, after quitting
this place, in their first march to Succoth, passed by the latter city.

RAMOTH, a famous city in the mountains of Gilead, 1 Kings iv, 13. It is
often called Ramoth-Gilead. Josephus calls it Ramathan, or Aramatha. The
city belonged to the tribe of Gad, Deut. iv, 43. It was assigned for a
dwelling of the Levites, and was one of the cities of refuge beyond
Jordan, Joshua xx, 8; xxi, 38. It became famous during the reigns of the
latter kings of Israel, and was the occasion of several wars between
them and the kings of Damascus, who had made a conquest of it, which the
sovereigns of Israel endeavoured to regain, 1 Kings xxii, 3–5. Eusebius
says, that Ramoth was fifteen miles from Philadelphia toward the east.
St. Jerom places it in the neighbourhood of Jabbok, and consequently to
the north of Philadelphia.

RAVEN, עורב, in Chaldee, _orba_, in Syriac, _croac_, in Latin, _corvus_,
Gen. viii, 7; Lev. xi, 15; Deut. xiv, 14; 1 Kings xvii, 4, 6; Job
xxxviii, 41; Psalm cxlvii, 9; Prov. xxx, 17; Cant. v, 11; Isa. xxxiv,
11; κόραξ, Luke xii, 24; a well known bird of prey. All the interpreters
agree that _oreb_ signifies the raven, from _oreb_, “evening,” on
account of its colour. Michaëlis, in proposing a question respecting
certain birds, says of the _oreb_, “_Il est decidé, que c’est le
corbeau; il seroit donc superflu de le demander. Mais je desirerois plus
de certitude sur le nom Syriaque des corbeaux_.” [It is settled that
this is the raven; it would therefore be superfluous to investigate it.
But I could wish more certainty respecting the Syriac name of ravens.]
One can hardly doubt that it is taken from the note of this bird. On the
decrease of the waters of the flood, so that the tops of the mountains
became visible, Noah sent forth out of one of the windows of the ark a
raven, a bold and adventurous bird, by way of experiment, to see whether
the waters were sunk or abated. Forty days the violent rain had
continued; and he might think this, therefore, a likely time for the
waters to run off again. In the original text, in the Samaritan, in the
Chaldee and Arabic, it is said that the raven “returned” to the ark; but
the Greek interpreters, the Syriac, the Latin, and most of the eminent
fathers and commentators, say that it did not return any more. Here are
great authorities on both sides, but the latter reading, though so
contrary in sense to the other, yet in the Hebrew is not very different
in the form of the letters, and appears to be the better reading of the
two. For if the raven had returned, what occasion had Noah to send forth
a dove? Or why did he not take the raven in unto him into the ark, as he
did afterward the dove? Or why did he not send forth the same raven
again, as he did afterward the same dove again? It is not improperly
expressed in our translation, that “the raven went forth to and fro,”
flying hither and thither, “until the waters were dried up from off the
face of the earth.” He found, perhaps, in the higher grounds, some of
the carcasses of those who had perished in the deluge.

The Prophet Elijah was in his retirement fed by this bird. A writer,
indeed, in the Memoirs of Literature, for April, 1710, endeavours to
show, from many authors, that there was in the country of Bethschan, in
Decapolis, by the brook Cherith or Carith, a little town called Aorabi
or Orbo, Judges vii, 25; Isa. x, 6; and he therefore explains the word
_orebim_, which, in 1 Kings xvii, 4, we translate “ravens,” of the
inhabitants of that village, some of whom, he contends, daily carried
bread and flesh to Elijah, who had retired to and lay in a cave in the
neighbourhood. On the other hand, Scheuchzer ably vindicates the
commonly received opinion. The editor of Calmet, also, in the appendix,
under the article _Elijah_, has some pertinent observations on this
subject. “We ought to consider,” says he, “1. That Ahab sought Elijah
with avidity, and took an oath of every people, no doubt, also, in his
dominions, that he was not concealed among its inhabitants; his
situation, therefore, required the utmost privacy, even to solitude. 2.
That when the brook Cherith was dried up, the prophet was obliged to
quit his asylum, which he needed not to have done, had a people been his
suppliers, for they could have brought him water as well as food.”

In Psalm cxlvii, 9, it is said, “The Lord giveth to the beast his food,
and to the young ravens which cry.” And in Job xxxviii, 41, “Who
provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God,
wandering for want of meat?” Job and the psalmist may allude to what is
said by some naturalists, that the ravens drive out their young ones
early from their nests, and oblige them to seek food for their own
sustenance. The same kind Providence which furnishes support to his
intelligent offspring is not unmindful of the wants, or inattentive to
the desires, of the meanest of his creatures.

         Lo, the young ravens, from their nest exiled,
         On hunger’s wing attempt the aerial wild!
         Who leads their wanderings, and their feast supplies?
         To God ascend their importuning cries.

Christ instructs his disciples, from the same circumstance, to trust in
the care and kindness of Heaven: “Consider the ravens; for they neither
sow nor reap, neither have storehouse, nor barn; and God feedeth them.
How much better are ye than the fowls!” Luke xii, 24. Solomon, speaking
of the peculiar regard and veneration due to the worthy persons and
salutary instructions of parents, observes, that an untimely fate, and
the want of decent interment, may be expected from contrary conduct; and
that the leering eye, which throws wicked contempt on a good father, and
insolent disdain on a tender mother, shall be dug out of the unburied
exposed corpse by the ravens of the valley, and eaten up by the young
eagles, Prov. xxx, 17. It was a common punishment in the east, and one
which the orientals dreaded above all others, to expose in the open
fields the bodies of evil doers that had suffered by the laws of their
offended country, to be devoured by the beasts of the field, and the
fowls of heaven. The wise man insinuates that the raven makes his first
and keenest attack on the eye, which perfectly corresponds with his
habits, for he always begins his banquet with that part. Isiodore says
of him, _Primo in cadaveribus occulum petit_; [he attacks first the eye
of the dead;] and Epictetus, Ὁι μεν κορακες των τετελευτηκοτων τους
οφθαλμους λυμαινονται, “the ravens devour the eyes of the dead.” Many
other testimonies might be adduced, but these are sufficient to justify
the allusion in the proverb.

The raven, it is well known, delights in solitude. He frequents the
ruined tower or the deserted habitation. In Isaiah, xxxiv, 11, it is
accordingly foretold that the raven, with other birds of similar
dispositions, should fix his abode in the desolate houses of Edom. In
the Septuagint and other versions the Hebrew word for _desolation_ is
rendered _raven_. The meaning is, that in those splendid palaces, where
the voice of joy and gladness was heard, and every sound which could
ravish the ear and subdue the heart, silence was, for the wickedness of
their inhabitants, to hold her reign for ever, interrupted only by the
scream of the cormorant and the croaking of the raven.

READING. In the countries of the Levant the people never read silently,
but go on in a kind of singing voice, aloud. The eunuch was probably
thus reading when Philip overheard him, and finding that he was reading
the Scriptures, said, “Understandest thou what thou readest?”

REASON, USE OF, IN RELIGION. The sublime, incomprehensible nature of
some of the Christian doctrines has so completely subdued the
understanding of many pious men, as to make them think it presumptuous
to apply reason in any way to the revelations of God; and the many
instances in which the simplicity of truth has been corrupted by an
alliance with philosophy confirm them in the belief that it is safer, as
well as more respectable, to resign their minds to devout impressions,
than to exercise their understandings in any speculations upon sacred
subjects. Enthusiasts and fanatics of all different names and sects
agree in decrying the use of reason, because it is the very essence of
fanaticism to substitute, in place of the sober deductions of reason,
the extravagant fancies of a disordered imagination, and to consider
these fancies as the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God.
Insidious writers in the deistical controversy have pretended to adopt
those sentiments of humility and reverence, which are inseparable from
true Christians, and even that total subjection of reason to faith which
characterizes enthusiasts. A pamphlet was published about the middle of
the last century that made a noise in its day, although it is now
forgotten, entitled, “Christianity not founded on Argument,” which,
while to a careless reader it may seem to magnify the Gospel, does in
reality tend to undermine our faith, by separating it from a rational
assent; and Mr. Hume, in the spirit of this pamphlet, concludes his
Essay on Miracles with calling those dangerous friends or disguised
enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to defend it by
the principles of human reason: “Our most holy religion,” he says, with
a disingenuity very unbecoming his respectable talents, “is founded on
faith, not on reason;” and, “mere reason is insufficient to convince us
of its veracity.” The church of Rome, in order to subject the minds of
her votaries to her authority, has reprobated the use of reason in
matters of religion. She has revived an ancient position, that things
may be true in theology which are false in philosophy; and she has, in
some instances, made the merit of faith to consist in the absurdity of
that which was believed.

The extravagance of these positions has produced, since the Reformation,
an opposite extreme. While those who deny the truth of revelation
consider reason as in all respects a sufficient guide, the Socinians,
who admit that a revelation has been made, employ reason as the supreme
judge of its doctrines, and boldly strike out of their creed every
article that is not altogether conformable to those notions which may be
derived from the exercise of reason. These controversies concerning the
use of reason in matters of religion are disputes, not about words, but
about the essence of Christianity. But a few plain observations are
sufficient to ascertain where the truth lies in this subject.

The first use of reason in matters of religion is to examine the
evidences of revelation. For, the more entire the submission which we
consider as due to every thing that is revealed, we have the more need
to be satisfied that any system which professes to be a divine
revelation does really come from God.

After the exercise of reason has established in our minds a firm belief
that Christianity is of divine original, the second use of reason is to
learn what are the truths revealed. As these truths are not in our days
communicated to any by immediate inspiration, the knowledge of them is
to be acquired only from books transmitted to us with satisfying
evidence that they were written above seventeen hundred years ago, in a
remote country and foreign language, under the direction of the Spirit
of God. In order to attain the meaning of these books we must study the
language in which they were written; and we must study also the manners
of the times, and the state of the countries, in which the writers
lived; because these are circumstances to which an original author is
often alluding, and by which his phraseology is generally affected; we
must lay together different passages in which the same word or phrase
occurs, because without this labour we cannot ascertain its precise
signification; and we must mark the difference of style and manner which
characterizes different writers, because a right apprehension of their
meaning often depends upon attention to this difference. All this
supposes the application of grammar, history, geography, chronology, and
criticism in matters of religion; that is, it supposes that the reason
of man had been previously exercised in pursuing these different
branches of knowledge, and that our success in attaining the true sense
of Scripture depends upon the diligence with which we avail ourselves of
the progress that has been made in them. It is obvious that every
Christian is not capable of making this application. But this is no
argument against the use of reason, of which we are now speaking. For
they who use translations and commentaries rely only upon the reason of
others, instead of exercising their own. The several branches of
knowledge have been applied in every age by some persons for the benefit
of others; and the progress in sacred criticism, which distinguishes the
present times, is nothing else but the continued application, in
elucidating the Scripture, of reason enlightened by every kind of
subsidiary knowledge, and very much improved in this kind of exercise by
the employment which the ancient classics have given it since the
revival of letters.

After the two uses of reason that have been illustrated, a third comes
to be mentioned, which may be considered as compounded of both. Reason
is of eminent use in repelling the attacks of the adversaries of
Christianity. When men of erudition, of philosophical acuteness, and of
accomplished taste, direct their talents against our religion, the cause
is very much hurt by an unskilful defender. He cannot unravel their
sophistry; he does not see the amount and the effect of the concessions
which he makes to them; he is bewildered by their quotations, and he is
often led by their artifice upon dangerous ground. In all ages of the
church there have been weak defenders of Christianity; and the only
triumphs of the enemies of our religion have arisen from their being
able to expose the defects of those methods of defending the truth which
some of its advocates had unwarily chosen. A mind trained to accurate
and philosophical views of the nature and the amount of evidence,
enriched with historical knowledge, accustomed to throw out of a subject
all that is minute and irrelative, to collect what is of importance
within a short compass, and to form the comprehension of a whole, is the
mind qualified to contend with the learning, the wit, and the sophistry
of infidelity. Many such minds have appeared in this honourable
controversy during the course of this and the last century; and the
success has corresponded to the completeness of the furniture with which
they engaged in the combat. The Christian doctrine has been vindicated
by their masterly exposition from various misrepresentations; the
arguments for its divine original have been placed in their true light;
and the attempts to confound the miracles and prophecies upon which
Christianity rests its claim, with the delusions of imposture, have been
effectually repelled. Christianity has, in this way, received the most
important advantages from the attacks of its enemies; and it is not
improbable that its doctrines would never have been so thoroughly
cleared from all the corruptions and subtleties which had attached to
them in the progress of ages, nor the evidences of its truths have been
so accurately understood, nor its peculiar character been so perfectly
discriminated, had not the zeal and abilities which have been employed
against it called forth in its defence some of the most distinguished
masters of reason. They brought into the service of Christianity the
same weapons which had been drawn for her destruction, and, wielding
them with confidence and skill in a good cause, became the successful
champions of the truth.

The fourth use of reason consists in judging of the truths of religion.
Every thing which is revealed by God comes to his creatures from so high
an authority, that it may be rested in with perfect assurance as true.
Nothing can be received by us as true which is contrary to the dictates
of reason, because it is impossible for us to receive at the same time
the truth and the falsehood of a proposition. But many things are true
which we do not fully comprehend; and many propositions, which appear
incredible when they are first enunciated, are found, upon examination,
such as our understandings can readily admit. These principles embrace
the whole of the subject, and they mark out the steps by which reason is
to proceed in judging of the truths of religion. We first examine the
evidences of revelation. If these satisfy our understandings, we are
certain that there can be no contradiction between the doctrines of this
true religion, and the dictates of right reason. If any such
contradiction appear, there must be some mistake; by not making a proper
use of our reason in the interpretation of the Gospel, we suppose that
it contains doctrines which it does not teach; or we give the name of
right reason to some narrow prejudices which deeper reflection, and more
enlarged knowledge, will dissipate; or we consider a proposition as
implying a contradiction, when, in truth, it is only imperfectly
understood. Here, as in every other case, mistakes are to be corrected
by measuring back our steps. We must examine closely and impartially the
meaning of those passages which appear to contain the doctrine; we must
compare them with one another; we must endeavour to derive light from
the general phraseology of Scripture and the analogy of faith; and we
shall generally be able, in this way, to separate the doctrine from all
those adventitious circumstances which give it the appearance of
absurdity. If a doctrine which, upon the closest examination, appears
unquestionably to be taught in Scripture, still does not approve itself
to our understanding, we must consider carefully what it is that
prevents us from receiving it. There may be preconceived notions hastily
taken up which that doctrine opposes; there may be pride of
understanding that does not readily submit to the views which it
communicates; or reason may need to be reminded, that we must expect to
find in religion many things which we are not able to comprehend. One of
the most important offices of reason is to recognize her own limits. She
never can be moved, by any authority, to receive as true what she
perceives to be absurd. But, if she has formed a just estimate of human
knowledge, she will not shelter her presumption in rejecting the truths
of revelation under the pretence of contradictions that do not really
exist; she will readily admit that there may be in a subject some points
which she knows, and others of which she is ignorant; she will not allow
her ignorance of the latter to shake the evidence of the former, but
will yield a firm assent to that which she does understand, without
presuming to deny what is beyond her comprehension. And thus, availing
herself of all the light which she now has, she will wait in humble hope
for the time when a larger measure shall be imparted.

REBEKAH, the wife of Isaac. See ISAAC.

RECEIPT OF CUSTOM. Matthew, when called, was sitting at the receipt of
custom, or dues on merchandise. He was a publican or tax-gatherer, or,
as we should say, a custom house officer. The publicans had houses or
booths built for them at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, by
the sea shore, and the parts of the lake of Gennesareth, or sea of
Tiberias, to collect the taxes on passengers and merchandise. See
PUBLICAN.

RECHABITES. The Rechabites, though they dwelt among the Israelites, did
not belong to any of their tribes; for they were Kenites, as appears
from 1 Chron. ii, 55, where the Kenites are said to have come of
“Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.” These Kenites, afterward
styled Rechabites, were of the family of Jethro, otherwise called Hobab,
whose daughter Moses married; for “the children of the Kenite, Moses’s
father-in-law,” it is said, “went up out of the city of palm trees with
the children of Judah, and dwelt among the people,” Judges i, 16; and we
read of “Heber the Kenite, who was of the children of Hobab, the
father-in-law of Moses, who had severed himself from the Kenites,” or
from the bulk of them who settled in the tribe of Judah, “and pitched
his tent in the plain of Zaanaim,” Judges iv, 11. They appear to have
sprung from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. xxv, 2; for
Jethro, from whom they are descended, is called a Midianite, Num. x, 23.
Of this family was Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, a man of eminent zeal
for the pure worship of God against idolatry, who assisted King Jehu in
destroying the house of Ahab, and the worshippers of Baal, 2 Kings x,
15, 16, 23, &c. It was he who gave that rule of life to his children and
posterity which we read of in Jer. xxxv, 6, 7. It consisted of these
three articles: that they should drink no wine; that they should neither
possess nor occupy any houses, fields, or vineyards; that they should
dwell in tents. This was the institution of the children of Rechab; and
this they continued to observe for upward of three hundred years, from
the time of Jehu to that of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, when
Nebuchadnezzar coming to besiege Jerusalem, the Rechabites were obliged
to leave the country and take refuge in the city. In Jer. xxxv, there is
a promise made to this people, that Jonadab, the son of Rechab, should
not want a man to stand before the Lord; that is, that his posterity
should not fail: and to this day this tribe is found among the Arabians
of the desert, distinct, free, and practising exactly the institutions
of Jonadab, whose name they bear, and of whose institutions they boast.
This is a remarkable instance of the exact fulfilment of a minute and
isolated prophecy. See BENI KHAIBIR.

RECONCILIATION. The expressions “reconciliation” and “making peace”
necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man,
which is reciprocal. This is sometimes called enmity, a term, as it
respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost fixed in our
language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. Of this, the
oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to
argue, that as there can be no such affection in the divine nature,
therefore, reconciliation in Scripture does not mean the reconciliation
of God to man, but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching
of Christ, they tell us, is very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a
sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians in their discussions
on the natural innocence of man are not willing to admit, that by the
infection of sin “the carnal mind is enmity to God,” that human nature
is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law; but this is
far from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in
Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a
reconciliation, the making of peace between God and him. That relation
is a legal one, as that of a sovereign in his judicial capacity, and a
criminal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority,
and who is, therefore, treated as an enemy. The word ἐχθρὸς is used in
this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Testament.
So, in Romans xi, 28, the Jews, rejected and punished for refusing the
Gospel, are said by the Apostle, “as concerning the Gospel,” to be
“enemies for your sakes;” treated and accounted such; “but, as touching
the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” In the same
epistle, v, 10, the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that
with reference to the reconciliation by Christ: “For if when we were
enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” that is,
when we were objects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as
enemies, and liable to be capitally treated as such. Enmity, in the
sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred, is added to this
relation in the case of man; but it is no part of the relation itself;
it is rather a cause of it, as it is one of the actings of a corrupt
nature which render man obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and the
penalty of his law, and place him in the condition of an enemy. It is
this judicial variance and opposition between God and man which is
referred to in the term reconciliation, and in the phrase “making
peace,” in the New Testament; and the hostility is, therefore, in its
own nature, mutual.

But that there is no truth in the notion, that reconciliation means no
more than our laying aside our enmity to God, may also be shown from
several express passages. The first is the passage we have above cited:
“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God,” Rom. v, 10.
Here the act of reconciling is ascribed to God, and not to us; but if
this reconciliation consisted in the laying aside of our own enmity, the
act would be ours alone: and, farther, that it could not be the laying
aside of our enmity, is clear from the text, which speaks of
reconciliation while we were yet enemies. The reconciliation spoken of
here is not, as Socinus and his followers have said, our conversion. For
that the Apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to
our conversion, appears evident from the opposite members of the two
sentences, “much more, being justified, we shall be saved from wrath
through him,” “much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his
life.” The Apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were so
benign to us before our conversion, what may we not expect from him now
we are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to convert; for the
Apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of
Christ; but to convert sinners is nothing remarkable, since none but
sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing
for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners to God by his
death, when there have been but very few good men who have died for
their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly
to his glorious life, than to his shameful death; but this
reconciliation is attributed to his death, as contradistinguished from
his glorious life, as is evident from the antithesis contained in the
two verses. Beside, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the
nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted,
consists of the peace of God, and salvation from wrath, Rom. v, 9, 10.
This the Apostle afterward calls receiving the reconciliation. And what
is it to receive the reconciliation, but to receive the remission of
sins? Acts x, 43. To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely
unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the
remission of sins, and in effect to be delivered from wrath or
punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them,” 2 Cor. v, 19. Here the manner of this
reconciliation is expressly said to be, not our laying aside our enmity,
but the non-imputation of our trespasses to us by God; in other words,
the pardoning of our offences and restoring us to favour. The promise,
on God’s part, to do this, is expressive of his previous reconciliation
to the world by the death of Christ; for our actual reconciliation is
distinguished from this by what follows, “and hath committed to us the
ministry of reconciliation,” by virtue of which all men were, by the
Apostles, entreated and besought to be reconciled to God. The reason,
too, of this reconciliation of God to the world, by virtue of which he
promises not to impute sin, is grounded by the Apostle, in the last
verse of the chapter, not upon the laying aside of enmity by men, but
upon the sacrifice of Christ: “For he hath made him to be sin,” a
sin-offering, “for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him.” “And that he might reconcile both unto God
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” Eph. ii, 16.
Here the act of reconciling is attributed to Christ. Man is not spoken
of as reconciling himself to God; but Christ is said to reconcile Jews
and Gentiles together, and both to God, “by his cross.” Thus, says the
Apostle, “he is our peace;” but in what manner is the peace effected?
Not, in the first instance, by subduing the enmity of man’s heart, but
by removing the enmity of “the law.” “Having abolished in” or by “his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments.” The ceremonial law only
is here, probably meant; for by its abolition, through its fulfilment in
Christ, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was taken away; but still
it was not only necessary to reconcile Jew and Gentile together, but to
“reconcile both unto God.” This he did by the same act; abolishing the
ceremonial law by becoming the antitype of all its sacrifices, and thus,
by the sacrifice of himself, effecting the reconciliation of all to God,
“slaying the enmity by his cross,” taking away whatever hindered the
reconciliation of the guilty to God, which, as we have seen, was not
enmity and hatred to God in the human mind only, but that judicial
hostility and variance which separated God and man as Judge and
criminal. The feeble criticism of Socinus, on this passage, in which he
has been followed by his adherents to this day, is thus answered by
Grotius: “In this passage the dative Θεῷ, _to God_, can only be governed
by the verb ἀποκατάλλαξῃ, _that he might reconcile_; for the
interpretation of Socinus, which makes _to God_ stand by itself, or that
to reconcile to God is to reconcile them among themselves, that they
might serve God, is distorted and without example. Nor is the argument
valid which is drawn from thence, that in this place St. Paul properly
treats of the peace made between Jews and Gentiles; for neither does it
follow from this argument, that it was beside his purpose to mention the
peace made for each with God. For the two opposites which are joined,
are so joined among themselves, that they should be primarily and
chiefly joined by that bond; for they are not united among themselves,
except by and for that bond. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, are made
friends among themselves by friendship with God.”

Here also a critical remark will be appropriate. The above passages will
show how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture
said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are
reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of _our being
reconciled to God_ imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby
observes, on the words καταλλάττειν and καταλλαγὴ, “that they naturally
import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us,
both in profane and Jewish writers.” When the Philistines suspected that
David would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they
said, “Wherewith should he _reconcile_ himself to his master? Should it
not be with the heads of these men?” not, surely, How shall he remove
his own anger against his master? but, how shall he remove his master’s
anger against him? How shall he restore himself to his master’s favour?
“If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath aught against thee,” not, that thou hast aught against thy
brother, “first be reconciled to thy brother;” that is, appease and
conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, “See that thy
brother be reconciled to thee,” since that which goes before is, not
that he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be
reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger
of God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly
declares to be meritoriously “the sin-offering” of Him “who knew no
sin,” and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, “faith in
his blood.” See PROPITIATION.

REDEEMER. The Hebrew _goel_ is thus rendered, and the title is applied
to Christ, as he is the Avenger of man upon his spiritual enemy, and
delivers man from death and the power of the grave, which the human
avenger could not do. The right of the institution of _goel_ was only in
a relative, one of the same blood; and hence our Saviour’s assumption of
our nature is alluded to and implied under this term. There was also the
right of buying back the family inheritance when alienated; and this
also applies to Christ, our _Goel_, who has purchased back the heavenly
inheritance into the human family. Under these views Job joyfully
exclaims, “I know that my Redeemer,” my _Goel_, “liveth,” &c. See GOEL,
MEDIATOR, and JESUS CHRIST.

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and
sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer.
“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii, 24. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us,” Gal. iii, 13. “In whom we have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace,” Eph. i, 7. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without
spot,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. “And ye are not your own, for ye are bought
with a price,” 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20.

By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to
understand _deliverance_ merely, regarding only the effect, and
studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the
very terms used in the above cited passages, “to redeem,” and “to be
bought with a price,” will each be found to refute this notion of a
gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our
English word, _to redeem_, literally means “to buy back;” and λυτρόω,
_to redeem_, and ἀπολύτρωσις, _redemption_, are, both in Greek writers
and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by
paying λυτρον, _a ransom_ or _redemption price_. But, as Grotius has
fully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and
profane writers, redemption signifies not merely “the liberation of
captives,” but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from
which we may be freed; and λύτρον signifies every thing which satisfies
another, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption
or purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will
presently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances
of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us
are sinful men. They are under guilt, under “the curse of the law,” the
servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and “taken
captive by him at his will,” liable to the death of the body and to
eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the
purchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies
itself. Hence, in the above cited and other passages, it is said, “We
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” in
opposition to guilt; redemption from “the curse of the law;” deliverance
from sin, that “we should be set free from sin;” deliverance from the
power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future “wrath,”
by the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious
doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is,
however, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the λύτρον, _the
redemption price_, which λύτρον is as constantly declared to be the
death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. “The Son of man came to
give his life a _ransom_ for many,” Matt. xx, 28. “Who gave himself a
_ransom_ for all,” 1 Tim. ii, 6. “In whom we have _redemption_ through
his blood,” Eph. i, 7. “Ye were not _redeemed_ with corruptible things,
as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,” 1 Pet. i,
18, 19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal
evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ,
is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a
consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption
price, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the
precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same
import are those passages which represent us as having been “bought,” or
“purchased” by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those “who denied the Lord
τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτους, that bought them;” and St. Paul, in the passage
above cited, says, “Ye are bought with a price, ἠγόρασθητε;” which price
is expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: “Thou wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God (ἠγόρασας, hast purchased us) by thy
blood,” Rev. v, 9.

RED SEA, celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites
through its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on
the fifteenth day of the first month; “about six hundred thousand men on
foot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with
them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,” Exod. xii, 37–39;
Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of
Goshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at
Succoth, signifying “booths,” or an “enclosure for cattle,” after a
stage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the
edge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; “for the Lord led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see
war, and they return to Egypt: but God led the people about by the way
of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” or by a circuitous rout to the land
of promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes
of Arabia Petræa, Exodus xiii, 17–20; Deut. xxxii, 10. Instead of
proceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along
its eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western
shore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in
the valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of
mountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of
the ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, “over against
Baal-zephon,” on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he
finally hardened, to pursue them when they were “entangled in the land,”
and shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea
in their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to
bring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general,
to recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exod. xiv, 1–5.
So Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six
hundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them
encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When
their destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable,
the Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage
across the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought
them through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly
followed them to their own destruction, Psalm lxxvii, 18, &c.

On this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he
and the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy,
foretelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the
neighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future
settlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of
the temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the
dominion and worship of God.

The precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it
near Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about
ten hours’ journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day
before the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped
beside Pi-hahiroth, “between Migdol and the sea, over against
Baal-zephon,” Exodus xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7. Pi-hahiroth signifies “the
mouth of the ridge,” or chain of mountains, which line the western coast
of the Red Sea, called Attaka, “deliverance,” in which was a gap, which
formed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward,
and running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying
“a tower,” probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying
“the northern Baal,” was probably a temple on the opposite promontory,
built on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of
places in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient.
Beside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called
_Ras Musa_, or “the Cape of Moses;” somewhat lower, _Hamam Faraun_,
“Pharaoh’s Springs;” below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called _Birket
Faraun_; and the general name of the gulf is _Bahr al Kolsum_, “the Bay
of Submersion.” These names indicate that the passage was considerably
below Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and
breadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr:
“I have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus
under water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel,
without fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the
road of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez,
in the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the
shore, even to ten fathoms.” Bruce, also, describing the place of
passage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, “There is here
about fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the
sides, and good anchorage every where. The farthest side, the eastern,
is a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.” Shaw reckons the
breadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Neibuhr, three
leagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues: we may
therefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But
this space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the
course of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or
dawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of
the sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by “a strong east
wind,” which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of
the sea dry land; “and the children of Israel went into the midst of the
sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their
right hand and on their left,” Exodus xiv, 21, 22.

In the queries of Michaëlis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was
proposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some
ridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at
particular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds,
which blow strongly all summer from the north-west, could not blow so
violently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the
Israelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these
queries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his
observations on which are excellent: “I must confess, however learned
the gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they
merited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by
Scripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with
natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the
transaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive
it. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could
divide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only
judge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the
river Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in
summer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south,
of fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the
wall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that
position for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that
cohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides?
This is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had
done this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since,
from the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the
indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to
son, from their very earliest ages, that ‘once this division of the sea
did happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the
sea again came back, and covered it with great fury.’ The words of this
author are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is
writing in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word
about Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of
the sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of
unbiassed, undesigning Pagans.” Still skeptical queries have their use;
they lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and thereby tend
strongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach.
Thus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce,
that there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to
afford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or
northerly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly
wind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was
necessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more
than at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by
way of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after
times be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the
monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north,
the winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if wind
could be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce
the miracle in question.

Wishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the
opinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. “For,” says
he, “the miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near
Bedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites
could be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself;
for, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to
Mount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The
passage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some
thousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and
more extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has
retired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of
the neighbouring desert.” But it sufficiently appears, even from
Niebuhr’s own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not
have been taken near Suez; for, 1. He evidently confounded the town of
Kolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he supposed
the passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about
forty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from
the astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at
Heroum, the ancient head of the gulf. 2. Instead of crossing the sea at
or near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward,
along the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or
Bedea, was at least a full day’s journey below Ethan, as Bryant has
satisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exodus xiv, 2. And it was this
unexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently
disadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in
the land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the
mountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that
tempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the
direct route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside
Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Ball-zephon, Exod. xiv, 2–9.

Niebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought
into such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to
their apparent destruction. “One need only travel with a caravan,” says
he, “which meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be
convinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools,
by their caravan _baschi_,” or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites
went out of Egypt with “a high hand,” though led by Moses, yet under the
visible guidance and protection of “the Lord God of the Hebrews,” who
“went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a
pillar of fire;” and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage
of the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went
before the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. “And it
came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it
was a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the
other: so that the one came not near the other all the night,” Exod.
xiv, 8–20.

Niebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to
follow the Israelites. “Pharaoh must have wanted prudence, if, after
having seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of
more than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been
bereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a
sea. Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish
the bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a
desert.” But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their
situation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased
the darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea
till about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have
reached the eastern shore. Meanwhile, the bed of the sea, now beaten by
the feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone
before, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If
we ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night?
Why did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they
were going? Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question:
Pharaoh wanted “prudence,” indeed, and the Egyptians were “bereft of
understanding.” And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened
the heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured
upon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous
destruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme,
Exod. xiv, 4–18. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the
“morning appeared,” or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites
had gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the
sea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they
attempted to fly back, but in vain; for “their chariot wheels were
broken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was
troubled” by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the
cloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of
the sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of
Moses stretching forth his hand over it, Exod. xiv, 24–28.

The particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host
of the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed
at the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league
broad, according to Niebuhr’s own supposition, and consequently too
narrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred
chariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have
occupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed
over in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient
writer, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B. C.
130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:--“The
Memphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country,
watched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the
dry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a
great army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews,
who had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that
Moses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his
rod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid
divided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the
Egyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that
fire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back,
overwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire,
and by the reflux of the tide.“

The latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture,
but it notices three additional circumstances: 1. That for their
protection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them
the sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the
bestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, Exod. xii, 12, that perished with
their infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which
began with smiting the first-born both of man and beast. 2. That the
recovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, which
they asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine
command, Exod. xii, 35, 36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to
pursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been
with Pharaoh and his servants, or officers. 3. That the destruction of
the Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from
the presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist’s
sublime description: “The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee;
they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out
water, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent
out his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail
stones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of
waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at
thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,” Psalm
lxxvii, 16, 17; xviii, 13–15.

The Red Sea derived its name from Edom, signifying “red,” a title of
Esau, to whom the bordering country of Edom, or Idumæa, belonged, Gen.
xxv, 30; xxxvi, 31–40. It was also called _Yam Suph_, “the weedy sea,”
in several passages, Num. xxxiii, 10; Psalm cvi, 9, &c, which are
improperly rendered “the Red Sea.” Some learned authors have supposed
that it was so named from the quantity of weeds in it. “But in
contradiction to this,” says Bruce, “I must confess, that I never in my
life, and I have seen the whole extent of it, saw a weed of any sort in
it. And indeed, upon the slightest consideration, it will appear to any
one, that a narrow gulf, under the immediate influence of monsoons,
blowing from contrary points six months each year, would have too much
agitation to produce such vegetables, seldom found but in stagnant
water, and seldomer, if ever, found in salt ones. My opinion then is,
that it is from the large trees, or plants, of white coral, perfectly in
imitation of plants on land, that the sea has taken the name ‘weedy.’ I
saw one of these, which, from a root nearly central, threw out
ramifications in a nearly central form, measuring twenty-six feet
diameter every way.” This seems to be the most probable solution that
has been hitherto proposed of the name. The tides in this sea are but
moderate. At Suez the difference between high and low water did not
exceed from three to four feet, according to Niebuhr’s observations on
the tides in that gulf, during the years 1762 and 1763.

REED, אגמון, Job xl, 21; xli, 2, 20; Isaiah ix, 14; xix, 15; lviii, 5;
κάλαμος, Matt. xi, 7; a plant growing in fenny and watery places; very
weak and slender, and bending with the least breath of wind, Matt. xi,
7; Luke vii, 24. Thus it is threatened, “The Lord shall smite Israel as
a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of the
good land which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond
the river, because they have made their idol groves, provoking him to
anger,” 1 Kings xiv, 15. The slenderness and fragility of the reed is
mentioned in 2 Kings xviii, 21; Isaiah xxxvi, 6; and is referred to in
Matt. xii, 20, where the remark, illustrating the gentleness of our
Saviour, is quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, xlii, 3. The Hebrew word
in these places is קנה, as also in Job xl, 21; Isaiah xix, 6; xxxv, 7;
Ezek. xxix, 6. See CANE.

REFORMATION, usually spoken of the great Reformation in the church,
begun by Luther in 1517. The sad departure from the standard of holiness
which the Romish hierarchy should have placed before them, combined with
the indecency and arrogance with which they trampled upon the rights of
sovereigns, and upon the property and the comfort of all classes of men,
had, for a considerable period, produced a general conviction, that a
reformation of the church in its head and members, to use the expression
which was then prevalent, was absolutely requisite: and some steps to
accomplish this had been actually taken. The celebrated council of
Constance, while, in its efforts to heal the schism which had so long
grieved and scandalized the Catholic world, it set aside the rival
pontiffs who claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, laid down the
important maxim, that a general council was superior to a pope, and that
its decisions can restrain his power; and this doctrine, which might
otherwise have appeared to arise out of the extraordinary circumstances
under which it was declared, was fully confirmed by the council of
Basil, which met several years after, and which decided the point upon
grounds that might at all times be urged. The popes, indeed,
remonstrated against this, but still they were compelled to lower their
tone; and they were often reminded, even within the precincts of their
own court, that the period was fast approaching when the fallacy of many
of their pretensions would be ascertained and exposed. It had become
common, before the election of a new pontiff, to frame certain articles
of reformation, which the successful candidate was required to swear
that he would carry into effect; and although the oath was uniformly
disregarded or violated, the views which led to the imposition of it
indicated the existence of a spirit which could not be eradicated, and
which might, from events that could not be foreseen, and could not be
controlled, acquire a vigour which no exertion of power could resist.
Such, under the beneficent arrangement of Providence, was soon actually
the case. In the progress of the opposition made to some of the worst
abuses of Rome, they who conducted that opposition were guided to the
word of life; they studied it with avidity and with delight; and they
found themselves furnished by it with sufficient armour for the mighty
contest in which they were to engage. They discovered in the New
Testament what Christianity really was; their representations of it were
received with wonder, and read with avidity; the secession from the
church of Rome became much more rapid and much more extensive than it
had previously been, and all possibility of reconciliation with that
church was done away. Of this the popes were fully aware; and as the
only way of counteracting that which was to them so formidable, they
attempted, by various devices, to fetter the press, to prevent the
circulation of the Bible, and thus again to plunge the world into that
intellectual darkness from which it had been happily delivered. The
scheme was impracticable. The “_Indices Expurgatorii_,” in which they
pointed out the works that they condemned, and which they declared it to
be heresy and pollution to peruse, increased the desire to become
acquainted with them; and although some who indulged that curiosity
suffered the punishment denounced by the inquisition against the enemies
of papal superstition, there was an immense proportion which even
spiritual tyranny could not reach; so that the light which had been
kindled daily brightened, till it shone with unclouded lustre through
many of the most powerful and the most refined nations of Europe.

It is worthy of careful observation, that the resistance which
ultimately proved so successful, was first occasioned by practices that
had been devised for establishing the monstrous despotism of the popes;
that when it commenced, it was directed against what was conceived to be
an abuse of power, without the slightest suspicion being entertained
that the power itself was unchristian; that the reformers gradually
advanced; every additional inquiry to which they were conducted
enlarging their views, and bringing them acquainted with fresh proofs of
that daring usurpation to which men had long submitted, till at length
the foundation upon which the whole system, venerated through ages,
rested, was disclosed to them, and perceived to be a foundation of sand.
The consequence was, that the supremacy of the pope was by multitudes
abjured; that he was branded as antichrist; that communion with the
popish church was avoided as sinful, and that the form of ecclesiastical
polity, the essential principle of which was the infallibility of the
bishop of Rome, was for ever renounced. The wonderful manner in which
this signal revolution, so fraught with blessings to mankind, was
accomplished, the various events which mark its history, and the
characters and exertions of the men by whose agency it was effected,
cannot be too often surveyed, or too deeply fixed in the memory. The
whole, even with reference to the illumination of the human mind and the
improvement of the social state of the world, is in a high degree
interesting; and that interest is unspeakably increased by our
discerning the most striking evidence of the gracious interposition of
Providence dissipating the cloud which obscured divine truth, and
restoring to mankind that sacred treasure which is sufficient to make
all who seriously examine it wise unto salvation. It does not, however,
come within the province of this work to give a minute history of the
origin and progress of the Reformation, to trace the steps of Zuinglius
and of Luther, and to detail the circumstances which advanced or
retarded them in the glorious career upon which they had entered. Much
discussion has taken place with respect to the motives by which Luther
was actuated. This point, in reference to what he accomplished, is
really of little moment; but there cannot be a doubt that although he
might, throughout his arduous struggle, be guided occasionally by
inferior considerations, he was eventually, at least, chiefly animated
by the noble and disinterested wish to emancipate his fellow creatures
from what he was convinced was the direct and most infatuated spiritual
oppression; that he looked to Heaven for support, and that such support
he largely received.

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In order to provide for the security of those who,
without design, might happen to kill a person in whatever manner it
should be, the Lord commanded Moses to appoint six cities of refuge,
Exod. xxi, 18; Num. xxxv, 11, &c, that whoever should undesignedly spill
the blood of a fellow creature, might retire thither, and have time to
prepare for his defence before the judges; so that the relatives of the
deceased might not pursue and kill him. Of these cities there were three
on each side Jordan. Those on this side Jordan were Kedesh of Naphtali,
Hebron, and Shechem; those beyond Jordan were Bezer, Golan, and
Ramoth-Gilead, Joshua xx, 7, 8. They served not only for the Hebrews,
but for strangers also that should dwell in their country. These cities
were to be of easy access, and to have good roads to them, and bridges
wherever there should be occasion. The width of these roads was, at
least, to be two-and-thirty cubits, or eight-and-forty feet. When there
were any cross roads, they were careful to erect posts with an
inscription pointing to the city of refuge. Every year, on the fifteenth
of the month Adar, which answers to our February moon, the magistrates
of the city visited the roads, to see if they were in good condition.
The city was to be well supplied with water and provisions. It was not
allowed to make any weapons there, lest the relatives of the deceased
should be furnished with arms for the gratifying of their revenge.
Lastly, it was necessary that whoever took refuge there, should
understand a trade or calling, that he might not be chargeable to the
inhabitants. They were wont to send some prudent persons to meet those
who were pursuing their revenge for the relations, that they might
dispose them to clemency, and persuade them to wait the decision of
justice.

Though the man-slayer had fled to the city of refuge, yet he was not on
this account exempted from the pursuit of justice. An information was
preferred against him, Num. xxxv, 12; he was summoned before the judges,
and before the people, to clear himself, and to prove that the murder
was merely casual and involuntary. If he was found innocent, he dwelt
safely in the city to which he had retired; if otherwise, he was put to
death according to the severity of the law. The following texts of
Scripture are not very explicit whether the affair was under the
cognizance of the judges of the place where the murder was committed, or
of the judges of the city of refuge to which the murderer had fled,
Deut. xix, 11, 12; Joshua xx, 4–6; Num. xxxv, 25; and the commentators
are at variance in this matter. But it appears, from a passage of
Joshua, that the man-slayer was to undergo two trials; first, in the
city of refuge, where the judges summarily examined the affair, and
heard his allegations at his first arrival; secondly, when he was taken
back to his own city, to be judged by the magistrates of the place, who
took the cause under a more strict and scrupulous examination. If the
latter judges declared him innocent, they had him reconducted, under a
strong guard, to the city of refuge to which he had before fled. He was
not, however, immediately liberated; but, to inspire the greater horror
even of involuntary murder, it seems as if the law would punish it by a
kind of banishment; for he was obliged to dwell in the city, without
going out of it, till the death of the high priest; and if before that
time he was imprudent enough to leave the city, the avenger of blood
might safely kill him; but after the death of the high priest, he was at
liberty to go whither he pleased without molestation.

It is a curious fact, that the North American Indian nations have most
of them either a house or town of refuge, which is a sure asylum to
protect a man-slayer, or the unfortunate captive, if they can once enter
it. “In almost every Indian nation,” says Adair, “there are several
peaceable towns which are called old, beloved, ancient, holy, or white
towns: (white being their fixed emblem of peace, friendship, prosperity,
happiness, purity, &c:) they seem to have been formerly towns of refuge;
for it is not in the memory of their oldest people that ever human blood
was shed in them, although they often force persons from thence, and put
them to death elsewhere.” Sanctuaries affording security for criminals
are still known in the east, and anciently were established in Europe.

REGENERATION, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we
experience a change of heart. It is expressed in Scripture by being born
again, John iii, 7; born from above; being quickened, Eph. ii, 1; by
Christ being formed in the heart, Gal. iv, 19; by our partaking of the
divine nature, 2 Peter i, 4. The efficient cause of regeneration is the
divine Spirit. That man is not the author of it, is evident from John i,
12, 13; iii, 4; Eph. ii, 8, 10. The instrumental cause is the word of
God, James i, 18; 1 Peter i, 23; 1 Cor. iv, 15. The change in
regeneration consists in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the
heart; that is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him
ultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him superlatively as
our chief good. The sum of the moral law is to love the Lord our God
with all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind. This is the duty
of every rational creature; and in order to obey it perfectly, no part
of our inward affection or actual service ought to be, at any time, or
in the least degree, misapplied. Regeneration consists in the principle
being implanted, obtaining the ascendancy, and habitually prevailing
over its opposite. It may be remarked, that though the inspired writers
use various terms and modes of speech in order to describe this change
of mind, sometimes terming it conversion, regeneration, a new creation,
or the new creature, putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting
on the new man, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, &c;
yet it is all effected by the word of truth, or the Gospel of salvation,
gaining an entrance into the mind, through divine teaching, so as to
possess the understanding, subdue the will, and reign in the affections.
In a word, it is faith working by love that constitutes the new
creature, the regenerate man, Gal. v, 6; 1 John v, 1–5. Regeneration is
to be distinguished from our justification, although it is connected
with it. Every one who is justified, is also regenerated; but the one
places us in a new _relation_, and the other in a new moral _state_. Our
Lord, in one instance, uses the term regeneration for the resurrection
state: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of
man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging,” Matt. xix, 28. And, accordingly, Dr. Campbell
translates the passage thus: “At the renovation, when the Son of man
shall be seated on the glorious throne, ye, my followers, sitting also
upon twelve thrones, shall judge.” We are accustomed, says he, to apply
the term solely to the conversion of individuals; whereas its relation
here is to the general state of things. The principal completion will be
at the general resurrection, when there will be, in the most important
sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven and earth, when all things
shall become new.

REHOBOAM, the son and successor of Solomon; his mother was Naamah, an
Ammonitish woman, whom Solomon had married, 1 Kings xiv, 20, 21. He was
forty-one years of age when he began to reign, and, consequently, was
born in the first year of his father’s reign, A. M. 2990, or the year
before. This prince reigned seventeen years at Jerusalem, and died A. M.
3046. After the death of Solomon, Rehoboam came to Shechem, because all
Israel was there assembled to make him king, 1 Kings xii. Jeroboam, the
son of Nebat, who had headed a sedition against Solomon, and had been
compelled, toward the close of his reign, to take refuge in Egypt, as
soon as he heard that this prince was dead, returned into Judea, and
came to the assembly of the people of Shechem. The Israelites would have
made terms with Rehoboam; but, being a poor politician, and following
the advice of some junior counsellors, he managed his business so
imprudently that he lost the whole house of Israel, save the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin.

RELIGION. See CHRISTIANITY.

REMONSTRANTS have obtained this name, particularly on the continent,
because, in 1610, they presented to the states of Holland a petition,
entitled their Remonstrance, in which they stated their grievances, and
prayed for relief. They are also called Arminians, because they
maintained the doctrines respecting predestination and grace, which were
embraced and defended by James Harmenson or Arminius, an eminent
Protestant divine, and a native of Holland, who was born in 1560, and
died in 1609. He first studied at Leyden, and then at Geneva. While at
the university of Geneva, he studied under Beza, by whom he was
instructed in the doctrines of Calvin; and having been judged by Martin
Lydius, professor of divinity at Franeker, a proper person to refute a
work in which the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination had been
attacked by some ministers of Delft, he undertook the task. On a strict
examination of the reasons on both sides, however, he became a convert
to the opinions which he was employed to refute. The result of his
inquiries on this, and other subjects connected with it, was, that,
thinking the doctrine of Calvin with respect to free will,
predestination, and grace, too severe, he expressed his doubts
respecting them in the year 1591, and at length adopted the religious
system of those who extend the love of God, and the merits of his Son,
to all mankind. After his appointment to the theological chair of
Leyden, in 1603, he avowed and vindicated the principles which he had
embraced; but the prudence and caution with which he published and
defended them could not screen him from the resentment of those who
adhered to the theological system of Calvin, and in particular from the
opposition of Gomar his colleague. After the death of Arminius, the
controversy, thus begun, became more general, and threatened to involve
the United Provinces in civil discord. However, the Arminian tenets
gained ground, and were adopted by several persons of merit and
distinction. The Calvinists or Gomarists as they were now called,
appealed to a national synod. Accordingly, a synod was at length
convened at Dordrecht or Dort, and was composed of ecclesiastical and
lay deputies from the United Provinces, and also of ecclesiastical
deputies from the reformed churches of England, Switzerland, Bremen,
Hesse, and the Palatinate. This synod sat from the first of November,
1618, to the twenty-sixth of April, 1619. The principal advocate in
favour of the Arminians was Episcopius, who was at that time professor
of divinity at Leyden. The religious principles of the Arminians have
insinuated themselves more or less into the established church in
Holland, and imbued the theological system of many of those pastors who
are appointed to maintain the doctrine and authority of the synod of
Dort. The principles of Arminius were early introduced into various
other countries, as Great Britain, France, Geneva, and many parts of
Switzerland; but their progress is said to have been rather retarded of
late, especially in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, by the
prevalence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy, which is more
favourable to Calvinism. The distinguishing tenets of the Remonstrants
may be said to consist chiefly in the different light in which they view
the subjects of the five points, or in the different explanation which
they give to them, and comprised in the five following articles:
predestination, universal redemption, the operation of grace, the
freedom of the will, and perseverance. They believe that God, having an
equal regard for all his creatures, sent his Son to die for the sins not
of the elect only, but of the whole world; that no mortal is rendered
finally unhappy by an eternal and invincible decree, but that the misery
of those who perish arises from themselves; and that, in this present
imperfect state, believers, if not vigilant, may, through the force of
temptation, and the influence of Satan, fall from grace, and sink into
final perdition. See ARMINIANISM.

REMPHAN, כיון Ῥεμφὰ, signifies _an idol_, according to the Septuagint.
Amos, v, 26, upbraids the Hebrews with having carried, during their
wanderings in the wilderness, the tabernacle of their Moloch and Chiun,
their images, the star of their god, which they made to themselves,
according to our version of the Bible. St. Stephen, quoting this passage
of Amos, says, “Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of
your god Remphan,” Acts vii, 43, which has given occasion to a variety
of conjectures. Grotius thinks it to have been some deity, as Rimmon;
and Capellus and Hammond take this Remphan to be a king of Egypt,
deified by his subjects; a late writer is of opinion, that God here
refers to the idolatries to which in succeeding ages the Jews were
gradually given up, after having begun to revolt in the wilderness by
the sin of the golden calf.

REPENTANCE is sometimes used generally for a change of mind, and an
earnest wishing that something were undone that has been done. Esau
found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears;
he could not move his father Isaac to repent of what he had done, or to
recall the blessing from Jacob and confer it on himself, Heb. xii, 17;
Matt. iii, 2; iv, 17. Taken in a religious sense it signifies conviction
of sin and sorrow for it. But there is, 1. A partial or worldly
repentance, wherein one is grieved for and turns from his sin, merely on
account of the hurt it has done, or is likely to do, him: so a
malefactor, who still loves his sin, repents of doing it, because it
brings him to punishment. 2. An evangelical repentance, which is a godly
sorrow wrought in the heart of a sinful person by the word and Spirit of
God, whereby, from a sense of his sin, as offensive to God, and defiling
and endangering to his own soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy
of God in Christ, he, with grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns
from them to God, as his Saviour and Lord. This is called “repentance
toward God,” as therein we turn from sin to him; and “repentance unto
life,” as it leads to spiritual life, and is the first step to eternal
life, Matt. iii, 2; Acts iii, 19; xi, 18; xx, 12. God himself is said to
repent, but this can only be understood of his altering his conduct
toward his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or the infliction
of evil: which change in the divine conduct is founded on a change in
his creatures; and thus, speaking after the manner of men, God is said
to repent.

REPETITIONS IN PRAYER. These are forbidden by our Lord, and were well
styled “vain,” if they consisted, as among the Mohammedans, in the
repetition of words and phrases. Richardson mentions an old man who
travelled with him, who was thought to be of peculiar sanctity, and most
devout in prayer: “Certainly he did not pray in secret, communing with
his heart, but called aloud with all his might, and repeated the words
as fast as his tongue could give them utterance. The form and words of
his prayer were the same with those of the others; but this good man had
made a vow to repeat certain words of the prayer a given number of
times, both night and morning. The word rabboni, for example, answering
to our word Lord, he would bind himself to repeat a hundred or two
hundred times, twice a day; and, accordingly, went on in the hearing of
all the party; and, on his knees sometimes with his face directed
steadily to heaven, and at other times bowing down to the ground, and
calling out rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, rabboni, &c, as fast as
he could articulate the words after each other, like a school boy going
through his task, not like a man who, praying with the heart and the
understanding also, continues longer on his knees, in the rapture of
devotion, whose soul is a flame of fire, enkindled by his Maker, and
fixing upon his God, like Jacob, will not let him go until he bless him.
Having settled his accounts with the word rabboni, which the telling of
his beads enabled him to know when he had done, he proceeded to dispose
of his other vows in a similar manner. _Allah houakbar_, perhaps, came
next, ‘God most great;’ and he would go on, as with the other, _Allah
houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, _Allah houakbar_, &c,
repeating them as fast as he could frame his organs to pronounce them.”

REPHAIM. The Rephaim were the ancient giants of the land of Canaan.
There were anciently several families of them in this country. It is
commonly thought that they were descended from one called Rephah or
Rapha; but others imagine that the word Rephaim properly signifies
giants, in the ancient language of this people. There were some of the
Rephaim beyond Jordan, at Ashteroth Karnaim, in the time of Abraham,
when Chedorlaomer made war against them, Gen. xiv, 5. There were also
some of them in the country in the days of Moses. Og, king of Bashan,
was one of the posterity of the Rephaim, Joshua xii, 4. Also in the time
of Joshua there were some of their descendants in the land of Canaan,
Joshua xvii, 15. Lastly, we hear of them still in David’s time, in the
city of Gath, 1 Chron. xx, 4–6. The giants Goliah, Sippai, Lahmi, and
others, were some remains of the Rephaim; their magnitude and strength
are known from Scripture. See GIANTS.

REPHIDIM, a station or encampment of the Israelites, Exod. xvii, 1. At
this station, adjoining to Mount Horeb, the people again murmured for
want of water; and they chid Moses, saying, “Give us water that we may
drink.” And “they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or
not?” Moses, therefore, to convince them that he was, by a more obvious
miracle than at Marah, smote the rock with his rod, by the divine
command, and brought water out of it for the people to drink: wherefore,
he called the place Meribah, “chiding,” and the rock Massah,
“temptation.” On their way to Rephidim, the Amalekites, the original
inhabitants of the country, who are noticed in Abraham’s days, Gen. xiv,
7, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the
judgments recently inflicted on the Egyptians, attacked the rear of the
Israelites when they were faint and weary; but were defeated by a chosen
party, under the command of Joshua, the faithful lieutenant of Moses,
who is first noticed on this occasion, and even then pointed out by the
Lord as his successor. This victory was miraculous; for while Moses held
up his hand Israel prevailed, but when he let it down Amalek prevailed.
So Aaron and Hur (the husband of Miriam, according to Josephus) held up
both his hands steadily till sunset, and thereby gave a decided victory
to Israel. This unprovoked aggression of the Amalekites drew down upon
them from the Lord the sentence of “war from generation to generation,”
between them and the Israelites, and of final extermination, which was
commanded to be written or registered in a book, for a memorial to
Joshua and his successors, the judges and kings of Israel, and was
carried into execution by Saul, 1 Sam. xv, 8, by David, 1 Sam. xxx, 17,
and finally accomplished by the Simeonites in Hezekiah’s reign, Exod.
xvii, 8–13; Deut. xxv, 17; 1 Chron. iv, 43. While the Israelites were
encamped at Rephidim, on the western side of Horeb, the mount of God,
Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, who lived in that neighbourhood, and
was priest and prince of Midian, came to visit him, with his wife
Zipporah, and his two sons, Eleazar and Gershom, who had accompanied him
part of the way to Egypt, but returned home again; and they rejoiced
with him “for all the goodness which the Lord had done for Israel, whom
he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians;” and upon this
occasion, Jethro, as “a priest of the most high God,” of the order of
Melchizedek, “offered a burnt-offering and sacrifices of thanksgiving to
God, at which Aaron and all the elders of Israel ate bread with Jethro
before God,” by a repetition of the eucharistic feast upon a sacrifice
which Melchizedek formerly administered to Abraham, Gen. xiv, 18; Exod.
xviii, 1–12. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic sign which the Lord had
given to Moses when he first appeared to him in the burning bush: “This
shall be a token unto thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought
forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain,”
Exod, iii, 12. The speedy accomplishment, therefore, of this sign, at
the beginning of their journey, was well calculated to strengthen their
faith or reliance on the divine protection throughout. Jethro appears to
have been distinguished not only for his piety, but also for his
political wisdom. By his advice, which also was approved by the Lord,
Moses, to relieve himself from the fatigue of administering justice to
the people, the whole day, from morning until evening, instituted
inferior judges or magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and
tens, as his deputies, who were to relieve him from the burden of
judging the smaller causes, but to refer the greater or more difficult
to Moses, for his decision.

REPROBATION is equivalent to rejection. Rejection always implies a
cause: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, insomuch that the Lord
hath rejected them,” Jer. vi, 30; that is, they are base metal, which
will not bear the proof. Conditional reprobation, or rejecting men from
the divine mercy, because of their impenitence or refusal of salvation,
is a Scriptural doctrine; but to the unconditional, absolute reprobation
of the rigid Calvinists, the following objections may be urged:--

1. It cannot be reconciled to the love of God. “God is love.” “He is
loving to every man, and his tender mercies are over all his works.”

2. Nor to the wisdom of God; for the bringing into being a vast number
of intelligent creatures under a necessity of sinning, and of being
eternally lost, teaches no moral lesson to the world; and contradicts
all those notions of wisdom in the ends and processes of government,
which we are taught to look for, not only from natural reason, but from
the Scriptures.

3. Nor to the grace of God, which is so often magnified in the
Scriptures; for doth it argue any sovereign or high strain, any
superabounding richness of grace or mercy in any man, when ten thousand
have equally offended him, only to pardon one or two of them? Or in what
sense has “the grace of God appeared unto all men,” or even to
one-millionth part of them?

4. Nor can this merciless reprobation be reconciled to any of those
numerous passages in which almighty God is represented as tenderly
compassionate and pitiful to the worst and most unworthy of his
creatures, even them who finally perish. “I have no pleasure in the
death of him that dieth.” “Being grieved at the hardness of their
hearts.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” “The Lord
is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.” “Or
despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and
long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?”

5. It is as manifestly contrary to his justice. Here, indeed, we would
not assume to measure this attribute of God by unauthorized human
conceptions; but when God himself has appealed to those established
notions of justice and equity which have been received among all
enlightened persons, in all ages, as the measure and rule of his own, we
cannot be charged with this presumption. “Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?” “Are not my ways equal? saith the Lord.” We may then be
bold to affirm that justice and equity in God are what they are taken to
be among reasonable men; and if all men every where would condemn it, as
most contrary to justice and right, that a sovereign should condemn to
death one or more of his subjects for not obeying laws which it is
absolutely impossible for them, under any circumstances which they can
possibly avail themselves of, to obey, and much more the greater part of
his subjects; and to require them, on pain of aggravated punishment, to
do something in order to the pardon and remission of their offences,
which he knows they cannot do, say to stop the tide or to remove a
mountain; it implies a charge as obviously unjust against God, who is
“just in the judgments which he executeth,” to suppose him to act
precisely in the same manner in regard to those whom he has passed by
and rejected, without any avoidable fault of their own; to destroy them
by the simple rule of his own sovereignty, or, in other words, to show
that he has power to do it. In whatever light the subject be viewed, no
fault, in any right construction, can be chargeable upon the persons so
punished, or, as we may rather say, destroyed, since punishment supposes
a judicial proceeding, which this act shuts out. For either the
reprobates are destroyed for a pure reason of sovereignty without any
reference to their sinfulness, and thus all criminality is left out of
the consideration; or they are destroyed for the sin of Adam, to which
they were not consenting; or for personal faults resulting from a
corruption of nature which they brought into the world with them, and
which God wills not to correct, and which they have no power to correct
themselves. Every received notion of justice is thus violated. We grant,
indeed, that some proceedings of the Almighty may appear at first
irreconcilable with justice, which are not so; as that we should suffer
pain and death, and be infected with a morally corrupt nature, in
consequence of the transgression of our first progenitors; that children
should suffer for their parents’ faults in the ordinary course of
providence; and that in general calamities the comparatively innocent
should suffer the same evils as the guilty. But none of these are
parallel cases. For the “free gift” has come upon all men, “to
justification of life,” through “the righteousness” of the second Adam,
so that the terms of our probation are but changed. None are doomed to
inevitable ruin, or the above words of the Apostle would have no
meaning; and pain and death, as to all who avail themselves of the
remedy, are made the instruments of a higher life, and of a
superabounding of grace through Christ. The same observation may be made
as to children who suffer evils for their parents’ faults. This
circumstance alters the terms of their probation; but if every condition
of probation leaves to men the possibility and the hope of eternal life,
and the circumstances of all are balanced and weighed by Him who
administers the affairs of individuals on principles, the end of which
is to turn all the evils of life into spiritual and higher blessings,
there is, obviously, no impeachment of justice in the circumstances of
the probation assigned to any person whatever. As to the innocent
suffering equally with the guilty in general calamities, the persons so
suffering are but comparatively innocent, and their personal
transgressions against God deserve a higher punishment than any which
this life witnesses; this may also as to them be overruled for merciful
purposes, and a future life presents its manifold compensations. But as
to the non-elect, the whole case, in this scheme of sovereign
reprobation, or sovereign preterition, is supposed to be before us.
Their state is fixed, their afflictions in this life will not in any
instance be overruled for ends of edification and salvation; they are
left under a necessity of sinning in every condition; and a future life
presents no compensation, but a fearful looking for of fiery and
quenchless indignation. It is surely not possible for the ingenuity of
man to reconcile this to any notion of just government which has ever
obtained; and by the established notions of justice and equity in human
affairs, we are taught by the Scriptures themselves to judge of the
divine proceedings in all completely stated and comprehensible cases.

6. Equally impossible is it to reconcile this notion to the sincerity of
God in offering salvation by Christ to all who hear the Gospel, of whom
this scheme supposes the majority, or at least great numbers to be
among, the reprobate. The Gospel, as we have seen, is commanded to be
preached to every creature; which publication of good news to every
creature is an offer of salvation to every creature, accompanied with
earnest invitations to embrace it, and admonitory comminations lest any
should neglect and despise it. But does it not involve a serious
reflection upon the truth and sincerity of God which men ought to
shudder at, to assume, that at the very time the Gospel is thus
preached, no part of this good news was ever designed to benefit the
majority, or any great part, of those to whom it is addressed? that they
to whom this love of God in Christ is proclaimed were never loved by
God? that he has decreed that many to whom he offers salvation, and whom
he invites to receive it, shall never be saved? and that he will
consider their sins aggravated by rejecting that which they never could
receive, and which he never designed them to receive? It is no answer to
this to say that we also admit that the offers of mercy are made by God
to many whom he, by virtue of his prescience, knows will never receive
them. We grant this; but it is enough to reply, that in this case there
is no insincerity. On the Calvinian scheme the offer of salvation is
made to those for whose sins Christ made no atonement; on the other, he
made atonement for the sins of all. On the former, the offer is made to
those whom God never designed to embrace it; on the latter to none but
those whom God seriously and in truth wills that they should avail
themselves of it; on one theory, the bar to the salvation of the
nonelect lies in the want of a provided sacrifice for sin; on the other,
it rests solely in men themselves; one consists, therefore, with a
perfect sincerity of offer, the other cannot be maintained without
bringing the sincerity of God into question, and fixing a stigma upon
his moral truth.

7. Unconditional reprobation cannot be reconciled with that frequent
declaration of Scripture, that “God is no respecter of persons.” This
phrase, we grant, is not to be interpreted as though the bounties of the
Almighty were dispensed in equal measures to his creatures. In the
administration of favour, there is place for the exercise of that
prerogative which, in a just sense, is called the sovereignty of God;
but justice knows but of one rule; it is, in its nature, settled and
fixed, and looks not at the _person_, but the _case_. To have respect of
persons is a phrase, therefore, in Scripture, which sometimes refers to
judicial proceedings, and signifies to judge from partiality and
affection, and not upon the merits of the question. It is also used by
St. Peter with reference to the acceptance of Cornelius: “Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he
that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Here
it is clear, that to respect persons, would be to reject or accept them
without regard to their moral qualities, and on some national and other
prejudice or partiality which forms no moral rule of any kind. But, if
the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation be true; if we are to
understand that men like Jacob and Esau, in the Calvinistic construction
of the passage, while in the womb of their mother, nay, from eternity,
are loved and hated, elected or reprobated, before they have done “good
or evil,” then it necessarily follows, that there is precisely this kind
of respect of persons with God; for his acceptance or rejection of men
stands on some ground of aversion or dislike, which cannot be resolved
into any moral rule, and has no respect to the merits of the case
itself; and if the Scripture affirms that there is no such respect of
persons with God, then the doctrine which implies it is contradicted by
inspired authority.

8. The doctrine of which we are showing the difficulties, brings with it
the repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants.
Some Calvinists have, indeed, to get rid of the difficulty, or rather to
put it out of sight, consigned them to annihilation; but of the
annihilation of any human being there is no intimation in the word of
God. In order, therefore, to avoid the fearful consequence of admitting
the punishment of beings innocent as to all actual sin, there is no
other way than to suppose all children, dying in infancy, to be an
elected portion of mankind, which, however, would be a mere hypothesis
brought in to serve a theory without any evidence. That some of those
who, as they suppose, are under this sentence of reprobation, die in
their infancy, is, probably, what most Calvinists allow; and, if their
doctrine be received, cannot be denied; and it follows, therefore, that
all such infants are eternally lost. Now, we know that infants are not
lost, because our Lord gave it as a reason why little children ought not
to be hindered from coming unto him, that “of such is the kingdom of
heaven.” On which Calvin himself remarks, “In this word, ‘for of such is
the kingdom of heaven,’ Christ comprehends as well little children
themselves, as those who in disposition resemble them. _Hac voce, tam
parvulos, quam eorum similes, comprehendit._” We are assured of the
salvation of infants, also, because “the free gift has come upon all men
to,” in order to, “justification of life,” and because children are not
capable of rejecting that blessing, and must, therefore, derive benefit
from it. The point, also, on which we have just now touched, that “there
is no respect of persons with God,” demonstrates it. For, as it will be
acknowledged, that some children, dying in infancy, are saved, it must
follow, from this principle and axiom in the divine government, that all
infants are saved; for the case of all infants, as to innocence or
guilt, sin or righteousness, being the same, and God as a judge, being
“no respecter of persons,” but regarding only the merits of the case, he
cannot make this awful distinction as to them, that one part shall be
eternally saved and the other eternally lost. That doctrine, therefore,
which implies the perdition of infants, cannot be congruous to the
Scriptures of truth, but is utterly abhorrent to them.

Finally, not to multiply these instances of the difficulties which
accompany the doctrine of absolute reprobation, or of preterition, (to
use the milder term, though the argument is not in the least changed by
it,) it destroys the end of punitive justice. That end can only be, to
deter men from offence, and to add strength to the law of God. But if
the whole body of the reprobate are left to the influence of their
fallen nature without remedy, they cannot be deterred from sin by
threats of inevitable punishment; nor can they ever submit to the
dominion of the law of God: their doom is fixed, and threats and
examples can avail nothing.

RESTITUTION, that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour
whatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exod. xxii, 1; Luke xix, 8.
Moralists observe, respecting restitution, 1. That where it can be made
in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the
thing or the value. 2. We are bound to restore the thing with the
natural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in
the mean time, and the gain hindered. 3. When the thing cannot be
restored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable
satisfaction, according to a liberal estimation. 4. We are at least to
give, by way of restitution, what the law would give; for that is
generally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous. 5. A
man is not only bound to make restitution for the injury he did, but for
all that directly follows upon the injurious act: for the first injury
being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.

RESURRECTION. The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which
will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an
immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in
common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the
Old and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1,
&c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom
iii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our
Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received
as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole
body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28;
Mark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose
himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge,
and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his
epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or
opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom.
vi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12–15; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv,
13–17, &c.

On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises
among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in
which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be
understood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be
meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory
has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed
difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader
of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there
taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a
miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the
grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power
of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died,
and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours;
and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change _our vile
body_, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only
passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising
of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35,
&c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what
body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened
except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the
Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the
doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of
conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up
in substance, we might have expected him to correct this
misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian
doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as
little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant,
would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the
resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the
objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as
they now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between
one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes,
and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between
the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther
he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body
to be raised, and the _body_ given at the resurrection; but between
_the body itself_, understood popularly, which dies, and the body
which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed _incorruptible_
and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of
the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state,
corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--“How are the
dead raised up?” does not refer to the _modus agendi_ of the
resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be
effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume.
This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on
immediately to state, not in what _manner_ the resurrection is to be
effected, but what shall be the _state_ or _condition_ of the
resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be
taken in that sense.

Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the
possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified
state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be
effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in
itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however,
clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this
wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in
substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be
impressed upon it. Great _general_ changes it will experience, as from
corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great
changes of a _particular_ kind will also take place, as its being
freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties
produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is
also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall
neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of
God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may
gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach”
is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will
“destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be
removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place
in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form
will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s
“glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is
composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was
laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of
the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an
original and unchangeable _stamen_, out of which a new and glorious
body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed
from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this
hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how
the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming
integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of
Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those
individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with
each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same
quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle
which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it
shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with
another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this
quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from
assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present
to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the
execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then,
if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of
infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing
that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily
as to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and
rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may
happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men
feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon
one another. The question here is one which simply respects the
frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature.
To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to
suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his
own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to
assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of
control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation
of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be
attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence,
or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the
body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the
answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the
substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take
place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the
body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are
told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes
during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed
rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as
those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that
rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much
as it is the _subject_ but as it is the _instrument_ of reward and
punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure,
which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable
_subject_. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as
are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our
accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being,
as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this
every one is to himself what he calls _self_, without considering
whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It
was by the same _self_ which reflects on an action done many years
ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight
in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal
courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time;
but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common
consciousness and experience, of mankind.

Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are
in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead
shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the
righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same
as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some
change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his
future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly
teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is
said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with
him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like
his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully
appear what we shall be,” Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21.
This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends
upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which
subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future
world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses
are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language
is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows
that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few
or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects,
that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render
those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and
pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle:
“All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of
men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and
yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere
inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal
body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties,
and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate
nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised
a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the
organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably
possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new
and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence
and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs
and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind,
have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing,
for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and
glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the
objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous,
interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and
senses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating?
Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds;
what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the
grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial
regions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer
degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the
magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give
a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never
tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now
constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul,
may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may
“drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for
ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to
conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1
Cor. ii, 9.

REUBEN, TRIBE OF. This tribe, having much cattle, solicited and obtained
from Moses possessions east of the Jordan; by which river it was
separated from the main body of Israel: it was, in consequence, exposed
to various inroads and oppressions from which the western tribes were
free; and it was among the first carried into captivity by Tiglath
pileser, 1 Chron. v, 26.

REVELATION, or APOCALYPSIS, is the name given to a canonical book of the
New Testament. See APOCALYPSE.

RHODES, an island lying south of the province of Caria, in Lesser Asia,
and, among the Asiatic islands, is accounted for dignity next to Cyprus
and Lesbos. It is pleasant and healthful, and was anciently celebrated
for the skill of its inhabitants in navigation, but most, for its
prodigious statue of brass consecrated to the sun, and called the
Colossus. This statue was seventy cubits high, and bestrode the mouth of
the harbour, so that ships could sail between its legs, and it was
accounted one of the seven wonders of the world. St. Paul, on his way to
Jerusalem, A. D. 58, went from Miletus to Coos, from Coos to Rhodes, and
from thence to Patara, in Lycia, Acts xxi, 1.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, justice, holiness. The righteousness of God is the
essential perfection of his nature; sometimes it is put for his justice.
The righteousness of Christ denotes, not only his absolute perfection,
but, is taken for his perfect obedience unto death, and his suffering
the penalty of the law in our stead. The righteousness of the law is
that obedience which the law requires. The righteousness of faith is the
justification which is received by faith.

RIMMON. See NAAMAN.

RINGS. The antiquity of rings appears from Scripture and from profane
authors. Judah left his ring with Tamar, Gen. xxxviii, 18. When Pharaoh
committed the government of Egypt to Joseph, he took his ring from his
finger and gave it to Joseph, Gen. xli, 42. After the victory of the
Israelites over the Midianites, they offered to the Lord the rings, the
bracelets, and the golden necklaces, taken from the enemy, Num. xxxi,
50. The Israelitish women wore rings, not only on their fingers, but
also in their nostrils and their ears. St. James distinguishes a man of
wealth and dignity by the ring of gold on his finger, James ii, 2. At
the return of the prodigal son, his father orders him to be dressed in a
new suit of clothes, and to have a ring put on his finger, Luke xv, 22.
When God threatened Jeconiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he
tells him, that though he were the signet or ring on his finger, yet he
should be torn off, Jer. xxii, 24. The ring was used chiefly to seal
with, and Scripture generally assigns it to princes and great persons;
as the king of Egypt, Joseph, Ahaz, Jezebel, King Ahasuerus, his
favourite Haman, Mordecai, King Darius, 1 Kings xxi, 8; Esther iii, 10,
&c; Dan. vi, 17. The patents and orders of these princes were sealed
with their rings or signets, an impression from which was their
confirmation. The ring was one mark of sovereign authority. Pharaoh gave
his ring to Joseph, as a token of authority. When Alexander the Great
gave his ring to Perdiccas, this was understood as nominating him his
successor.

RIVER. The Hebrews give the name of “the river,” without any addition,
sometimes to the Nile, sometimes to the Euphrates, and sometimes to
Jordan. It is the tenor of the discourse that must determine the sense
of this vague and uncertain way of speaking. They give also the name of
river to brooks and rivulets that are not considerable. The name of
river is sometimes given to the sea, Hab. iii, 8; Psalm lxxviii, 16. It
is also used as a symbol for plenty, Job xxix, 6; Psalm xxxvi, 8.

ROCK. Palestine, being a mountainous country, had also many rocks, which
formed a part of the country’s defence; for in time of danger the people
retired to them, and found a refuge against any sudden irruption of the
enemy. The Benjamites took shelter in the rock Rimmon, Judges xx, 47.
Samson kept garrison in the rock of Etham, Judges xv, 8. David found
shelter in the rocks of Maon, Engedi, &c, 1 Sam. xxii, 1; xxiii, 25, 28;
xxiv, 2–5. Jerom says that the southern parts of Judea were full of
caves under ground, and of caverns in the mountains, to which the people
retired in time of danger. The Kenites dwelt in the hollow places of the
rocks, Num. xxiv, 21. Even at this day the villages of this country are
subterraneous, or in the rocks. Josephus in several places speaks of
hollow rocks, where thieves and robbers had their haunts; and travellers
still find a great number of them in Palestine, and in the adjoining
provinces. Toward Lebanon, the mountains are high, but covered in many
places with as much earth as fits them for cultivation. Among the crags
of the rocks, the beautiful and far-famed cedar waves its lofty top, and
extends its powerful arms, surrounded by the fir and the oak, the fig
and the vine. On the road to Jerusalem, the mountains are not so lofty
nor so rugged, but become fitter for tillage. They rise again to the
south-east of Mount Carmel; are covered with woods, and afford very
picturesque views; but advancing toward Judea, they lose their verdure,
the valleys become narrow, dry, and stony, and terminate at the Dead Sea
in a pile of desolate rocks, precipices, and caverns. These vast
excavations, some of which will contain fifteen hundred men, are the
grottoes of Engedi, which have been a refuge to the oppressed or the
discontented in all ages. Westward of Jordan and the lake Asphaltites,
another chain of rocks, still loftier and more rugged, presents a yet
more gloomy aspect, and announces the distant entrance of the desert,
and the termination of the habitable regions.

The name of rock is also given to God, by way of metaphor, because God
is the strength, the refuge, and defence of Israel, as those places were
to the people who resided among them, Psalm xviii, 2, 31; xxxi, 2, 3;
Deut. xxxii, 15, 18, 30, 31; Psalm lxi, 2, &c.

ROD. This word is used sometimes for the branches of a tree: “And Jacob
took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree,” Gen.
xxx, 37; sometimes for a staff or wand: “And thou shalt take this rod in
thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. And Moses took the rod of God
in his hand,” Exod. iv, 17, 20; or for a shepherd’s crook: “And
concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever
passeth under the rod; the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord,” Lev.
xxvii, 32; or for a rod, properly so called, which God makes use of to
correct men: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of
men, and with the stripes of the children of men,” 2 Sam. vii, 14. “Let
him take his rod away from me,” Job ix, 34. The empire of the Messiah is
sometimes represented by a rod of iron, to show its power and its might,
Psalm ii, 9; Rev. ii, 27; xii, 5; xix, 15. Rod is sometimes put to
signify a tribe or a people: “Remember thy congregation which thou hast
purchased of old, the rod of thine inheritance which thou hast
redeemed,” Psalm lxxiv, 2. “Israel is the rod of his inheritance,” Jer.
x, 16. The rod of Aaron is the staff commonly used by the high priest.
This is the rod that budded and blossomed like an almond tree, Num.
xvii. See AARON.

ROMAN CATHOLICS, or members of the church of Rome, otherwise called
papists, from the pope being considered by them as the supreme head of
the universal church, the successor of St. Peter, and the fountain of
theological truth and ecclesiastical honours. He keeps his court in
great state at the palace of the Vatican, and is attended by seventy
cardinals as his privy counsellors, in imitation of the seventy
disciples of our Lord. The pope’s authority in other kingdoms is merely
spiritual, but in Italy he is a temporal sovereign, Louis XVIII. and the
allies having, in 1814, restored him to his throne, and to those
temporalities of which he was deprived by Buonaparte and the French
revolution. On resuming his government, Pope Pius VII. soon restored the
order of Jesuits and the inquisition; so that the Roman Catholic
religion is now reinstated in its ancient splendour and authority. The
principal dogmas of this religion are as follows: 1. That St. Peter was
deputed by Christ to be his vicar, and the head of the catholic church;
and that the bishops of Rome, being his successors, have the same
apostolical authority; for our Saviour declares, in Matt. xvi, 18, “Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;” by which rock
they understand St. Peter himself, as the name signifies, and not his
confession, as the Protestants explain it. And a succession in the
church being now supposed necessary under the New Testament, as Aaron
had his succession under the old dispensation, which was a figure of the
new, this succession can now, they contend, be shown only in the chair
of St. Peter at Rome, where it is asserted he presided twenty-five years
previous to his death; therefore, the bishops of Rome are his true
successors. 2. That the Roman Catholic church is the mother and mistress
of all churches, and cannot possibly err in matters of faith; for the
church has the promise of the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth,
John xvi, 13; “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”
Matt. xvi, 18. Christ also, who is himself the truth, has promised to
the pastors and teachers of the church to be with them “always, even to
the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii, 20. “It is from the testimony and
authority of the church, therefore,” say they, “that we receive the
Scriptures as the word of God.” 3. That the Scriptures thus received on
the authority of the church are not sufficient to our faith without
apostolical traditions, which are of equal authority with the
Scriptures; for St. Peter assures us, that in St. Paul’s epistles there
“are some things hard to be understood, which they who are unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own
destruction,” 2 Peter iii, 16. We are directed by St. Paul to “stand
fast, and hold the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word
or by epistle,” 2 Thess. ii, 15. 4. That seven sacraments were
instituted by Jesus Christ, namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist,
penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and that they confer
grace. To prove that confirmation, or imposition of hands, is a
sacrament, they quote Acts viii, 17: “They,” the Apostles, “laid their
hands on them,” believers, “and they received the Holy Ghost.” Penance
is a sacrament in which the sins we commit after baptism, duly repented
of, and confessed to a priest, are forgiven; and which they think was
instituted by Christ himself when he breathed upon his Apostles after
his resurrection, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye
remit, are remitted; and whose sins ye retain, are retained,” John xx,
23. In favour of extreme unction, or anointing the sick with oil, they
argue from James i, 14, 15, which is thus rendered in the Vulgate: “Is
any sick among you? Let him call for the priests of the church, and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oil,” &c. The sacrament of holy
orders is inferred from 1 Tim. iv, 14: “Neglect not the gift that is in
thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of
the presbytery,” or priesthood, as they render it. That marriage is a
sacrament, they think evident from Ephes. v, 32: “This is a great
mystery,” representing the mystical union of Christ and his church.
“Matrimony,” say they, “is here the sign of a holy thing, and therefore
it is a sacrament.” Notwithstanding this, they enjoin celibacy upon the
clergy, because they do not think it proper that those who, by their
office and function, ought to be wholly devoted to God, should be
diverted from those duties by the distractions of a married life, 1 Cor.
vii, 32, 33. 5. That in the mass, or public service, there is offered
unto God a true and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead; and
that in the sacrament of the eucharist, under the forms of bread and
wine, are really and substantially present the body and blood, together
with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is
a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and
of the wine into his blood, which is called transubstantiation;
according to our Lord’s words to his disciples, “This is my body,” &c,
Matt. xxvi, 26; wherefore it becomes with them an object of adoration.
Farther: it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, in the Roman
church, that the laity receive the eucharist in one kind, that is, in
bread only. This sacrifice of the mass was, they think, predicted by the
Prophet Malachi, i, 11, who says, “In every place incense shall be
offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” 6. That there is a
purgatory; and that souls kept prisoners there do receive help by the
suffrages of the faithful. For it is said, in 1 Cor. iii, 15, “If any
man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall
be saved, yet so as by fire;” which they understand of the flames of
purgatory. They also believe that souls are released from purgatory by
the prayers and alms which are offered for them, principally by the holy
sacrifice of the mass. They call purgatory a middle state of souls, into
which those enter who depart this life in God’s grace; yet not without
some less stains of guilt, which retard them from entering heaven, where
nothing unclean can enter. 7. That the saints reigning with Christ (and
especially the blessed virgin) are to be honoured and invoked; that they
offer prayers unto God for us; and that their relics are to be had in
veneration. These honours, however, are not divine, but relative, and
redound to the divine glory, Rev. v, 8; viii, 4, &c. 8. That the image
of Christ, of the blessed virgin, the mother of God, and of other
saints, ought to be retained in churches, and honour and veneration
ought to be given unto them. And as the images of cherubims were allowed
in the temples, so images should be placed in churches, and had in
veneration. 9. That the power of indulgences was left by Christ to the
church, and that the use of them is very beneficial to Christian people;
according to Matt. xvi, 19: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven.” By indulgences they do not mean leave to commit sin, nor pardon
for sins to come; but only releasing, by the power of the keys committed
to the church, the debt of temporal punishment which may remain due upon
account of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to their guilt and
eternal punishment, have been already remitted through repentance and
confession, and by virtue of the merit of Christ, and of all the saints.
By their indulgences they assert that they apply to their souls the
merits of Christ, and of the saints and martyrs through him.

The ceremonies of this church are numerous and splendid, as, 1. They
make use of the sign of the cross in all their sacraments, to give us to
understand, that they have their whole force and efficacy from the
cross. 2. Sprinkling of the holy water by the priest on solemn days is
used likewise by every one going in or coming out of church. 3. The
ceremony of blessing bells is, by the Catholics, called christening
them; because the name of some saint is ascribed to them, by virtue of
whose invocation they are presented, in order that they may obtain his
favour and protection. 4. They always bow at the name of Jesus, (which
is also done as regularly in the church of England,) and they found the
practice on Phil. ii, 10: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow.” 5. They keep a number of lamps and wax candles continually burning
before the shrines and images of the saints. 6. They make use of
incense, and have lighted candles upon the altar at the celebration of
the mass. 7. The practice of washing the poor’s feet, in imitation of
our Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples, is solemnized on Holy
Thursday by all the princes of the Romish religion in Europe. The church
of Rome also professes to keep the fast of Lent with great strictness,
and observes a much greater number both of feasts and festivals than the
church of England.

The church of Rome assumes the title of Catholic, or universal, as
answering to that article in the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in the holy
Catholic church.” The above is perhaps a sufficient account of the Roman
Catholic faith; but as the creed of Pope Pius IV. is universally
admitted to be the true standard of that faith, it would be decidedly
wrong to conclude without inserting it. Mr. Butler says it contains a
succinct and explicit summary of the canons of the council of Trent, and
was published in the form of a papal bull, in 1564. He adds, “It is
received throughout the whole Roman Catholic church; every one who is
admitted into that church, publicly reads and professes his assent to
it.” This document commences with reciting the Nicene Creed, which, as
it is admitted by the Protestant church of England, and inserted in the
Common Prayer Book, need not be here repeated. It then proceeds with the
twelve following articles, in addition to those of the Apostles’ Creed,
which they also reckon twelve: “13. I most firmly admit and embrace
apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions
and observances of the same church. I also admit the sacred Scriptures
according to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does
hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and interpret them
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. 14. I
profess also that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the
new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of
mankind, (though all are not necessary for every one,) namely, baptism,
confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony;
and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and
order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. 15. I also receive and
admit the ceremonies of the Catholic church, received and approved in
the solemn administration of all the above said sacraments. 16. I
receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been
defined and declared in the holy council of Trent, concerning original
sin and justification. 17. I profess, likewise, that in the mass, is
offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living
and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there
is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with
the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made
a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of
the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the
Catholic church calls transubstantiation. 18. I confess, also, that
under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacrament,
is received. 19. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that
the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
20. Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be
honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us, and that
their relics are to be venerated. 21. I most firmly assert, that the
images of Christ, and of the mother of Christ, ever a virgin, and also
of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honour and
veneration are to be given to them. 22. I also affirm, that the power of
indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them
is most wholesome to Christian people. 23. I acknowledge the holy
Catholic and apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all
churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome,
the successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus
Christ. 24. I also profess, and undoubtedly receive, all other things,
delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general
councils, and particularly by the holy council of Trent; and likewise, I
also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto; and
all heresies whatsoever, condemned and anathematized by the church. This
true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely
profess, and truly hold, I, _N._, promise, vow, and swear most
constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God’s
assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”

Such is the avowed and accredited faith of the church of Rome; but it
seems a most extraordinary circumstance, that, while this church has so
enlarged the creed, it has reduced the number of the commandments,
omitting altogether the second, “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven
image,” &c, Exod. xx, 3–6; as if the Catholics were conscious it could
by no means be reconciled with the twenty-first article of the above
recited creed. And then, to prevent alarm, as every body must know there
should be ten commandments, the last is divided into two, to make up the
number. This is said to have been done, even before the Reformation. It
was done in the French National Catechism, published in 1806, and
sanctioned by Pope Pius VII., by the archbishop of Paris, and by the
Emperor Napoleon. It is remarkable, also, that in Dr. Chalenor’s “Garden
of the Soul,” printed in London by Coglan, in 1787, in a form of
self-examination for the penitent upon each commandment, there is no
reference to the one omitted; nor is there any reference to it in
Bossuet’s famous “Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church,”
when treating upon images, and the manner in which they are directed to
be honoured. Lastly, in Butler’s Catechism, the eighth edition, printed
at Dublin in 1811, and sanctioned by four Roman Catholic archbishops,
the commandments stand literally as follows: “1. I am the Lord thy God;
thou shalt have no strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the
Sabbath day. 4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not
kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 9. Thou shalt
not covet thy neighbour’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s
goods.” Here it may be added, that by omitting the second command, the
others are numbered differently from what they are by us. Thus, the
third is brought in for the second, the fourth is made the third, &c,
till they come to the last which is divided in two, for the purpose
above mentioned. The gross and antiscriptural errors, leading to
superstition, idolatry, and many other evils, which are contained in the
peculiarities of the papistical faith, are abundantly pointed out and
refuted by the leading Protestant writers.

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. This epistle was written from Corinth, A. D. 58,
being the fourth year of the Emperor Nero, just before St. Paul set out
for Jerusalem with the contributions which the Christians of Macedonia
and Achaia had made for the relief of their poor brethren in Judea, Acts
xx, 1; Rom. xv, 25, 26. It was transcribed or written as St. Paul
dictated it, by Tertius; and the person who conveyed it to Rome was
Phœbe, a deaconess of the church of Cenchrea, which was the eastern
port of the city of Corinth, Rom. xvi, 1, 22. It is addressed to the
church at Rome, which consisted partly of Jewish and partly of Heathen
converts; and throughout the epistle it is evident that the Apostle has
regard to both these descriptions of Christians. St. Paul, when he wrote
this epistle had not been at Rome, Rom. i, 13; xv, 23; but he had heard
an account of the state of the church in that city from Aquila and
Priscilla, two Christians who were banished from thence by the edict of
Claudius, and with whom he lived during his first visit to Corinth.
Whether any other Apostle had at this time preached the Gospel at Rome,
cannot now be ascertained. Among those who witnessed the effect of the
first effusion of the Holy Ghost are mentioned “strangers of Rome, Jews
and proselytes,” Acts ii, 10; that is, persons of the Jewish religion,
who usually resided at Rome, but who had come to Jerusalem to be present
at the feast of pentecost. It is highly probable that these men, upon
their return home, proclaimed the Gospel of Christ; and we may farther
suppose that many Christians who had been converted at other places
afterward settled at Rome, and were the cause of others embracing the
Gospel. But, by whatever means Christianity had been introduced into
Rome, it seems to have flourished there in great purity; for we learn
from the beginning of this epistle that the faith of the Roman
Christians was at this time much celebrated, Rom. i, 8. To confirm them
in that faith, and to guard them against the errors of Judaizing
Christians, was the object of this letter, in which St. Paul takes
occasion to enlarge upon the nature of the Mosaic institution; to
explain the fundamental principles and doctrines of Christianity; and to
show that the whole human race, formerly divided into Jews and Gentiles,
were now to be admitted into the religion of Jesus, indiscriminately,
and free from every other obligation. The Apostle, after expressing his
affection to the Roman Christians, and asserting that the Gospel is the
power of God unto salvation to all who believe, takes a comprehensive
view of the conduct and condition of men under the different
dispensations of Providence; he shows that all mankind, both Jews and
Gentiles, were equally “under sin,” and liable to the wrath and
punishment of God; that therefore there was a necessity for a universal
propitiation and redemption, which were now offered to the whole race of
men, without any preference or exception, by the mercy of him who is the
God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; that faith in Jesus Christ,
the universal Redeemer, was the only means of obtaining this salvation,
which the deeds of the law were wholly incompetent to procure; that as
the sins of the whole world originated from the disobedience of Adam, so
the justification from those sins was to be derived from the obedience
of Christ; that all distinction between Jew and Gentile was now
abolished, and the ceremonial law entirely abrogated; that the
unbelieving Jews would be excluded from the benefits of the Gospel,
while the believing Gentiles would be partakers of them; and that this
rejection of the Jews, and call of the Gentiles, were predicted by the
Jewish Prophets Hosea and Isaiah. He then points out the superiority of
the Christian over the Jewish religion, and earnestly exhorts the Romans
to abandon every species of wickedness, and to practise the duties of
righteousness and holiness, which were now enjoined upon higher
sanctions, and enforced by more powerful motives. In the latter part of
the epistle, St. Paul gives some practical instructions, and recommends
some particular virtues; and he concludes with a salutation and a
doxology. This epistle is most valuable, on account of the arguments and
truths which it contains, relative to the necessity, nature, and
universality of the Gospel dispensation.

ROOFS. The letting down of the paralytic through the roof of the house
where Jesus was, is satisfactorily explained by the following extract
from Shaw’s Travels: “The houses throughout the east are low, having
generally a ground floor only, or one upper story, and flat-roofed, the
roof being covered with a strong coat of plaster of terrace. They are
built round a paved court, into which the entrance from the street is
through a gateway or passage room furnished with benches, and
sufficiently large to be used for receiving visits or transacting
business. The stairs which lead to the roof are never placed on the
outside of the house in the street, but usually in the gateway, or
passage room to the court, sometimes at the entrance within the court.
This court is now called, in Arabic, _el woost_, or ‘the middle of the
house,’ literally answering to τὸ μέσον of St. Luke, v, 19. It is
customary to fix cords from the parapet walls, Deut. xxii, 8, of the
flat roofs across this court, and upon them to expand a veil or
covering, as a shelter from the heat. In this area, probably, our
Saviour taught. The paralytic was brought on to the roof by making a way
through the crowd to the stairs in the gateway, or by the terraces of
the adjoining houses. They rolled back the veil, and let the sick man
down over the parapet of the roof into the area or court of the house,
before Jesus.” The windows of the eastern houses being chiefly within,
facing the court, in order to see what was going on without in the
streets of the city, the only way was to run up to the flat roof. Hence
the frequent expression in Scripture, when allusion is made to sudden
tumults and calamities, to get up to “the house top.” See HOUSES.

ROSE, הבצלת, Cant., ii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 1. The rose, so much and so
often sung by the poets of Persia, Arabia, Greece, and Rome, is, indeed,
the pride of the garden for elegance of form, for glow of colour, and
fragrance of smell. Tournefort mentions fifty-three kinds, of which the
Damascus rose, and the rose of Sharon, are the finest. The beauty of
these flowers is too well known to be insisted on; and they are at this
day much admired in the east, where they are extremely fragrant. In what
esteem the rose was among the Greeks, may be learned from the fifth and
fifty-third odes of Anacreon. Among the ancients it occupied a
conspicuous place in every chaplet; it was a principal ornament in every
festive meeting, and at every solemn sacrifice; and the comparisons in
Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 14, and l, 8, show that the Jews were likewise much
delighted with it. The rose bud, or opening rose, seems in particular a
favourite ornament. The Jewish sensualists, in Wisdom ii, 8, are
introduced saying, “Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and
ointments; and let no flower of the spring pass by us. Let us crown
ourselves with rose buds before they are withered.”

ROSH. The Hebrew speaks of a people called Rosh, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 3.
“The orientals hold,” says D’Herbelot, “that Japheth had a son called
Rous, not mentioned by Moses, who peopled Russia, that is, Muscovy.” We
question not but Rosh, or Ros, signifies Russia, or the people that
dwell on the Araxes, called Rosch by the inhabitants; which was the
habitation of the Scythians. It deserves notice, that the LXX. render
the passage in Ezekiel, Γὼγ, ἄρχοντα Ῥὼς, Μεσὸχ, καὶ Θοβὲλ, _Gog, the
chief of Ros, Mesoch, and Thobel_; and Jerom, not absolutely to reject
this name, inserts both renderings: _Gog, terram Magog, principem
capitis_ (_sive_ Ros) _Mosoch, et Thubal_. Symmachus and Theodotion also
perceived Ros to be in this place the name of a people; and this is now
the prevailing judgment of interpreters. Bochart, about A. D. 1640,
contended that Russia was the nation meant by the term Ros; and this
opinion is supported by the testimony of various Greek writers, who
describe “the Ros as a Scythian nation, bordering on the northern
Taurus.” Mosok, or Mesech, appears to be the same as the Moskwa, or
Moscow, of the moderns; and we know, that not only is this the name of
the city, but also of the river on which it stands. See Gog.

RUBY, a beautiful gem, whose colour is red, with an admixture of purple,
and is, in its most perfect state, a gem of extreme value. In hardness
it is equal to the sapphire, and second only to the diamond. It is
mentioned in Job xxviii, 18, and Prov. viii, 11, &c.

RUE, ϖήγανον, Luke xi, 42, a small shrubby plant, common in gardens. It
has a strong, unpleasant smell, and a bitterish, penetrating taste.

RUSH, גמא, Exodus ii, 3; Job viii, 11; Isaiah xviii, 2; xxxv, 7; a plant
growing in the water at the sides of rivers, and in marshy grounds.

RUSSIAN CHURCH. The Russians, like other nations, were originally
Pagans, and worshipped fire, which they considered as the cause of
thunder, under the name of _Perun_, and the earth under the name
_Volata_; at the same time having some notions of a future state of
rewards and punishments. Christianity was first professed by the
Princess Olga, who was baptized at Constantinople. She recommended it to
her grandson Vladimir, on whose baptism, in 988, it was adopted by the
nation generally; and from that time the Greek church has been the
established religion throughout Russia, and Greek literature greatly
encouraged. During the middle ages, however, the doctrine of
transubstantiation, and some other popish peculiarities, were covertly
introduced; and, by the irruption of the Mongol Tartars, in the
fifteenth century, a stop was put to learning and civilization for full
two centuries; but, on the accession of the present dynasty in 1613,
civilization and Christianity were restored, and schools established for
the education of the clergy. The Russian clergy are divided into regular
and secular; the former are all monks, and the latter are the parochial
clergy. The superior clergy are called archires; but the title of
metropolitan, or bishop, is personal, and not properly attached to the
see, as in the western church. Next after the archires rank the black
clergy, including the chiefs of monasteries and convents, and after them
the monks. The secular priests are called the white clergy, including
the protoires, or proto-popes, priests, and deacons, together with the
readers and sacristans. These amounted, in 1805, throughout the empire,
to ninety-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty-six. The white clergy
must be married before they can be ordained, but must not marry a second
time; they are at liberty then to enter among the black clergy, and a
way is thus opened for their accession to the higher orders. The whole
empire is divided into thirty-six diocesses, or eparchies, in which are
four hundred and eighty-three cathedrals, and twenty-six thousand, five
hundred and ninety-eight churches. The churches are divided into three
parts. 1. The altar, where stands the holy table, crucifix, &c, which is
separated from the body of the church by a large screen, on which are
painted our Saviour, the virgin, the Apostles, and other saints. Upon a
platform before this are placed the readers and singers, and here the
preacher generally stands behind a movable desk. 2. The nave, or body of
the church, which may be called the inner court. 3. The trapeza, or
outer court. The two last are designed for the congregation, but neither
have any seats. The walls of the church are highly embellished with
Scripture paintings, ornamented with gold, silver, and precious stones,
but no images.

The church service is contained in twenty-four volumes, folio, in the
Slavonian language, which is not well understood by the common people.
Parts of the Scriptures are read in the service; but few, even of the
ecclesiastics, possess a complete Bible. The patriarch of Russia was
formerly almost equal in authority with the czar himself; but Peter the
Great, on the death of the patriarch in 1700, abolished his office, and
appointed an exarch. In 1721 he abolished this office also, and
appointed a “holy legislative synod” for the government of the church,
at the head of which is always placed a layman of rank and eminence. The
monastic life was once so prevalent in this country, that there were
four hundred and seventy-nine convents for men, and seventy-four for
women, in which there were about seventy thousand monks and nuns, &c;
but this kind of life was so much discouraged by Peter the Great and the
Empress Catherine, that the religious are now reduced to about five
thousand monks and seventeen hundred nuns. Great part of their revenues
has also been alienated, and appropriated to the support of hospitals
and houses for the poor.

RUTH. The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a
native of Moab, whose history it contains. It may be considered as a
supplement to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew
canon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a
detached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called Obed,
who was the grandfather of David, which circumstance probably occasioned
her history to be written, as the genealogy of David, from Pharez, the
son of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is here given; and
some commentators have thought, that the descent of our Saviour from
Ruth, a Gentile woman, was an intimation of the comprehensive nature of
the Christian dispensation. We are no where informed when Ruth lived;
but as King David was her great-grandson, we may place her history about
B. C. 1250. This book was certainly written after the birth of David,
and probably by the Prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to
Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The story related in this book is
extremely interesting; the widowed distress of Naomi, her affectionate
concern for her daughters, the reluctant departure of Orpah, the dutiful
attachment of Ruth, and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very
beautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in
Ruth’s industry and attention to Naomi; the elegant charity of Boaz; and
his acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a pleasing contrast
to the turbulent scenes described in the book of the Judges. The
respect, likewise, which the Israelites paid to the law of Moses, and
their observance of ancient customs, are represented in a very lively
and animated manner, Ruth iv. It is a pleasing digression from the
general thread of the sacred history.


SABAOTH, or rather Zabaoth, a Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or
_armies_, יהוה צבאות, _Jehovah Sabaoth, The Lord of Hosts_. By this
phrase we may understand the host of heaven, or the angels and ministers
of the Lord; or the stars and planets, which, as an army ranged in
battle array, perform the will of God; or, lastly, the people of the
Lord, both of the old and new covenant, which is truly a great army, of
which God is the Lord and commander.

SABBATH. The obligation of a sabbatical institution upon Christians, as
well as the extent of it, have been the subjects of much controversy.
Christian churches themselves have differed; and the theologians of the
same church. Much has been written upon the subject on each side, and
much research and learning employed, sometimes to darken a very plain
subject. The question respects the will of God as to this particular
point,--Whether one day in seven is to be wholly devoted to religion,
exclusive of worldly business and worldly pleasures. Now, there are but
two ways in which the will of God can be collected from his word; either
by some explicit injunction upon all, or by incidental circumstances.
Let us then allow, for a moment, that we have no such explicit
injunction; yet we have certainly none to the contrary: let us allow
that we have only for our guidance, in inferring the will of God in this
particular, certain circumstances declarative of his will; yet this
important conclusion is inevitable, that all such indicative
circumstances are in favour of a sabbatical institution, and that there
is not one which exhibits any thing contrary to it. The seventh day was
hallowed at the close of the creation; its sanctity was afterward marked
by the withholding of the manna on that day, and the provision of a
double supply on the sixth, and that previous to the giving of the law
from Sinai: it was then made a part of that great epitome of religious
and moral duty, which God wrote with his own finger on tables of stone;
it was a part of the public political law of the only people to whom
almighty God ever made himself a political Head and Ruler; its
observance is connected throughout the prophetic age with the highest
promises, its violations with the severest maledictions; it was among
the Jews in our Lord’s time a day of solemn religious assembling, and
was so observed by him; when changed to the first day of the week, it
was the day on which the first Christians assembled; it was called, by
way of eminence, “the Lord’s day;” and we have inspired authority to
say, that both under the Old and New Testament dispensations, it is used
as an expressive type of the heavenly and eternal rest. Now, against all
these circumstances so strongly declarative of the will of God, as to
the observance of a sabbatical institution, what circumstance or passage
of Scripture can be opposed, as bearing upon it a contrary indication?
Certainly, not one; for those passages in St. Paul, in which he speaks
of Jewish Sabbaths, with their Levitical rites, and of a distinction of
days, the observance of which marked a weak or a criminal adherence to
the abolished ceremonial dispensation; touch not the Sabbath as a branch
of the moral law, or as it was changed, by the authority of the
Apostles, to the first day of the week. If, then, we were left to
determine the point by inference, the conclusion must be irresistibly in
favour of the institution.

It may also be observed, that those who will so strenuously insist upon
the absence of an express command as to the Sabbath in the writings of
the evangelists and Apostles, as explicit as that of the decalogue,
assume, that the will of God is only obligatory when manifested in some
one mode, which they judge to be most fit. But this is a dangerous
hypothesis; for, however the will of God may be manifested, if it is
with such clearness as to exclude all reasonable doubt, it is equally
obligatory as when it assumes the formality of legal promulgation. Thus
the Bible is not all in the form of express and authoritative command;
it teaches by examples, by proverbs, by songs, by incidental allusions
and occurrences; and yet is, throughout, a manifestation of the will of
God as to morals and religion in their various branches, and, if
disregarded, it will be so at every man’s peril. But strong as this
ground is, we quit it for a still stronger. It is wholly a mistake, that
the Sabbath, because not reënacted with the formality of the decalogue,
is not explicitly enjoined upon Christians, and that the testimony of
Scripture to such an injunction is not unequivocal and irrefragible. The
Sabbath was appointed at the creation of the world, and sanctified, or
set apart for holy purposes, “for man,” for all men, and therefore for
Christians; since there was never any repeal of the original
institution. To this we add, that if the moral law be the law of
Christians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly enjoined upon them as upon
the Jews. But that the moral law is our law, as well as the law of the
Jews, all but Antinomians must acknowledge; and few, we suppose, will be
inclined to run into the fearful mazes of that error, in order to
support lax notions as to the obligation of the Sabbath; into which,
however, they must be plunged, if they deny the law of the decalogue to
be binding. That it is so bound upon us, a few passages of Scripture
will prove as well as many. Our Lord declares, that he “came not to
destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.” Take it, that by “the
law,” he meant both the moral and the ceremonial; ceremonial law could
only be fulfilled in him, by realizing its types; and moral law, by
upholding its authority. For “the prophets,” they admit of a similar
distinction; they either enjoin morality, or utter prophecies of Christ;
the latter of which were fulfilled in the sense of accomplishment, the
former by being sanctioned and enforced. That the observance of the
Sabbath is a part of the moral law, is clear from its being found in the
decalogue, the doctrine of which our Lord sums up in the moral duties of
loving God and our neighbour; and for this reason the injunctions of the
prophets, on the subject of the Sabbath, are to be regarded as a part of
their moral teaching. Some divines have, it is true, called the
observance of the Sabbath a positive, and not a moral precept. If it
were so, its obligation is precisely the same, in all cases where God
himself has not relaxed it; and if a positive precept only, it has
surely a special eminence given to it, by being placed in the list of
the ten commandments, and being capable, with them, of an epitome which
resolves them into the love of God and our neighbour. The truth seems to
be, that it is a mixed precept, and not wholly positive, but intimately,
perhaps essentially connected with several moral principles of homage to
God, and mercy to men; with the obligation of religious _worship_, of
_public_ religious worship, and of _undistracted_ public worship: and
this will account for its collocation in the decalogue with the highest
duties of religion, and the leading rules of personal and social
morality. The passage from our Lord’s sermon on the mount, with its
context, is a sufficiently explicit enforcement of the moral law,
generally, upon his followers; but when he says, “The Sabbath was made
for man,” he clearly refers to its original institution, as a universal
law, and not to its obligation upon the Jews only, in consequence of the
enactments of the law of Moses. It “was made for man,” not as he may be
a Jew, or a Christian; but as man, a creature bound to love, worship,
and obey his God and Maker, and on his trial for eternity.

Another explicit proof that the law of the ten commandments, and,
consequently, the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is
found in the answer of the Apostle to an objection to the doctrine of
justification by faith: “Do we then make void the law through faith?”
Rom. iii, 31; which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach
that the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches
that no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most
solemn form of expression, “God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Now,
the sense in which the Apostle uses the term, “the law,” in this
argument, is indubitably marked in Rom. vii, 7: “I had not known sin but
by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet:” which, being a plain reference to the tenth command of
the decalogue, as plainly shows that the decalogue is “the law” of which
he speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the Gospel;
and this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of
its authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever,
therefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies
the obligation of the whole decalogue; and there is no real medium
between the acknowledgment of the divine authority of this sacred
institution, as a universal law, and that gross corruption of
Christianity, generally designated Antinomianism.

Nor is there any force in the dilemma into which the anti-sabbatarians
would push us, when they argue, that, if the case be so, then are we
bound to the same circumstantial exactitude of obedience with regard to
this command, as to the other precepts of the decalogue; and, therefore,
that we are bound to observe the seventh day, reckoning from Saturday,
as the Sabbath day. But, as the command is partly positive, and partly
moral, it may have circumstances which are capable of being altered in
perfect accordance with the moral principles on which it rests, and the
moral ends which it proposes. Such circumstances are not indeed to be
judged of on our own authority. We must either have such general
principles for our guidance as have been revealed by God, and cannot
therefore be questioned, or some special authority from which there can
be no just appeal. Now, though there is not on record any divine command
issued to the Apostles, to change the Sabbath from the day on which it
was held by the Jews, to the first day of the week; yet, when we see
that this was done in the apostolic age, and that St. Paul speaks of the
Jewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon Christians, while he yet
contends that the whole moral law is obligatory upon them; the fair
inference is, that this change of the day was made by divine direction.
It is indeed more than inference that the change was made under the
sanction of inspired men; and those men, the appointed rulers in the
church of Christ; whose business it was to “set all things in order,”
which pertained to its worship and moral government. We may therefore
rest well enough satisfied with this,--that as a Sabbath is obligatory
upon us, we act under apostolic authority for observing it on the first
day of the week, and thus commemorate at once the creation and the
redemption of the world.

Thus, even if it were conceded, that the change of the day was made by
the agreement of the Apostles, without express directions from Christ,
which is not probable, it is certain that it was not done without that
general authority which was confided to them by Christ; but it would not
follow even from this change, that they did in reality make any
alteration in the law of the Sabbath, either as it stood at the time of
its original institution at the close of the creation, or in the
decalogue of Moses. The same portion of time which constituted the
seventh day from the creation could not be observed in all parts of the
earth; and it is not probable, therefore, that the original law
expresses more, than that a seventh day, or one day in seven, the
seventh day after six days of labour, should be thus appropriated, from
whatever point the enumeration might set out, or the hebdomadal cycle
begin. For if more had been intended, then it would have been necessary
to establish a rule for the reckoning of days themselves, which has been
different in different nations; some reckoning from evening to evening,
as the Jews now do, others from midnight to midnight, &c. So that those
persons in this country and in America, who hold their Sabbath on
Saturday, under the notion of exactly conforming to the Old Testament,
and yet calculate the days from midnight to midnight, have no assurance
at all that they do not desecrate a part of the original Sabbath, which
might begin, as the Jewish Sabbath now, on Friday evening, and, on the
contrary, hallow a portion of a common day, by extending the Sabbath
beyond Saturday evening. Even if this were ascertained, the differences
of latitude and longitude would throw the whole into disorder; and it is
not probable that a universal law should have been fettered with that
circumstantial exactness, which would have rendered difficult, and
sometimes doubtful, astronomical calculations necessary in order to its
being obeyed according to the intention of the lawgiver. Accordingly we
find, says Mr. Holden, that in the original institution it is stated in
general terms, that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, which
must undoubtedly imply the sanctity of every seventh day; but not that
it is to be subsequently reckoned from the first demiurgic day. Had this
been included in the command of the Almighty, something, it is probable,
would have been added declaratory of the intention; whereas expressions
the most undefined are employed; not a syllable is uttered concerning
the order and number of the days; and it cannot reasonably be disputed
that the command is truly obeyed by the separation of every seventh day,
from common to sacred purposes, at whatever given time the cycle may
commence. The difference in the mode of expression here, from that which
the sacred historian has used in the first chapter, is very remarkable.
At the conclusion of each division of the work of creation, he says,
“The evening and the morning were the first day,” and so on; but at the
termination of the whole, he merely calls it the seventh day; a
diversity of phrase, which, as it would be inconsistent with every idea
of inspiration to suppose it undesigned, must have been intended to
denote a day, leaving it to each people as to what manner it is to be
reckoned. The term obviously imports the period of the earth’s rotation
round its axis, while it is left undetermined, whether it shall be
counted from evening or morning, from noon or midnight. The terms of the
law are, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the
Lord thy God. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord
blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” With respect to time, it is
here mentioned in the same indefinite manner as at its primeval
institution, nothing more being expressly required than to observe a day
of sacred rest after every six days of labour. The seventh day is to be
kept holy; but not a word is said as to what epoch the commencement of
the series is to be referred; nor could the Hebrews have determined from
the decalogue what day of the week was to be kept as their Sabbath. The
precept is not, Remember the seventh day of the week, to keep _it_ holy,
but, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;” and in the following
explication of these expressions, it is not said that the seventh day of
the week is the Sabbath, but without restriction, “The seventh day is
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” not the seventh according to any
particular method of computing the septenary cycle, but, in reference to
the six before mentioned, every seventh day in rotation after six of
labour.

Thus that part of the Jewish law, the decalogue, which, on the authority
of the New Testament, we have shown to be obligatory upon Christians,
leaves the computation of the hebdomadal cycle undetermined; and, after
six days of labour, enjoins the seventh as the Sabbath, to which the
Christian practice as exactly conforms as the Jewish. It is not,
however, left to every individual to determine which day should be his
Sabbath, though he should fulfil the law so far as to abstract the
seventh part of his time from labour. It was ordained for worship, for
_public_ worship; and it is therefore necessary that the Sabbath should
be uniformly observed by a whole community at the same time. The divine
Legislator of the Jews interposed for this end, by special direction, as
to his people. The first Sabbath kept in the wilderness was calculated
from the first day in which the manna fell; and with no apparent
reference to the creation of the world. By apostolic authority, it is
now fixed to be held on the first day of the week; and thus one of the
great ends for which it was established, that it should be a day of
“holy convocation,” is secured.

Traces of the original appointment of the Sabbath, and of its observance
prior to the giving forth of the law of Moses, have been found by the
learned in the tradition which universally prevailed of the sacredness
of the number seven, and the fixing of the first period of time to the
revolution of seven days. The measuring of time by a day and night is
pointed out to the common sense of mankind by the diurnal course of the
sun. Lunar months and solar years are equally obvious to all rational
creatures; so that the reason why time has been computed by days,
months, and years, is readily given; but how the division of time into
weeks of seven days, and this from the beginning, came to obtain
universally among mankind, no man can account for, without having
respect to some impressions on the minds of men from the constitution
and law of nature, with the tradition of a sabbatical rest from the
foundation of the world. Yet plain intimations of this weekly revolution
of time are to be found in the earliest Greek poets: Hesiod, Homer,
Linus, as well as among the nations of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks,
and Romans. It deserves consideration, too, on this subject, that Noah,
in sending forth the dove out of the ark, observed the septenary
revolution of days, Gen. viii, 10, 12; and at a subsequent period, in
the days of the Patriarch Jacob, a week is spoken of as a well known
period of time, Gen. xxix, 27; Judges xiv, 12, 15, 17. These
considerations are surely sufficient to evince the futility of the
arguments which are sometimes plausibly urged for the first institution
of the Sabbath under the law; and the design of which, in most cases is,
to set aside the moral obligation of appropriating one day in seven to
the purposes of the public worship of God, and the observation of divine
ordinances. But the truth is, that the seventh day was set apart from
the beginning as a day of rest; and it was also strictly enjoined upon
the Israelites in their law, both on the ground of its original
institution, Exod. xx, 8–11, and also to commemorate their deliverance
from the bondage of Egypt, Deut. v, 15.

“A Sabbath day’s journey” was reckoned to be two thousand cubits, or one
mile, Acts i, 12. The sabbatical year was celebrated among the Jews
every seventh year when the land was left without culture, Exod. xxii,
10. God appointed the observation of the sabbatical year, to preserve
the remembrance of the creation of the world, to enforce the
acknowledgment of his sovereign authority over all things, and in
particular over the land of Canaan, which he had given to the
Israelites, by delivering up the fruits to the poor and the stranger. It
was a sort of tribute, or small rent, by which they held the possession.
Beside, he intended to inculcate humanity upon his people, by commanding
that they should resign to the slaves, the poor, and the strangers, and
to the brutes, the produce of their fields, of their vineyards, and of
their gardens. In the sabbatical year all debts were remitted, and the
slaves were liberated, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 2.

SABEANS, or “men of stature,” Isa. xlv, 14. These men were probably the
Sabeans of Arabia Felix, or of Asia. They submitted to Cyrus. The
Sabeans of Arabia were descended from Saba; but as there are several of
this name, who were all heads of peoples, or of tribes, we must
distinguish several kinds of Sabeans. 1. Those Sabeans who seized the
flocks of Job, i, 15, were, probably, a people of Arabia Deserta, about
Bozra; or, perhaps, a flying troop of Sabeans which infested that
country. 2. Sabeans, descendants from Sheba, son of Cush, Gen. x, 7, are
probably of Arabia Felix: they were famous for spices; the poets gave
them the epithet of soft and effeminate, and say they were governed by
women:

                        _Medis, levibusque Sabæis
                      Imperat hic sexus._

[This sex governs the Medes, and the gentle Sabeans.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and the
rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, the religion of the Samaritans
received another alteration on the following occasion: one of the sons
of Jehoiada, the high priest, whom Josephus calls Manasseh, married the
daughter of Sanballat the Horonite; but the law of God having forbidden
the intermarriages of the Israelites with any other nation, Nehemiah set
himself to reform this corruption, which had spread into many Jewish
families, and obliged all that had taken strange wives immediately to
part with them, Neh. xiii, 23–30. Manasseh, unwilling to surrender his
wife, fled to Samaria; and many others in the same circumstances, and
with similar disposition, went and settled under the protection of
Sanballat, governor of Samaria. Manasseh brought with him some other
apostate priests, with many other Jews, who disliked the regulations
made by Nehemiah at Jerusalem; and now the Samaritans, having obtained a
high priest, and other priests of the descendants from Aaron, were soon
brought off from the worship of the false gods, and became as much
enemies to idolatry as the best of the Jews. However, Manasseh gave them
no other Scriptures beside the Pentateuch, lest, if they had the other
Scriptures, they should then find that Jerusalem was the only place
where they should offer their sacrifices. From that time the worship of
the Samaritans came much nearer to that of the Jews, and they afterward
obtained leave of Alexander the Great to build a temple on Mount
Gerizim, near the city of Samaria, in imitation of the temple at
Jerusalem, where they practised the same forms of worship. To this
mountain and temple the Samaritan woman of Sychar refers in her
discourse with our Saviour, John iv, 20. The Samaritans soon after
revolted from Alexander, who drove them out of Samaria, introduced
Macedonians in their room, and gave the province of Samaria to the Jews.
This circumstance contributed in no small degree to increase the hatred
and animosity between those two people. When any Israelite deserved
punishment on account of the violation of some important point of the
law, he presently took refuge in Samaria or Shechem, and embraced the
worship at the temple of Gerizim. When the affairs of the Jews were
prosperous, the Samaritans did not fail to call themselves Hebrews, and
of the race of Abraham. But when the Jews suffered persecution, the
Samaritans disowned them, and alleged that they were Phenicians
originally, or descended from Joseph, or Manasseh his son. This was
their practice in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is certain, the
modern Samaritans are far from idolatry; some of the most learned among
the Jewish doctors own, that they observe the law of Moses more rigidly
than the Jews themselves. They have a Hebrew copy of the Pentateuch,
differing in some respects from that of the Jews; and written in
different characters, commonly called Samaritan characters; which
Origen, Jerom, and other fathers and critics, ancient and modern, take
to be the primitive character of the ancient Hebrews, though others
maintain the contrary. The point of preference, as to purity, antiquity,
&c, of the two Pentateuchs, is also much disputed by modern critics.

The Samaritans are now few in number; though it is not very long since
they pretended to have priests descended directly from the family of
Aaron. They were chiefly found at Gaza, Neapolis or Shechem, (the
ancient Sichem or Naplouse,) Damascus, Cairo, &c. They had a temple, or
chapel, on Mount Gerizim, where they performed their sacrifices. They
have also synagogues in other parts of Palestine, and also in Egypt.
Joseph Scaliger, being curious to know their usages, wrote to the
Samaritans of Egypt, and to the high priest of the whole sect, who
resided at Neapolis. They returned two answers, dated in the year 998 of
the Hegira of Mohammed. These answers never came to the hands of
Scaliger. They are now in the library at Paris, and have been translated
into Latin by Father Morin, priest of the oratory; and printed in the
collection of letters of that father in England, 1662, under the title
of “_Antiquitates Ecclesiæ Orientalis_.” M. Simon has inserted a French
translation in the first edition of “_Ceremonies et Coutumes des
Juifs_,” in the manner of a supplement to Leo de Modena. In the first of
these answers, written in the name of the assembly of Israel, in Egypt,
they declare that they celebrate the passover every year, on the
fourteenth day of the first month, on Mount Gerizim, and that he who
then did the office of high priest was called Eleazar, a descendant of
Phinehas, son of Aaron. In the second answer, which is in the name of
the high priest Eleazar, and the synagogue of Shechem, they declare,
that they keep the Sabbath in all the rigour with which it is enjoined
in the book of Exodus; none among them stirring out of doors, but to the
synagogue. They add, that they begin the feast of the passover with the
sacrifice appointed for that purpose in Exodus; that they sacrifice no
where else but on Mount Gerizim; that they observe the feasts of
harvest, the expiation, the tabernacles, &c. They add farther, that they
never defer circumcision beyond the eighth day; never marry their
nieces, as the Jews do; have but one wife; and, in fine, do nothing but
what is commanded in the law: whereas the Jews frequently abandon the
law to follow the inventions of their rabbins. At the time when they
wrote to Scaliger, they reckoned one hundred and twenty-two high
priests; affirmed that the Jews had no high priests of the race of
Phinehas; and that the Jews belied them in calling them Cutheans; for
that they are descended from the tribe of Joseph by Ephraim.

SAMSON, son of Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, Judges xiii, 2, &c. We are
no where acquainted with the name of his mother. He was born, A. M.
2849, and was a Nazarite from his infancy, by the divine command. He was
brought up in a place called the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Estaol,
Judges xiii, 25. His extraordinary achievements are particularly
recorded in Judges xiv-xvi. “Faith” is attributed to him by St. Paul,
though whether he retained it to the end of his life may be doubted. He
is not inaptly called by an old writer, “a rough believer.”

SAMUEL, the son of Elkanah and of Hannah, of the tribe of Levi, and
family of Kohath, was born, A. M. 2848. He was an eminent inspired
prophet, historian, and the seventeenth and last Judge of Israel; and
died in the ninety-eighth year of his age, two years before Saul, A. M.
2947, 1 Sam. xxv. To Samuel are ascribed the book of Judges, that of
Ruth, and the first book of Samuel. There is, indeed, great probability
that he composed the first twenty-four chapters of the first book of
Samuel; since they contain nothing but what he might have written, and
such transactions as he was chiefly concerned in. However, in these
chapters there are some small additions, which seem to have been
inserted after his death. Samuel began the order of the prophets, which
was never discontinued till the death of Zechariah and Malachi, Acts
iii, 24. From early youth to hoary years, the character of Samuel is one
on which the mind rests with veneration and delight.

SANBALLAT, the governor of the Cuthites or Samaritans, and an enemy to
the Jews. He was a native of Horon, a city beyond Jordan, in the country
of the Moabites, Neh. ii, 10, 19; iv, vi.

SANCTIFICATION, that work of God’s grace by which we are renewed after
the image of God, set apart for his service, and enabled to die unto sin
and live unto righteousness. Sanctification is either of nature, whereby
we are renewed after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and
true holiness, Eph. iv, 24; Col. iii, 19, or of practice, whereby we die
unto sin, have its power destroyed in us, cease from the love and
practice of it, hate it as abominable, and live unto righteousness,
loving and studying good works, Tit. ii, 11, 12. Sanctification
comprehends all the graces of knowledge, faith, repentance, love,
humility, zeal, patience, &c, and the exercise of them in our conduct
toward God or man, Gal. v, 22–24; 1 Peter i, 15, 16; Matt. v, vi, vii.
Sanctification in this world must be complete; the whole nature must be
sanctified, all sin must be utterly abolished, or the soul can never be
admitted into the glorious presence of God, Heb. xii, 14; 1 Peter i, 15;
Rev. xxi, 27; yet the saints, while here, are in a state of spiritual
warfare with Satan and his temptations, with the world and its
influence, 2 Cor. ii, 11; Gal. v, 17, 24; Rom. vii, 23; 1 John ii, 15,
16.

SANCTIFY. In the Old Testament, to sanctify often denotes to separate
from a common to a holy purpose; to set apart or consecrate to God as
his special property, and for his service. Our Lord also uses this term,
when he says, “For their sakes I sanctify myself,” John xvii, 19; that
is, I separate and dedicate myself to be a sacrifice to God for them,
“that they also may be sanctified through the truth;” that is, that they
may be cleansed from the guilt of sin. Under the law of Moses, there was
a church purity, or ceremonial sanctification, which might be obtained
by the observance of external rites and ordinances, while persons were
destitute of internal purity or holiness. Every defiled person was made
“common,” and excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh to God
in his solemn worship; but in his purification he was again separated to
him, and restored to his sacred right. Hence St. Paul speaks of “the
blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the
unclean, as sanctifying unto the purifying of the flesh,” Heb. ix, 13.
These things were in reality of no moral worth or value; they were
merely typical institutions, intended to represent the blessings of the
new and better covenant, those “good things that were to come;” and
therefore God is frequently spoken of in the prophets as despising them,
namely, in any other view than that for which his wisdom had ordained
them, Isaiah i, 11–15; Psalm 1, 8, 9; li, 16. But that dispensation is
now at an end; under the New Testament, the state of things is changed,
for now “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature.” The thing signified, namely, internal purity and
holiness, is no less necessary to a right to the privileges of the
Gospel, than the observance of those external rites was unto the
privileges of the law.

SANCTUARY. See TEMPLE.

SANDALS, at first, were only soles tied to the feet with strings or
thongs; afterward they were covered; and at last they called even shoes
sandals. When Judith went to the camp of Holofernes, she put sandals on
her feet; and her sandals ravished his eyes, Judith x, 4; xvi, 9. They
were a magnificent kind of buskins proper only to ladies of condition,
and such as dressed themselves for admiration. But there were sandals
also belonging to men, and of mean value. We read, “If the man like not
to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the
gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother will not perform the
duty of a husband’s brother; then shall his brother’s wife come unto
him, in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his
foot, and spit in his face; and shall say, So shall it be done unto that
man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be
called in Israel, The house of him who hath had his shoe loosed,”
Deuteronomy xxv, 7. A late writer observes that the word rendered
“shoe,” usually means “sandal,” that is, a mere sole fastened on the
foot in a very simple manner; and that the primary and radical meaning
of the word rendered _face_, is surface, the superficies of any thing.
Hence he would submit, that the passage may be to the following purpose:
The brother’s wife shall loose the sandal from off the foot of her
husband’s brother; and shall spit upon its face or surface, (that is, of
the shoe,) and shall say, &c. This ceremony is coincident with certain
customs among the Turks. We are told that in a complaint against her own
husband, for withholding himself from her intimacy, the wife when before
the judge takes off her own shoe, and spits upon it; but in case of
complaint against her husband’s brother, she takes off his shoe and
spits upon it.

The business of untying and carrying the sandals being that of a
servant, the expressions of the Baptist, “whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear,” “whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose,” was an
acknowledgment of his great inferiority to Christ, and that Christ was
his Lord. To pull off the sandals on entering a sacred place, or the
house of a person of distinction, was the usual mark of respect. They
were taken care of by the attendant servant. At the doors of an Indian
pagoda, there are as many sandals and slippers hung up, as there are
hats in our places of worship.

SANHEDRIM, SANHEDRIN, or SYNEDRIUM, among the ancient Jews, the supreme
council, or court of judicature, of that republic; in which were
despatched all the great affairs both of religion and policy. The word
is derived from the Greek συνέδριον, a council, assembly, or company of
people sitting together; from σὺν, _together_, and hήδρα, _a seat_. Many
of the learned agree, that it was instituted by Moses, Numbers xi; and
consisted at first of seventy elders, who judged finally of all causes
and affairs; and that they subsisted, without intermission, from Moses
to Ezra, Deut. xxvii, 1; xxxi, 9; Josh. xxiv, 1, 31; Judg. ii, 7; 2
Chron. xix, 8; Ezek. viii, 11. Others will have it, that the council of
seventy elders, established by Moses, was temporary, and did not hold
after his death; adding, that we find no sign of any such perpetual and
infallible tribunal throughout the whole Old Testament; and that the
sanhedrim was first set up in the time when the Maccabees, or Asmoneans,
took upon themselves the administration of the government under the
title of high priests, and afterward of kings, that is, after the
persecution of Antiochus. This is by far the most probable opinion. The
Jews, however, contend strenuously for the antiquity of their great
sanhedrim: M. Simon strengthens and defends their proofs, and M. Le
Clerc attacks them. Whatever may be the origin and establishment of the
sanhedrim, it is certain that it was subsisting in the time of our
Saviour, since it is spoken of in the Gospels, Matt. v, 21; Mark xiii,
9; xiv, 55; xv, 1; and since Jesus Christ himself was arraigned and
condemned by it; that it was held at Jerusalem; and that the decision of
all the most important affairs among the Jews belonged to it. The
president of this assembly was called _nasi_, or prince; his deputy was
called _abbeth-din_, father of the house of judgment; and the sub-deputy
was called _chacan_, the wise: the rest were denominated _tzekanim_,
elders or senators. The room in which they sat was a rotunda, half of
which was built without the temple, and half within; that is, one
semicircle of the room was within the compass of the temple; and as it
was never allowed to sit down in the temple, they tell us this part was
for those who stood up; the other half, or semicircle, extended without
the holy place, and here the judges sat. The nasi, or prince, sat on a
throne at the end of the hall, having his deputy at his right hand, and
his sub-deputy at his left; the other senators were ranged in order on
each side.

The sanhedrim subsisted until the destruction of Jerusalem, but its
authority was almost reduced to nothing, from the time in which the
Jewish nation became subject to the Roman empire. The rabbins pretend,
that the sanhedrim has always subsisted in their nation from the time of
Moses to the destruction of the temple by the Romans; and they maintain
that it consisted of seventy counsellors, six out of each tribe, and
Moses as president; and thus the number was seventy-one: but six
senators out of each tribe make the number seventy-two, which, with the
president, constitute a council of seventy-three persons, and therefore
it has been the opinion of some authors that this was the number of the
members of the sanhedrim. As to the personal qualifications of the
judges of this court, it was required that they should be of untainted
birth; and they were often of the race of the priests or Levites, or of
the number of inferior judges, or of the lesser sanhedrim, which
consisted of twenty-three judges. They were to be skilful in the written
and traditional law; and they were obliged to study magic, divination,
fortune telling, physic, astrology, arithmetic, and languages. It was
also required, that none of them should be eunuchs, usurers, decrepid or
deformed, or gamesters; and that they should be of mature age, rich, and
of good countenance and body. Thus say the rabbins.

The authority of the sanhedrim was very extensive. This council decided
causes brought before it by appeal from inferior courts. The king, high
priest, and prophets were subject to its jurisdiction. The general
officers of the nation were brought before the sanhedrim. How far their
right of judging in capital cases extended, and how long it continued,
have been subjects of controversy. Among the rabbins it has been a
generally received opinion, that about forty years before the
destruction of Jerusalem, their nation had been deprived of the power of
life and death. And most authors assert, that this privilege was taken
from them ever since Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, that
is, after the banishment of Archelaus. Others, however, maintain that
the Jews had still the power of life and death; but that this privilege
was restricted to crimes committed against their law, and depended upon
the governor’s will and pleasure. In the time of Moses, this council was
held at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony. As soon as the
people were in possession of the land of promise, the sanhedrim followed
the tabernacle, and it continued at Jerusalem, whither it was removed,
till the captivity. During the captivity it was kept at Babylon. After
the return from Babylon, it remained at Jerusalem, as it is said, to the
time of the sicarii or assassins; afterward it was removed to Jamnia,
thence to Jericho, to Uzzah, to Sepharvaim, to Bethsamia, to Sephoris,
and last of all to Tiberias, where it continued till its utter
extinction. Such is the account which the Jews give of their sanhedrim.
But, as stated above, much of this is disputed. Petau fixes the
beginning of the sanhedrim to the period when Gabinius was governor of
Judea, by whom were erected tribunals in the five cities of Judea,
namely, Jerusalem, Gadara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sephoris. Grotius
agrees in the date of its commencement with the rabbins, but he fixes
its termination at the beginning of Herod’s reign. Basnage places it
under Judas Maccabæus and his brother Jonathan. Upon the whole, it may
be observed, that the origin of the sanhedrim has not been
satisfactorily ascertained; and that the council of the seventy elders,
established by Moses, was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of
sanhedrim.

Before the death of our Saviour, two very famous rabbins had been
presidents of the sanhedrim, namely Hillel and Schammai, who entertained
very different opinions on several subjects, and particularly that of
divorce. This gave occasion to the question which the Pharisees put to
Jesus Christ upon that head, Matt. xix, 3. (See _Divorce_.) Hillel had
Menahem for his associate in the presidency of the sanhedrim. But the
latter afterward deserted that honourable post, and joined himself with
a great number of his disciples, to the party of Herod Antipas, who
promoted the levying of taxes for the use of the Roman emperors with all
his might. These were probably the Herodians mentioned in the Gospel,
Matt. xxii, 16. To Hillel succeeded Simeon his son, who by some is
supposed to have been the person who took Jesus Christ in his arms, Luke
ii, 28, and publicly acknowledged him to be the Messiah. If this be the
case, the Jewish sanhedrim had for president a person that was entirely
disposed to embrace Christianity. Gamaliel, the son and successor of
Simeon, seems to have been also of a candid disposition and character.
There were several inferior sanhedrims in Palestine, all depending on
the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem. The inferior sanhedrim consisted each
of twenty-three persons; and there was one in each city and town. Some
say, that to have a right to hold a sanhedrim, it was requisite there
should be one hundred and twenty inhabitants in the place. Where the
inhabitants came short of the number of one hundred and twenty, they
only established three judges. In the great as well as the inferior
sanhedrim were two scribes; the one to write down the suffrages of those
who were for condemnation, the other to take down the suffrages of those
who were for absolution.

SAPPHIRE, ספיר, Exod. xxiv, 10; xxviii, 18; Job xxviii, 6, 16; Cantic.
v, 14; Isa. liv, 11; Ezek. i, 26; x, 1; xxviii, 13, σάϖφειρος, Rev. xxi,
19, only. That this is the sapphire, there can be no doubt. The
Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the general run of commentators, ancient
and modern, agree in this. The sapphire is a pellucid gem. In its finest
state it is extremely beautiful and valuable, and second only to the
diamond in lustre, hardness, and value. Its proper colour is pure blue;
in the choicest specimens it is of the deepest azure; and in others
varies into paleness, in shades of all degrees between that and a pure
crystal brightness, without the least tinge of colour, but with a lustre
much superior to the crystal. The oriental sapphire is the most
beautiful and valuable. It is transparent, of a fine sky colour,
sometimes variegated with veins of a white sparry substance, and
distinct separate spots of a gold colour. Whence it is that the prophets
describe the throne of God like unto sapphire, Ezek. i, 26; x, 1.
Isaiah, liv, 11, 12, prophesying the future grandeur of Jerusalem, says,

    “Behold, I lay thy stones in cement of vermilion,
    And thy foundations with sapphires:
    And I will make thy battlements of rubies,
    And thy gates of carbuncles;
    And the whole circuit of thy walls shall be of precious stones.”

“These seem,” says Bishop Lowth, “to be general images to express
beauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the
ideas of the eastern nations; and to have never been intended to be
strictly scrutinized, or minutely and particularly explained, as if they
had each of them some precise moral or spiritual meaning.” Tobit, xiii,
16, 17, in his prophecy of the final restoration of Israel, describes
the New Jerusalem in the same oriental manner: “For Jerusalem shall be
built up with sapphires, and emeralds, and precious stones; thy walls,
and towers, and battlements, with pure gold. And the streets of
Jerusalem shall be paved with the beryl and carbuncle, and with stones
of Ophir,” Rev. xxi, 18–21.

SARAH, the wife of Abraham, and his sister, as he himself informs us, by
the same father, but not the same mother, Gen. xx, 12. See ABRAHAM.

SARDIS, a city of Asia Minor, and formerly the capital of Crœsus,
king of the Lydians. The church of Sardis was one of the seven churches
of Asia, to which the writer of the Apocalypse was directed to send an
epistle, Rev. iii, 1–3.

SARDIUS, אדם, so called from its redness, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10;
Ezek. xxviii, 13; σάρδιος, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a blood-red
colour. It took its Greek name from Sardis, where the best of them were
found.

SARDONYX, σαρδόνυξ, Rev. xxi, 20. A precious stone which seems to have
its name from its resemblance partly to the sardius and partly to the
onyx. It is generally tinged with black and blood colour, which are
distinguished from each other by circles or rows, so distinct that they
appear to be the effect of art.

SATAN signifies an adversary or enemy, and is commonly applied in the
Scriptures to the devil, or the chief of the fallen angels. By
collecting the passages where Satan, or the devil, is mentioned, it may
be concluded, that he fell from heaven with his company; that God cast
him down from thence for the punishment of his pride; that by his envy
and malice, sin, death, and all other evils came into the world; that,
by the permission of God he exercises a sort of government in the world
over subordinate apostate angels like himself; that God makes use of him
to prove good men, and chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in
the mouth of false prophets and seducers; that it is he, or his agents,
that torment or possess men, and inspire them with evil designs, as when
he suggested to David, the numbering of the people, to Judas to betray
his Lord and Master, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal the price of
their field; that he is full of rage like a roaring lion, and of
subtlety like a serpent, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve
us in guilt and wickedness; that his power and malice are restrained
within certain limits, and controlled by the will of God; in a word,
that he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavours to
rob God of his glory, and men of their souls. See DEVIL and DEMONIACS.

SAUL, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, the first king of the
Israelites, 1 Sam. ix, 1, 2, &c. Saul’s fruitless journey when seeking
his father’s asses; (See _Ass_;) his meeting the Prophet Samuel; the
particulars foretold to him, with his being anointed as king, about A.
M. 2909; his prophesying along with the young prophets; his appointment
by the lot; his modesty in hiding himself; his first victory over the
Ammonites; his rash sacrifice in the absence of Samuel; his equally rash
curse; his victories over the Philistines and Amalekites; his sparing of
King Agag with the judgment denounced against him for it; his jealousy
and persecution of David; his barbarous massacre of the priests and
people of Nob; his repeated confessions of his injustice to David, &c,
are recorded in 1 Sam. ix-xxxi. He reigned forty years, but exhibited to
posterity a melancholy example of a monarch, elevated to the summit of
worldly grandeur, who, having cast off the fear of God, gradually became
the slave of jealousy, duplicity, treachery, and the most malignant and
diabolical tempers. His behaviour toward David shows him to have been
destitute of every generous and noble sentiment that can dignify human
nature; and it is not an easy task to speak with any moderation of the
atrocity and baseness which uniformly mark it. His character is that of
a wicked man, “waxing worse and worse;” but while we are shocked at its
deformity, it should be our study to profit by it, which we can only do
by using it as a beacon to warn us, “lest we also be hardened through
the deceitfulness of sin.”

SCARLET, תולעת, Gen. xxxviii, 28; Exod. xxv, 4. This tincture or colour
expressed by a word which signifies worm colour, was produced from a
worm or insect which grew in a coccus, or excrescence of a shrub of the
ilex kind, which Pliny calls “coccus scolecius,” the wormy berry, and
Dioscorides terms “a small dry twig, to which the grains adhere like
lentiles:” but these grains, as a great author observes on Solinus, “are
within full of little worms or maggots, whose juice is remarkable for
dying scarlet, and making that famous colour which we admire, and with
which the ancients were enraptured.” We retain the name in the
cochineal, from the opuntia of America; but we improperly call a mineral
colour “vermilion,” which is derived from _vermiculus_, a little worm.
The shrub on which the cochineal insect is found is sometimes called the
“kermez oak,” from _kermez_, the Arabic word both for the worm and the
colour; whence “carmasinus,” the French “cramoisi,” and the English
“crimson.”

SCEPTRE, a word derived from the Greek, properly signifies, a rod of
command, a staff of authority, which is supposed to be in the hands of
kings, governors of a province, or of the chief of a people, Gen. xlix,
10; Numb. xxiv, 17; Isa. xiv, 5. The sceptre is put for the rod of
correction, and for the sovereign authority that punishes and humbles,
Psalm ii, 9; Prov. xxii, 15. The term sceptre is frequently used for a
tribe, probably because the prince of each tribe carried a sceptre, or a
wand of command, to show his dignity.

SCEVA, a Jew, and chief of the priests, Acts xix, 14, 15, 16. He was
probably a person of authority in the synagogue at Ephesus, and had
seven sons.

SCHISM, from σχίσμα, a rent or fissure. In its general meaning, it
signifies division or separation; and in particular, on account of
religion. Schism, is properly a division among those who stand in one
connection or fellowship; but when the difference is carried so far that
the parties concerned entirely break off all communion and intercourse
one with another, and form distinct connections for obtaining the
general ends of that religious fellowship which they once cultivated; it
is undeniable there is something different from the schism spoken of in
the New Testament. This is a separation from the body. Dr. Campbell
shows that the word schism in Scripture does not usually signify an open
separation, but that men may be guilty of schism by such an alienation
of affection from their brethren as violates the internal union in the
hearts of Christians, though there be no error in doctrine, nor
separation from communion.

SCORPION, עקרב, Deut. viii, 15; 1 Kings xii, 11, 14; 2 Chron. x, 11, 14;
Ezek. ii, 6, σκορϖίος, Luke x, 19; xi, 12; Rev. ix, 3; Ecclus. xxvi, 7;
xxxix, 30. Parkhurst derives the name from עק, to _press_, _squeeze_,
and רב, _much_, _greatly_, or קרב, _near_, _close_. Calmet remarks, that
“it fixes so violently on such persons as it seizes upon, that it cannot
be plucked off without difficulty;” and Martinius declares: _Habent
scorpii forfices seu furcas tanquam brachia, quibus retinent quod
apprehendunt, postquam caudæ aculeo punxerunt_: “Scorpions have pincers
or nippers, with which they keep hold of what they seize after they have
wounded it with their sting.”

The scorpion, _el-akerb_, is generally two inches in length, and
resembles so much the lobster in form, that the latter is called by the
Arabs _akerb d’elbahar_, the “sea scorpion.” It has several joints or
divisions in its tail, which are supposed to be indicative of its age;
thus, if it have five, it is considered to be five years old. The poison
of this animal is in its tail, at the end of which is a small, curved,
sharp-pointed sting, similar to the prickle of a buckthorn tree; the
curve being downward, it turns its tail upward when it strikes a blow.
The scorpion delights in stony places and in old ruins. Some are of a
yellow colour, others brown, and some black. The yellow possess the
strongest poison, but the venom of each affects the part wounded, with
frigidity, which takes place soon after the sting has been inflicted.
Dioscorides thus describes the effect produced: “Where the scorpion has
stung, the place becomes inflamed and hardened; it reddens by tension,
and is painful by intervals, being now chilly, now burning. The pain
soon rises high, and rages, sometimes more, sometimes less. A sweating
succeeds, attended by a shivering and trembling; the extremities of the
body become cold; the groin swells; the hair stands on end; the visage
becomes pale; and the skin feels, throughout it, the sensation of
perpetual prickling, as if by needles.” This description strikingly
illustrates Revelation ix, 3–5, 10, in its mention of “the torment of a
scorpion, when he striketh a man.”

Some writers consider the scorpion as a species of serpent, because the
poison of it is equally powerful: so the sacred writers commonly join
the scorpion and serpent together in their descriptions. Thus Moses, in
his farewell address to Israel, Deut. viii, 15, reminds them, that God
“led them through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery
serpents and scorpions.” We find them again united in the commission of
our Lord to his disciples, Luke x, 19, “I give you power to tread upon
serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy;” and in his
directions concerning the duty of prayer, Luke xi, 11, 12, “If a son
shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a
stone? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?”

The scorpion is contrasted with an _egg_, on account of the oval shape
of its body. The body of the scorpion, says Lamy, is very like an egg,
as its head can scarcely be distinguished; especially if it be a
scorpion of the white kind, which is the first species mentioned by
Ælian, Avicenna, and others. Bochart has produced testimonies to prove
that the scorpions in Judea were about the bigness of an egg. So the
similitude is preserved between the thing asked and given. The Greeks
have a proverb, ἀντὶ ϖέρκης σκορπίον, _instead of a perch_, or fish, _a
scorpion_.

SCOURGE or WHIP. This punishment was very common among the Jews, Deut.
xxv, 1–3. There were two ways of giving the lash; one with thongs, or
whips, made of ropes’ ends, or straps of leather; the other with rods,
or twigs. St. Paul informs us, that at five different times he received
thirty-nine stripes from the Jews, 2 Cor. xi, 24, namely, in their
synagogues, and before their courts of judgment. For, according to the
law, punishment by stripes was restricted to forty at one beating, Deut.
xxv, 3. But the whip, with which these stripes were given, consisting of
three separate cords, and each stroke being accounted as three stripes,
thirteen strokes made thirty-nine stripes, beyond which they never went.
He adds, that he had been thrice beaten with rods, namely, by the Roman
lictors, or beadles, at the command of the superior magistrates.

SCRIBES. The scribes are mentioned very early in the sacred history, and
many authors suppose that they were of two descriptions, the one
ecclesiastical, the other civil. It is said, “Out of Zebulon come they
that handle the pen of the writer,” Judges v, 14; and the rabbins state,
that the scribes were chiefly of the tribe of Simeon; but it is thought
that only those of the tribe of Levi were allowed to transcribe the Holy
Scriptures. These scribes are very frequently called wise men, and
counsellors; and those of them who were remarkable for writing well were
held in great esteem. In the reign of David, Seraiah, 2 Sam. viii, 17,
in the reign of Hezekiah, Shebna, 2 Kings xviii, 18, and in the reign of
Josiah, Shaphan, 2 Kings xxii, 3, are called scribes, and are ranked
with the chief officers of the kingdom; and Elishama the scribe, Jer.
xxxvi, 12, in the reign of Jehoiakim, is mentioned among the princes. We
read also of the “principal scribe of the host,” or army, Jer. lii, 25;
and it is probable that there were scribes in other departments of the
state. Previous to the Babylonian captivity, the word scribe seems to
have been applied to any person who was concerned in writing, in the
same manner as the word secretary is with us. The civil scribes are not
mentioned in the New Testament.

It appears that the office of the ecclesiastical scribes, if this
distinction be allowed, was originally confined to writing copies of the
law, as their name imports; but the knowledge, thus necessarily
acquired, soon led them to become instructers of the people in the
written law, which, it is believed, they publicly read. Baruch was an
amanuensis or scribe to Jeremiah; and Ezra is called “a ready scribe in
the law of Moses, having prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord,
and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments,” Ezra vii,
6, 10; but there is no mention of the scribes being formed into a
distinct body of men till after the cessation of prophecy. When,
however, there were no inspired teachers in Israel, no divine oracle in
the temple, the scribes presumed to interpret, expound, and comment upon
the law and the prophets in the schools and in the synagogues. Hence
arose those numberless glosses, and interpretations, and opinions, which
so much perplexed and perverted the text instead of explaining it; and
hence arose that unauthorized maxim, which was the principal source of
all the Jewish sects, that the oral or traditionary law was of Divine
origin, as well as the written law of Moses. Ezra had examined the
various traditions concerning the ancient and approved usages of the
Jewish church, which had been in practice before the captivity, and were
remembered by the chief and most aged of the elders of the people; and
he had given to some of these traditionary customs and opinions the
sanction of his authority. The scribes, therefore, who lived after the
time of Simon the Just, in order to give weight to their various
interpretations of the law, at first pretended that they also were
founded upon tradition, and added them to the opinions which Ezra had
established as authentic; and in process of time it came to be asserted,
that when Moses was forty days on Mount Sinai, he received from God two
laws, the one in writing, the other oral; that this oral law was
communicated by Moses to Aaron and Joshua, and that it passed unimpaired
and uncorrupted from generation to generation, by the tradition of the
elders, or great national council, established in the time of Moses; and
that this oral law was to be considered as supplemental and explanatory
of the written law, which was represented as being in many places
obscure, scanty, and defective. In some cases they were led to expound
the law by the traditions, in direct opposition to its true intent and
meaning; and it may be supposed that the intercourse of the Jews with
the Greeks, after the death of Alexander, contributed much to increase
those vain subtleties with which they had perplexed and burdened the
doctrines of religion. During our Saviour’s ministry, the scribes were
those who made the law of Moses their particular study, and who were
employed in instructing the people. Their reputed skill in the
Scriptures induced Herod, Matt. ii, 4, to consult them concerning the
time at which the Messiah was to be born. And our Saviour speaks of them
as sitting in Moses’s seat, Matt. xxiii, 2, which implies that they
taught the law; and he foretold that he should be betrayed unto the
chief priests and unto the scribes, Matt. xvi, 21, and that they should
put him to death, which shows that they were men of great power and
authority among the Jews. Scribes, doctors of law, and lawyers, were
only different names for the same class of persons. Those who in Luke v,
are called Pharisees and doctors of the law, are soon afterward called
Pharisees and scribes; and he who, in Matt. xxii, 35, is called a
lawyer, is, in Mark xii, 28, called one of the scribes. They had
scholars under their care, whom they taught the knowledge of the law,
and who, in their schools, sat on low stools just beneath their seats;
which explains St. Paul’s expression that he was “brought up at the feet
of Gamaliel,” Acts xxii, 3. We find that our Saviour’s manner of
teaching was contrasted with that of those vain disputers; for it is
said, when he had ended his sermon upon the mount, “the people were
astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having authority,
and not as the scribes,” Matt. vii, 29. By the time of our Saviour, the
scribes had, indeed, in a manner, laid aside the written law, having no
farther regard to that than as it agreed with their traditionary
expositions of it; and thus, by their additions, corruptions, and
misinterpretations, they had made “the word of God of none effect
through their traditions,” Matt. xv, 6. It may be observed, that this in
a great measure accounts for the extreme blindness of the Jews with
respect to their Messiah, whom they had been taught by these
commentators upon the prophecies to expect as a temporal prince. Thus,
when our Saviour asserts his divine nature, and appeals to “Moses and
the prophets who spake of him, the people sought to slay him,” John v;
and he expresses no surprise at their intention. But when he converses
with Nicodemus, John iii, who appears to have been convinced by his
miracles that he was “a teacher sent from God,” when he “came to Jesus
by night,” anxious to obtain farther information concerning his nature
and his doctrine, our Lord, after intimating the necessity of laying
aside all prejudices against the spiritual nature of his kingdom, asks,
“Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” that is,
knowest not that Moses and the prophets describe the Messiah as the Son
of God? and he then proceeds to explain in very clear language the
dignity of his person and office, and the purpose for which he came into
the world, referring to the predictions of the ancient Scriptures. And
Stephen, Acts vii, just before his death, addresses the multitude by an
appeal to the law and the prophets, and reprobates in the most severe
terms the teachers who misled the people. Our Lord, when speaking of
“them of old time,” classed the “prophets, and wise men, and scribes,”
together, Matt. xxiii, 34; but of the later scribes he uniformly speaks
with censure and indignation, and usually joins them with the Pharisees,
to which sect they in general belonged. St. Paul asks, 1 Cor. i, 20,
“Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this
world?” with evident contempt for such as, “professing themselves wise
above what was written, became fools.”

SCRIPTURE, a term most commonly used to denote the writings of the Old
and New Testament, which are sometimes called The Scriptures, sometimes
the sacred or holy writings, and sometimes canonical scripture. See
BIBLE.

SEA. The Hebrews gave the name of sea to all great collections of water,
to great lakes or pools. Thus the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, or of
Cinnereth, is no other than the lake of Tiberias, or Gennesareth, in
Galilee. The Dead Sea, the sea of the Wilderness, the sea of the East,
the sea of Sodom, the sea of Salt, or the Salt Sea, the sea of
Asphaltites, or of bitumen, is no other than the lake of Sodom. The
Arabians and orientals in general frequently gave the name of sea to
great rivers, as the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, and others, which,
by their magnitude, and by the extent of their overflowings, seemed as
little seas, or great lakes. In Isa. xi, 15, these words particularly
apply to the Nile at the Delta.

SEAL. The ancient Hebrews wore their seals or signets, in rings on their
fingers, or in bracelets on their arms, as is now the custom in the
east. Haman sealed the decree of King Ahasuerus against the Jews with
the king’s seal, Esther iii, 12. The priests of Bel desired the king to
seal the door of their temple with his own seal. The spouse in the
Canticles, viii, 6, wishes that his spouse would wear him as a signet on
her arm. Pliny observes, that the use of seals or signets was rare at
the time of the Trojan war, and that they were under the necessity of
closing their letters with several knots. But among the Hebrews they are
much more ancient. Judah left his seal as a pledge with Tamar, Gen.
xxxviii, 25. Moses says, Deut. xxxii, 34, that God keeps sealed up in
his treasuries, under his own seal, the instruments of his vengeance.
Job says, ix, 7, that he keeps the stars as under his seal, and allows
them to appear when he thinks proper. He says also, “My transgression is
sealed up in a bag,” Job xiv, 7. When they intended to seal up a letter,
or a book, they wrapped it round with flax, or thread, then applied the
wax to it, and afterward the seal. The Lord commanded Isaiah to tie up
or wrap up the book in which his prophecies were written, and to seal
them till the time he should bid him publish them, Isaiah viii, 16, 17.
He gives the same command to Daniel, xii, 4. The book that was shown to
St. John the evangelist, Rev. v, 1; vi, 1, 2, &c, was sealed with seven
seals. It was a rare thing to affix such a number of seals; but this
insinuated the great importance and secrecy of the matter. In civil
contracts they generally made two originals: one continued open, and was
kept by him for whose interest the contract was made; the other was
sealed and deposited in some public office.

SECEDERS, a numerous body of Presbyterians in Scotland, who, in the last
century, seceded from the Scotch establishment. They did not, as they
have uniformly declared, secede from the principles of the church of
Scotland, as they are represented in her confession of faith,
catechisms, longer and shorter, directory for worship, and form of
Presbyterian government; but only from her present judicatories, that,
they suppose, have departed from her true principles. A sermon preached
by Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, of Stirling, at the opening of the synod of
Perth and Sterling, in 1732, gave rise to this party. In this discourse,
founded on Psalm cxviii, 22, “The stone which the builders refused,” &c,
he boldly testified against what he supposed corruptions in the national
church; for which freedom the synod voted him censurable, and ordered
him to be rebuked at their bar. He, and three other ministers, protested
against this sentence, and appealed to the next assembly. The assembly,
which met in May, 1733, approved of the proceedings of the synod, and
ordered Mr. Erskine to be rebuked at their bar. He refused to submit to
the rebuke; whence he and his brethren were, by the sentence of the
assembly, suspended from the ministry. Against this, he and his friends
protested; and, being joined by many others, both ministers and elders,
declaring their secession from the national church, they did, in 1736,
constitute themselves into an ecclesiastical court, which they called
the Associate Presbytery, and published a defence of their proceedings.
They admit that the people have a right to choose their own pastors;
that the Scriptures are the supreme judge by which all controversies
must be determined; and that Jesus Christ is the only Head of his
church, and the only King in Zion.

In 1745, the seceding ministers were become so numerous, that they were
erected into three different presbyteries, under one synod. In 1747,
through a difference in civil matters, they were divided into Burghers
and Anti-Burghers. Of these two classes, the latter were the most rigid
in their sentiments, and associated, therefore, the least with any other
body of Christians. But this difference has been lately healed, and no
longer subsists, either in Scotland or America.

SECHEM, SICHEM, SYCHEM, or SHECHEM, called also Sychar in the New
Testament, afterward Neapolis, and in the present day Nablous, Naplous,
Napolose, and Naplosa, (for it is thus variously written,) a city of
Samaria, near the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of Hamor, the
father of Shechem, and gave to his son Joseph. Here Joseph’s bones were
brought out of Egypt to be interred; and on the same piece of ground was
the well called Jacob’s well, at which our Saviour sat down when he had
the memorable conversation with the woman of Samaria, John iv, which
caused her, and many other inhabitants of Sechem, or Sychar, as it is
there called, to receive him as the Messiah. On contemplating this place
and its vicinity, Dr. E. D. Clarke says, “The traveller directing his
footsteps toward its ancient sepulchres, as everlasting as the rocks in
which they are hewn, is permitted, upon the authority of sacred and
indisputable record, to contemplate the spot where the remains of
Joseph, of Eleazer, and of Joshua, were severally deposited. If any
thing connected with the memory of past ages be calculated to awaken
local enthusiasm, the land around this city is preëminently entitled to
consideration. The sacred story of events transacted in the field of
Sichem, from our earliest years, is remembered with delight; but with
the territory before our eyes where those events took place, and in the
view of objects existing as they were described above three thousand
years ago, the grateful impression kindles into ecstacy. Along the
valley, we beheld ‘a company of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead,’ as in
the days of Reuben and Judah, ‘with their camels bearing spicery, and
balm, and myrrh,’ who would gladly have purchased another Joseph of his
brethren, and conveyed him as a slave to some Potiphar in Egypt. Upon
the hills around flocks and herds were feeding, as of old; nor in the
simple garb of the shepherds of Samaria was there any thing repugnant to
the notions we may entertain of the appearance presented by the sons of
Jacob.” The celebrated well called Jacob’s well, but which, with the
inhabitants of Sechem, is known by the name of _Bir Samaria_, or the
“Well of Samaria,” is situated about half an hour’s walk east of the
town.

SEEING. To see, in Scripture, is often used to express the sense of
vision, knowledge of spiritual things, and even the supernatural
knowledge of hidden things, of prophecy, of visions, of ecstacies.
Whence it is that formerly those were called seers who afterward were
termed, _nabi_, or prophets; and that prophecies were called visions.
Moreover, to see, is used for expressing all kinds of sensations. It is
said in Exodus, xx, 18, that the Israelites saw voices, thunder,
lightning, the sounding of the trumpet, and the whole mountain of Sinai
covered with clouds, or smoke. And St. Austin observes, that the verb,
to see, is applied to all the five natural senses; to see, to hear, to
smell, to taste, to touch. “To see goodness,” is to enjoy it. “To see
the goodness of the Lord,” Psalm xxvii, 13; that is, to enjoy the mercy
or blessing which God hath promised. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God;” that is, they shall have the perfect and immediate
fruition of the glorious presence of God in heaven; or they shall
understand the mysteries of salvation; they shall perceive the loving
kindness of God toward them in this life, and shall at length perfectly
enjoy him in heaven.

SEIR, the Horite, whose dwelling was to the east and south of the Dead
Sea, in the mountains of Seir, Genesis xiv, 6; xxxvi, 20; Deuteronomy
ii, 12; where at first reigned the descendants of Seir the Horite, of
whom Moses gives us a list in Genesis xxxvi, 20, 21–30; 1 Chron. 38, 39,
&c. The posterity of Esau afterward were in possession of the mountains
of Seir, and Esau himself dwelt there when Jacob returned from
Mesopotamia, Gen. xxxiii, 3; xxxiii, 14; xxxvi, 8, 9.

SEIR, MOUNT, a mountainous tract, extending from the southern extremity
of the Dead Sea, to the gulf of Acaba, or Ezion-Geber. The whole of this
tract was probably before called Mount Hor, and was inhabited by the
Horites, the descendants, as it is thought, of Hor, who is no otherwise
known, and whose name is now only retained in that part of the plain
where Aaron died. These people were driven out from their country by the
Edomites, or the children of Esau, who dwelt there in their stead, and
were in possession of this region when the Israelites passed by in their
passage from Egypt to the land of Canaan. The country had, however, been
previously overrun, and no doubt very much depopulated, by the invasion
of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. At what time the name of Hor was changed
to that of Seir cannot be ascertained. Mount Seir rises abruptly on its
western side from the valleys of El Ghor and El Araba; presenting an
impregnable front to the strong country of the Edomite mountaineers,
which compelled the Israelites, who were unable (if permitted by their
leader) to force a passage through this mountain barrier, to skirt its
western base, along the great valley of the Ghor and Araba, and so to
“compass the land of Edom by the way of the Red Sea,” that is, to
descend to its southern extremity at Ezion-Geber, as they could not
penetrate it higher up. To the southward of this place Burckhardt
observed an opening in the mountains, where he supposed the Israelites
to have passed. This passage brought them into the high plains on the
east of Mount Seir, which are so much higher than the valley on the
west, that the mountainous territory of the Edomites was every where
more accessible: a circumstance which perhaps contributed to make them
more afraid of the Israelites on this border, whom they had set at
defiance on the opposite one. The mean elevation of this chain cannot be
estimated at less than four thousand feet. In the summer it produces
most of the European fruits, namely, apricots, figs, pomegranates,
olives, apples, and peaches; while in winter deep snows occasionally
fall, with frosts, to the middle of March. The inhabitants, like those
of most mountainous regions, are very healthy. Burckhardt says, that
there was no part of Syria in which he saw so few invalids: a
circumstance which did not escape the observation of the ancients, who
denominated it, _Palæstina tertia sive salutaris_. [Palestine the third
or the healthy.]

SELAH. This expression is found in the Psalms seventy-four times, and
thrice in the Prophet Habakkuk. The interpreters Symmachus and
Theodotion generally translate _selah_ by _diapsalma_, which signifies
“a rest” or “pause” in singing. Jerom and Aquila translate it “for
ever.” Some moderns pretend that _selah_ has no signification, and that
it is only a note of the ancient music, whose use is no longer known;
and, indeed, _selah_ may be taken away from all the places where it is
found without interrupting the sense of the psalm. Calmet says it
intimates the end, or a pause, and that is its proper signification; but
as it is not always found at the conclusion of the sense, or of the
psalm or song, so it is highly probable the ancient musicians put
_selah_ in the margin of their psalters, to show where a musical pause
was to be made, or where the tune ended.

SELEUCIA, a city of Syria, situated upon the Mediterranean, near the
place where the Orontes discharges itself into the sea. St. Paul and
Barnabas were at this place when they embarked for Cyprus, Acts xiii, 4.
The same city is mentioned in 1 Mac. xi, 8.

SENNACHERIB, king of Assyria, son and successor of Shalmaneser. He began
his reign A. M. 3290, and reigned only four years. Hezekiah, king of
Judah, having refused to pay him tribute, though he afterward submitted,
he invaded Judea with a great army, took several forts, and after
repeated, insolent, and blasphemous messages, besieged Jerusalem; but
his army being suddenly smitten with a pestilence, which cut off a
hundred and eighty-five thousand in a single night, he returned to
Nineveh, where he was murdered in the temple of Nisroch by his sons
Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded by his other son,
Esar-haddon, 2 Kings xix, 7, 13, 37.

SEPHARVAIM, a country of Assyria, 2 Kings xvii, 24, 31. This province
cannot now be exactly delineated in respect to its situation. The
Scripture speaks of the king of the city of Sepharvaim, which probably
was the capital of the people of this name, 2 Kings xix, 13; Isaiah
xxxvii, 13.

SEPTUAGINT. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, says Mr.
Horne, the Alexandrian or Septuagint is the most ancient and valuable,
and was held in so much esteem both by the Jews as well as by the first
Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches.
Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or
Latin; and from this version all the translations into other languages
which were anciently approved by the Christian church were executed,
with the exception of the Syriac; as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic,
Gothic, and old Italic or the Latin version in use before the time of
Jerom; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek
and most other oriental churches. This version has derived its name
either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been
employed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the
sanhedrim or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or,
more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has
prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and while
some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and Divine origin, other
eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been
executed by several persons and at different times. According to one
account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to
be made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria,
at the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius
Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose, it is reported,
that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his
court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the
Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that
there might also be sent to him seventy-two persons, six chosen out of
each of the twelve tribes, who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew
and Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the
island of Pharos; where, having agreed in a translation of each period
after a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they
dictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the
whole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed
to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly
disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this
piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in
existence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish
Antiquities. The veracity of Aristeas’s narrative was not questioned
until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, at which time, indeed,
Biblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy, Vives, Scaliger,
Van Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the principal
writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the
genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and though it was
ably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston, Brett, and
other modern writers, the majority of the learned of our own time are
fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Philo, the Jew, who also
notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the
circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear
not less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to
Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and
these, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many
distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in
sense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not common
interpreters, but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who
had every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the
entire translation. He adds, that an annual festival was celebrated by
the Alexandrian Jews in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made,
until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so
great a benefit.

It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in
favour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with
these preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan chronicle of Abul Phatach,
which was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern
authors, both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following
effect: that Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign,
directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the
Samaritans and Jews concerning the law, the former receiving only the
Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by
the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two
nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews entrusted this mission
to Osar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were
added. Separate apartments in a particular quarter of Alexandria were
assigned to each of these strangers, who were prohibited from having any
personal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his
version. Thus were the law and other Scriptures translated by the
Samaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was
convinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such
is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested, however, of numerous
marvellous circumstances with which it has been decorated by the
Samaritans, who are not surpassed, even by the Jews, in their partiality
for idle legends.

A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the
Septuagint has been by the historians who have pretended to record it,
necessarily loses all its historical character, which, indeed, we are
fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt
but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by
no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the
following, however, is the result of our researches concerning this
celebrated version:--

It is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they are called,
executed their version of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of
Ptolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus. The pseudo Aristeas, Josephus,
Philo, and many other writers whom it were tedious to enumerate, relate
that this version was made during the reign of Ptolemy II., or
Philadelphus; Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among the rabbins, Theodoret,
and many other Christian writers, refer its date to the time of Ptolemy
Lagus. Now, these two traditions can be reconciled only by supposing the
version to have been performed during the two years when Ptolemy
Philadelphus shared the throne with his father; which date coincides
with the third and fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third
Olympiad, that is, about B. C. 286 and 285. Farther, this version was
neither made by the command of Ptolemy, nor at the request nor under the
superintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily undertaken
by the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It is well known, that, at
the period above noticed, there was a great number of Jews settled in
Egypt, particularly at Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant
of the religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their
sanhedrim or grand council composed of seventy or seventy-two members,
and very numerous synagogues, in which the law was read to them on every
Sabbath; and as the bulk of the common people were no longer acquainted
with Biblical Hebrew, the Greek language alone being used in their
ordinary intercourse, it became necessary to translate the Pentateuch
into Greek for their use. This is a far more probable account of the
origin of the Alexandrian version than the traditions above stated. If
this translation had been made by public authority, it would
unquestionably have been performed under the direction of the sanhedrim,
who would have examined and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the
work of a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of their
approbation, and introducing it into their synagogues. In either case
the translation would probably be denominated the Septuagint, because
the sanhedrim was composed of seventy or seventy-two members. It is even
possible that the sanhedrim, in order to ascertain the fidelity of the
work, might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, of whose
assistance and advice they would have availed themselves in examining
the version. This fact, if it could be proved, for it is offered as a
mere conjecture, would account for the story of the king of Egypt’s
sending an embassy to Jerusalem: there is, however, one circumstance
which proves that, in executing this translation, the synagogues were
originally in contemplation, namely, that all the ancient writers
unanimously concur in saying that the Pentateuch was first translated.
The five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in the
synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria; who
having forbidden that practice in Palestine, the Jews evaded his
commands by substituting for the Pentateuch the reading of the prophetic
books. When, afterward, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the
kings of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in the
synagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or
Græcising Jews.

But, whatever was the real number of the authors of the version, their
introduction of Coptic words, such as οἴφι ἄχι ρεμφὰν, &c, as well as
their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the Egyptian
manner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt. Thus, they
express the creation of the world, not by the proper Greek word κτίσις,
but by γένεσις, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexandria to
express the origin of the universe. The Hebrew word _thummim_, Exodus
xxviii, 30, which signifies “perfections,” they render ἀλήθεια, _truth_.
The difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work
not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at
different times. The best qualified and most able among them was the
translator of the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and
Hebrew: he has religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various
instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen expressions. From
the very close resemblance subsisting between the text of the Greek
version and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Louis De Dieu, Selden,
Whiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the
Alexandrian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in
proportion as these two correspond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew.
This opinion is farther supported by the declarations of Origen and
Jerom, that the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah, not in
the letters in common use, but in very ancient characters; and also by
the fact that those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently
confounded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan,
but not in the Hebrew, alphabet. This hypothesis, however ingenious and
plausible, is by no means determinate; and what militates most against
it is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans,
added to the constant and unvarying testimony of antiquity, that the
Greek version of the Pentateuch was executed by Jews. There is no other
way by which to reconcile these conflicting opinions than by supposing
either that the manuscript used by the Egyptian Jews approximated toward
the letters and text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the
translators of the Septuagint made use of manuscripts written in ancient
characters. Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of
execution, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of
which was well skilled in the two languages: Michaëlis is of opinion
that, of all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is
the best, the translator having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in
as neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to
express his philosophical maxims.

The Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the
Egyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the Jews
of Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, and
subsequently also among Christians: it appears, indeed, that the legend
above confuted, of the translators having been divinely inspired, was
invented in order that the LXX. might be held in the greater estimation.
Philo, the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in his
allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law; and though Dr. Hody was of
opinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, corroborated his
work on Jewish antiquities from the Hebrew text, yet Salmasius, Bochart,
Bauer, and others, have shown that he has adhered to the Septuagint
throughout that work. How extensively this version was in use among the
Jews, appears from the solemn sanction given to it by the inspired
writers of the New Testament, who have in very many passages quoted the
Greek version of the Old Testament. Their example was followed by the
earlier fathers and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of
Origen and Jerom, were unacquainted with Hebrew: notwithstanding their
zeal for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the
original language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek
representation of them, judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for
all the purposes of their pious labours. The Greek Scriptures were the
only Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the text
commented on by Chrysostom and Theodoret: it was this which furnished
topics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this fountain the
stream was derived to the Latin church, first by the Italic or Vulgate
translation of the Scriptures, which was made from the Septuagint, and
not from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the study of the Greek fathers.
It was by this borrowed light that the Latin fathers illumined the
western hemisphere; and, when the age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine,
and Gregory, successively passed away, this was the light put into the
hands of the next dynasty of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on
the work of theological disquisition by the aid of this luminary, and
none other. So that, either in Greek or in Latin, it was still the
Septuagint Scriptures that were read, explained, and quoted as
authority, for a period of fifteen hundred years.

SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY is that which is formed from the dates and periods
of time mentioned in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. It
reckons one thousand five hundred years more from the creation to
Abraham than the Hebrew Bible. Dr. Kennicott, in the dissertation
prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, has shown it to be very probable, that the
chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the period just mentioned,
was corrupted by the Jews between A. D. 175 and 200; and that the
chronology of the Septuagint is more agreeable to truth. It is a fact,
that, during the second and third centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures were
almost entirely in the hands of the Jews, while the Septuagint was
confined to the Christians. The Jews had, therefore, a very favourable
opportunity for this corruption. The following is the reason which is
given by the oriental writers: It being a very ancient tradition that
Messiah was to come in the sixth chiliad, because he was to come in the
last days, founded on a mystical application of the six days of the
creation, the contrivance was to shorten the age of the world from about
5500 to 3760; and thence to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah.
Dr. Kennicott adds, that some Hebrew copies, having the larger
chronology, were extant till the time of Eusebius, and some till the
year 700.

SEPULCHRES. The descriptions of the eastern sepulchres, by travellers,
serve to explain several passages of Scripture. Shaw says, “If we except
a few persons who are buried within the precincts of some sanctuary, the
rest are carried out at a small distance from their cities and villages,
where a great extent of ground is allotted for that purpose. Each family
has a particular portion of it, walled in like a garden, where the bones
of their ancestors have remained undisturbed for many generations: for
in these inclosures the graves are all distinct and separate, having
each of them a stone placed upright, both at the head and feet,
inscribed with the name of the person who lieth there interred, while
the intermediate space is either planted with flowers, bordered round
with stone, or paved all over with tiles. The graves of the principal
citizens are farther distinguished by some square chambers or cupolas
that are built over them, Mark v, 3. Now, as all these different sorts
of tombs and sepulchres, with the very walls likewise of the inclosures,
are constantly kept clean, white-washed, and beautified, they continue
to this day to be an excellent comment upon that expression of our
Saviour, where he mentions the garnishing of the sepulchres, Matt.
xxiii, 29; and again, verse 27, where he compares the scribes,
Pharisees, and hypocrites, to whited sepulchres.” With respect to the
demoniacs who are said by St. Matthew to come out of the tombs, Light
observes, “I trod the ground celebrated for the miracle of the unclean
spirit, driven by our Saviour among the swine. The tombs still exist in
the form of caverns, on the sides of the hills that rise from the shore
of the lake; and from their wild appearance may well be considered the
habitation of men exceeding fierce, possessed by a devil; they extend at
a distance for more than a mile from the present town.” In the account
we have of the resurrection of Lazarus, when Mary went suddenly out to
meet Jesus, the Jews supposed that she was gone to the grave, “to weep
there.” The following extract from Buckingham illustrates this: “Not far
from the spot at which we halted to enjoy this enchanting view, was an
extensive cemetry, at which we noticed the custom so prevalent among
eastern nations of visiting the tombs of their deceased friends. These
were formed with great care, and finished with extraordinary neatness:
and at the foot of each grave was enclosed a small earthen vessel, in
which was planted a sprig of myrtle, regularly watered every day by the
mourning friend who visited it. Throughout the whole of this extensive
place of burial we did not observe a single grave to which this token of
respect and sorrow was not attached; and, scattered among the tombs, in
different quarters of the cemetry, we saw from twenty to thirty parties
of females, sitting near the honoured remains of some recently lost and
deeply regretted relative or friend, and either watering their myrtle
plants, or strewing flowers over the green turf that closed upon their
heads.” See BURIAL.

SERPENT. In Egypt and other oriental countries, a serpent was the common
symbol of a powerful monarch; it was embroidered on the robes of
princes, and blazoned on their diadem, to signify their absolute power
and invincible might, and that, as the wound inflicted by the basilisk
is incurable, so the fatal effects of their displeasure were neither to
be avoided nor endured. These are the allusions involved in the address
of the prophet, to the irreconcilable enemies of his nation: “Rejoice
not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is
broken; for out of the serpent’s roots shall come forth a cockatrice,
and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent,” Isaiah xiv, 29. Uzziah,
the king of Judah, had subdued the Philistines; but taking advantage of
the weak reign of Ahaz, they again invaded the kingdom of Judea, and
reduced some cities in the southern part of the country under their
dominion. On the death of Ahaz, Isaiah delivers this prophecy,
threatening them with a more severe chastisement from the hand of
Hezekiah, the grandson of Uzziah, by whose victorious arms they had been
reduced to sue for peace; which he accomplished, when “he smote the
Philistines, even unto Gaza and the borders thereof,” 2 Kings xviii, 8.
Uzziah, therefore, must be meant by the rod that smote them, and by the
serpent from whom should spring the fiery flying serpent, that is,
Hezekiah, a much more terrible enemy than even Uzziah had been. But the
symbol of regal power which the oriental kings preferred to all others,
was the basilisk. This fact is attested by its Arabian name _melecha_,
from the Hebrew verb _malach_, “to reign;” from its Greek name
ϐασιλίσκος, and its Latin name _regulus_: all of which, it is asserted,
referred to the conspicuous place it occupied among the regal ornaments
of the east. The basilisk is of a reddish colour, and its head is
decorated with a crest in the form of a crown; it is not entirely
prostrate, like other serpents, but moves along with its head and half
the body erect; the other parts sweep the ground behind,

             And wind its spacious back in rolling spires.

All the other species of serpents are said to acknowledge the
superiority of the real or the fabled basilisk, by flying from its
presence, and hiding themselves in the dust. It is also supposed to live
longer than any other serpent; the ancient Heathens therefore pronounced
it immortal, and placed it in the number of their deities; and because
it had the dangerous power, in general belief, of killing with its
pestiferous breath the strongest animals, it seemed to then invested
with the power of life and death. It became, therefore, the favourite
symbol of kings; and was employed by the prophet, to symbolize the great
and good Hezekiah, with strict propriety.

2. The cerastes, or horned snake. The only allusion to this species of
serpent in the sacred volume occurs in the valedictory predictions of
Jacob, where he describes the character and actions of Dan and his
posterity: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder, שפיפון, in the
path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall
backward,” Gen. xlix, 17. It is indisputably clear, that the patriarch
intended some kind of serpent; for the circumstances will not apply to a
freebooter watching for his prey. It only remains to investigate the
species to which it belongs. The principal care of the Jewish writers is
to ascertain the etymology of the name, about which their sentiments are
much divided. The Arabian authors quoted by Bochart inform us, that the
_sephiphon_ is a most pernicious reptile, and very dangerous to man. It
is of a sandy colour, variegated with black and white spots. The
particulars in the character of Dan, however, agree better with the
cerastes, or horned snake, than with any other species of serpent. It
lies in wait for passengers in the sand, or in the rut of the wheels on
the highway. From its lurking place it treacherously bites the horse’s
heels, so that the rider falls backward, in consequence of the animal’s
hinder legs becoming almost immediately torpid by the dreadful activity
of the poison. The cerastes is equally formidable to man and the lower
animals; and the more dangerous, because it is not easy to distinguish
him from the sand in which he lies; and he never spares the helpless
traveller who unwarily comes within his reach. Like the cerastes, Dan
was to excel in cunning and artifice, to prevail against his enemies
rather by his policy in the cabinet than by his valour in the field.

3. The seraph, or fiery flying serpent, to a Biblical student, is one of
the most interesting creatures that has yet been mentioned. It bears the
name of an order among the hosts of heaven, whom Isaiah beheld in
vision, placed above the throne of Jehovah in the temple; the brazen
figure of this serpent is supposed to be a type of our blessed Redeemer,
who was for our salvation lifted up upon the cross, as the serpent was
elevated in the camp of Israel, for the preservation of that people. It
is the only species of serpent which the almighty Creator has provided
with wings, by means of which, instead of creeping or leaping, it rises
from the ground, and leaning upon the extremity of its tail, moves with
great velocity. It is a native of Egypt, and the deserts of Arabia; and
receives its name from the Hebrew verb _seraph_, which signifies to
burn, in allusion to the violent inflammation which its poison produces,
or rather to its fiery colour, which the brazen serpent was intended to
represent. Bochart is of opinion, that the seraph is the same as the
hydrus, or, as Cicero calls it, the serpent of the waters. For, in the
book of Isaiah, the land of Egypt is called the region from whence come
the viper and flying seraph, or burning serpent. Ælian says, they come
from the deserts of Libya and Arabia, to inhabit the streams of the
Nile; and that they have the form of the hydrus.

The existence of winged serpents is attested by many writers of modern
times. A kind of snakes were discovered among the Pyrenees, from whose
sides proceeded cartilages in the form of wings; and Scaliger mentions a
peasant who killed a serpent of the same species which attacked him, and
presented it to the king of France. Le Blanc, as quoted by Bochart,
says, at the head of lake Chiamay are extensive woods and vast marshes,
which it is very dangerous to approach, because they are infested with
very large serpents, which, raised from the ground on wings resembling
those of bats, and leaning on the extremity of their tails, move with
great rapidity. They exist, it is reported, about these places in so
great numbers, that they have almost laid waste the neighbouring
province. And, in the same work, Le Blanc affirms that he had seen some
of them of immense size, which, when hungry, rushed impetuously on sheep
and other tame animals. But the original term מעופף does not always
signify flying with wings; it often expresses vibration, swinging
backward and forward, a tremulous motion, a fluttering; and this is
precisely the motion of a serpent, when he springs from one tree to
another. Niebuhr mentions a sort of serpent at Bassorah, which they call
_heie thiare_. “They commonly keep upon the date trees; and as it would
be laborious for them to come down from a very high tree, in order to
ascend another, they twist themselves by the tail to a branch of the
former, which, making a spring by the motion they give it, throws them
to the branches of the second. Hence it is that the modern Arabs call
them flying serpents, _heie thiare_. Admiral Anson also speaks of the
flying serpents that he met with at the island of Quibo, but which were
without wings.” From this account it may be inferred, that the flying
serpent mentioned in the prophet was of that species of serpents which,
from their swift darting motion, the Greeks call _aconitias_, and the
Romans, _jaculus_. The original phrase will bear another interpretation,
which, perhaps, approaches still nearer the truth. The verb עופ
sometimes means to sparkle, to emit coruscations of light. In this
sense, the noun תעפה frequently occurs in the sacred volume; thus Zophar
says: “The coruscation, תעפה, shall be as the morning.” The word in the
verse under consideration may therefore refer to the ruddy colour of
that serpent, and express the sparkling of the blazing sunbeams upon its
scales, which are extremely brilliant.

4. The dragon. In Hebrew, the word תנין signifies either a dragon or a
whale. As the name of a serpent, it frequently denotes one of any
species; as when the rod of Moses is said to have been turned into a
serpent, לתנין. But, in its more strict and appropriate application, it
is the proper name of the dragon, which differs from the serpent chiefly
in its size. “Three kinds of dragons were formerly distinguished in
India. 1. Those of the hills and mountains. 2. Those of the valleys and
caves. 3. Those of the fens and marshes. The first is the largest, and
covered with scales resplendent as burnished gold. They have a kind of
beard hanging from their lower jaw, their aspect is frightful, their cry
loud and shrill, their crest bright yellow, and they have a protuberance
on their heads, as the colour of a burning coal. Those of the flat
country are of a silver colour, and frequent rivers, to which the former
never come. Those of the marshes are black, slow, and have no crest.
Their bite is not venomous, though the creatures be dreadful.” This
description agrees in every particular with the boa, which is justly
considered as the proper dragon. But so great is the inconsistency of
the human mind, that the creature which is now an object of universal
dislike was, in early times, honoured with religious worship by every
nation of the earth. Rites were devised and temples built to its honour;
and priests were appointed to conduct the ceremonies. These miserable
idolaters appeared before the altars of their contemptible deity in
gorgeous vestments, their heads adorned with serpents, or with the
figures of serpents embroidered on their tiaras, when the creatures
themselves were not to be had; and in their frantic exclamations cried
out, in evident allusion to the triumph which the old serpent obtained
over our first mother, Eva, Eva. So completely was Satan permitted to
insult our fallen race, that the serpent, his chosen agent in
accomplishing our ruin, was actually raised to the first place among the
deities of the Heathen world, and reverenced by the most solemn acts of
worship. The figure of the serpent adorned the portals of the proudest
temples in the east.

The serpent was a very common symbol of the sun; and he is represented
biting his tail, and with his body formed into a circle, in order to
indicate the ordinary course of this luminary; and under this form it
was an emblem of time and eternity. The serpent was also the symbol of
medicine, and of the gods which presided over it, as of Apollo and
Æsculapius. In most of the ancient rites we find some allusion to the
serpent, under the several titles of Ob, Ops, Python, &c. This idolatry
is alluded to by Moses, Lev. xx, 27. The woman of Endor, who had a
familiar spirit, is called Oub, or Ob, and it is interpreted Pythonissa:
the place where she resided, says the learned Mr. Bryant, seems to have
been named from the worship then instituted; for Endor is compounded of
En-ador, and signifies _fons pithonis_, the “fountain of light,” the
oracle of the god Ador; which oracle was probably founded by the
Canaanites, and had never been totally suppressed. His pillar was also
called Abbadir, or Abadir, compounded of _ab_ and _adir_, and meaning
the serpent deity Addir, the same as Adorus. In the orgies of Bacchus,
the persons who partook of the ceremony, used to carry serpents in their
hands, and with horrid screams call upon Eva! Eva! Eva being, according
to the writer just mentioned, the same as epha, or opha, which the
Greeks rendered _ophis_, and by it denoted a serpent, and containing no
allusion to Eve, as above conjectured. These ceremonies, and this
symbolic worship, began among the magi, who were the sons of Chus; and
by them they were propagated in various parts. Wherever the Ammonians
founded any places of worship, and introduced their rites, there was
generally some story of a serpent. There was a legend about a serpent at
Colchis, at Thebes, and at Delphi; and likewise in other places. The
Greeks called Apollo himself Python, which is the same as Oupis, Opis,
or Oub. In Egypt there was a serpent named Thermuthis, which was looked
upon as very sacred; and the natives are said to have made use of it as
a royal tiara, with which they ornamented the statues of Isis. The kings
of Egypt wore high bonnets, terminating in a round ball, and surrounded
with figures of asps; and the priests likewise had the representation of
serpents upon their bonnets. Abadon, or Abaddon, mentioned in the
Revelation, ix, 11, is supposed by Mr. Bryant to have been the name of
the Ophite god, with whose worship the world had been so long infected.
This worship began among the people of Chaldea, who built the city of
Ophis upon the Tigris, and were greatly addicted to divination, and to
the worship of the serpent. From Chaldea the worship passed into Egypt,
where the serpent deity was called Canoph, Can-eph, and C’neph; it also
had the name of Ob, or Oub, and was the same as the Basiliscus, or royal
serpent, the same as the Thermuthis, and made use of by way of ornament
to the statues of their gods. The chief deity of Egypt is said to have
been Vulcan, who was styled Opas; he was the same as Osiris, the sun,
and hence was often called Ob-el, or Pytho, _sol_; and there were
pillars sacred to him, with curious hieroglyphical inscriptions bearing
the same name, whence among the Greeks, who copied from the Egyptians,
every thing gradually tapering to a point was styled _obelos_, or
_obeliscus_. As the worship of the serpent began among the sons of Chus,
Mr. Bryant conjectures that from thence they were denominated Ethiopians
and Aithiopians, from Ath-ope, or Ath-opes, the god whom they
worshipped, and not from their complexion: the Ethiopes brought these
rites into Greece, and called the island where they first established
them, Ellopia, _Solis Serpentis insula_, the same with Eubœa, or
Oubaia, that is, the Serpent Island. The same learned writer discovers
traces of the serpent worship among the Hyperboreans, at Rhodes, named
Ophiusa, in Phrygia, and upon the Hellespont, in the island Cyprus, in
Crete, among the Athenians, in the name of Cecrops, among the natives of
Thebes in Bœotia, among the Lacedæmonians, in Italy, in Syria, &c,
and in the names of many places, as well as the people where the Ophites
settled. One of the most early heresies introduced into the Christian
church was that of the Ophitæ, who introduced serpents emblematically
among their rites. This is seen in many of the medals, the relics of
Gnosticism which are still preserved.

The form assumed by the tempter when he seduced our first parents, has
been handed down in the traditions of most ancient nations; and, though
animals of the serpent tribe were very generally worshipped by the
Pagans, as symbols of the Agathodemon; they were likewise viewed as
types or figures of the evil principle. 1. One of the most remarkable
accounts of the primeval tempter under the shape of a serpent occurs in
the Zend-Avesta of the ancient Persians. 2. To the dracontian Ahriman of
the Persians, the malignant serpent caliya of Hindoo theology appears to
be very closely allied. He is represented, at least, as the decided
enemy of the mediatorial god; whom he persecutes with the utmost
virulence, though he is finally vanquished by his celestial adversary.
3. The serpent typhon of the Egyptians, who is sometimes identified with
the ocean, because the deluge was esteemed the work of the evil
principle; and the serpent python of the Greeks, who is evidently the
same as the monster typhon; appear to have similarly originated, in the
first instance, from some remembrance of the form which Satan assumed
when in paradise. Perhaps also the notion, that python was oracular,--a
notion which caused the so frequent use of serpents in the rites of
divination, may have sprung from a recollection of the vocal responses
which the tempter gave to Eve under the borrowed figure of that reptile.
4. We may still ascribe to the same source that rebellious serpent whose
treason seems to have been so well remembered among the inhabitants of
Syria. Pherecydes, a native of that country, bestows upon him the Greek
name of _ophioneus_, or the “serpent god;” which, in fact, is a mere
translation of the Syriac or Chaldaic _nachash_. He represents him as
being the prince of those evil spirits who contended with the supreme
god Cronus, and who in consequence were ejected from heaven. Their
happiness being thus justly forfeited, they were henceforth plunged in
the depths of Tartarus, hateful and mutually hating each other. From
Syria and the east the legend passed into Greece, mingled, however, with
allusions to the deluge. 5. The same evil being, in the same form,
appears again in the mythology of the Goths or Scythians. We are told by
the ancient Scalds, that the bad principle, whom they denominate _loke_,
unites great personal beauty with a malignant and inconstant nature: and
he is described as surpassing all creatures in the depth of his cunning
and the artfulness of his perfidy. Here the pristine glory and majesty
of Satan, before the lineaments of celestial beauty were defaced by his
rebellious apostasy, seem not obscurely to be alluded to; while the
craft and malevolence, which mark his character as a fallen angel, are
depicted with sufficient accuracy.

The most remarkable corroboration, however, of the Mosaic history is to
be found in those fables which involve the mythological serpent, and in
the worship which was so generally offered to him throughout the world.
The worship of the serpent may be traced in almost every religion
through ancient Asia, Europe, Africa, America. But how an object of
abhorrence could have been exalted into an object of veneration, must be
referred to the subtlety of the arch enemy himself, whose constant
endeavour has been rather to corrupt than obliterate the true faith,
that, in the perpetual conflict between truth and error, the mind of man
might be more surely confounded and debased. Among other devices, that
of elevating himself into an object of adoration, has ever been the most
cherished. It was that which he proposed to our Lord: “All these things
will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” We cannot,
therefore, wonder that the same being who had the presumption to make
this proposal to the Son of God, should have had the address to
insinuate himself into the worship of the children of men. In this he
was unhappily but too well seconded by the natural tendency of human
corruption. The unenlightened Heathen, in obedience to the voice of
nature, acknowledged his dependence upon a superior being. His reason
assured him that there must be a God; his conscience assured him that
God was good; but he felt and acknowledged the prevalence of evil, and
attributed it, naturally to an evil agent. But as the evil spirit, to
his unillumined mind, seemed as omnipotent as the good agent, he
worshipped both; the one, that he might propitiate his kindness; the
other that he might avert his displeasure. The great point of devil
worship being gained, namely, the acknowledgment of the evil spirit as
God, the transition to idolatry became easy. The mind, once darkened by
the admission of an allegiance divided between God and Satan, became
gradually more feeble and superstitious, until at length sensible
objects were called in to aid the weakness of degraded intellect; and
from their first form as symbols, passed rapidly through the successive
stages of apotheosis, until they were elevated into gods. Of these the
most remarkable was the serpent; upon the basis of tradition, regarded,
first as the symbol of the malignant being; subsequently considered
talismanic and oracular; and lastly, venerated and worshipped as divine.

SERPENT, BRAZEN. This was a figure of a serpent, called above the
_seraph_, which Moses caused to be put on the top of a pole, Num. xxi,
9, that all those bitten by the serpent, who should look upon this
image, might be healed. Our Saviour, in the Gospel of St. John, iii, 14,
declares, that “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of man be lifted up,” alluding to his own death which,
through faith, was to give life to the world. The brazen serpent was
preserved among the Israelites down to the time of Hezekiah; who, being
informed that the people paid a superstitious worship to it, had it
broken in pieces, and by way of contempt gave it the name of Nehushtan,
that is to say, a brazen bauble or trifle, 2 Kings xviii, 4. See TYPE.

SERVANT. This word generally signifies a slave. For formerly among the
Hebrews, and the neighbouring nations, the greater part of servants were
slaves, that is to say, they belonged absolutely to their masters, who
had a right to dispose of their persons, their bodies, goods, and even
of their lives, in some cases. The Hebrews had two sorts of servants or
slaves, Leviticus xxv, 44, 45, &c. Some were strangers, either bought,
or taken in the wars. The others were Hebrew slaves, who, being poor,
sold themselves, or were sold to pay their debts; or were delivered up
for slaves by their parents, in cases of necessity. This sort of Hebrew
slaves continued in slavery but to the year of jubilee; then they might
return to liberty again, and their masters could not retain them against
their wills. If they would continue voluntarily with their masters, they
were brought before the judges; there they made a declaration, that for
this time they disclaimed the privilege of the law, had their ears bored
with an awl, by applying them to the door-posts of their master, Exod.
xxi, 2, 5–7, &c; and after that they had no longer any power of
recovering their liberty, except at the next year of jubilee. Servant is
also taken for a man that dedicates himself to the service of another,
by the choice of his own will and inclination. Thus Joshua was the
servant of Moses, Elisha of Elijah, Gehazi of Elisha; St. Peter, St.
Andrew, St. Philip, and the rest, were servants of Jesus Christ.

SETH, son of Adam and of Eve, was born A. M. 130, Gen. v, 3, 6, 10, 11.
Seth, at the age of one hundred and five years, begat Enos, A. M. 235.
He lived after this eight hundred and seven years, in all nine hundred
and twelve years, and died A. M. 1042. Seth was the chief of “the
children of God,” as the Scripture calls them, Gen. vi, 2; that is,
those who before the flood preserved true religion and piety in the
world, while the descendants of Cain gave themselves up to wickedness.
The invention of letters and writing is by the rabbins ascribed to this
patriarch.

SEVEN. The number seven is consecrated, in the holy books and in the
religion of the Jews, by a great number of events and mysterious
circumstances. God created the world in the space of seven days, and
consecrated the seventh day to repose. This rest of the seventh day,
according to St. Paul, Heb. iv, 4, intimates eternal rest. And not only
the seventh day is honoured among the Jews, by the repose of the
Sabbath, but every seventh year is also consecrated to the rest of the
earth, by the name of a sabbatical year; as also the seven times seventh
year, or forty-ninth year, is the year of jubilee. In the prophetic
style, a week often stands for seven years, Dan. ix, 24–26. Jacob served
his father-in-law Laban seven years for each of his daughters. Pharaoh’s
mysterious dream represented to his imagination seven fat oxen, and
seven lean ones; seven full ears of corn, and as many that were empty
and shrivelled. These stood for seven years of plenty, and seven of
scarcity. The number of seven days is observed in the octaves of the
great solemnities of the passover, of tabernacles, and of the dedication
of the tabernacle and the temple; the seven branches of the golden
candlestick, the number of seven sacrifices appointed on several
occasions, Numbers xxvii, 11; xxix, 17–21, &c. Seven trumpets, seven
priests that sounded them, seven days to surround the walls of Jericho,
Joshua vi, 4, 6, 8. In the Revelation, are the seven churches, seven
candlesticks, seven spirits, seven stars, seven lamps, seven seals,
seven angels, seven phials, seven plagues, &c. In certain passages, the
number seven is put for a great number. Isaiah, iv, 1, says that seven
women should lay hold on one man, to ask him to marry them. Hannah, the
mother of Samuel, says, 1 Sam. ii, 5, that she who was barren should
have seven children. Jeremiah, xv, 9, makes use of the same expression.
God threatens his people to smite them seven times for their
transgressions, Lev. xxvi, 24, that is to say several times. The
Psalmist, speaking of very pure silver, says it is “purified seven
times,” Psalm xii, 6. And elsewhere, “Render unto our neighbours
sevenfold into their bosom,” Psalm lxxix, 12; punish them severely, and
as often as they deserve it. The slayer of Cain was to be punished seven
times; but of Lamech seventy times seven times, Gen. iv, 15, 24. The
slothful man thinks himself wiser than seven men, that set forth
proverbs, Prov. xxvi, 16; he thinks himself of more worth than many wise
men. St. Peter asks our Saviour, Matthew xviii, 21, 22, How many times
should he forgive his brother? till seven times? And Christ answers him,
I say not only seven times, but seventy times seven; meaning, as often
as he may offend, however frequent it may be.

SHARON, PLAIN OF, a beautiful and spacious plain, extending from Cæsarea
to Joppa on the sea coast, and eastward to the mountains of Judea; and
is celebrated for its wines, its flowers, and its pastures. It still
preserves some portions of its natural beauty, and is adorned in the
spring with the white and red rose, the narcissus, the white and orange
lily, the carnation and other flowers; but for the rest of the year it
appears little better than a desert, with here and there a ruined
village, and some clumps of olive trees and sycamores. This name was
almost become a proverb, to express a place of extraordinary beauty and
fruitfulness, Isaiah xxxiii, 9; xxxv, 2. But there are three cantons of
Palestine known by the name of Sharon. The first, according to Eusebius
and St. Jerom, is a canton between Mount Tabor and the sea of Tiberias.
The second, a canton between the city of Cæsarea of Palestine and Joppa.
And the third a canton beyond Jordan, in the country of Basan, and in
the division of the tribe of Gad. Modern travellers give this name also
to the plain that lies between Ecdippe and Ptolemais.

SHAVING. In time of mourning the Jews shaved their heads, and neglected
to trim their beards. The king of the Ammonites shaved off half the
beards of David’s ambassadors, which was the greatest insult he could
offer. This will appear from the regard which the easterns have ever
paid to the beard. D’Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab who,
having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life rather than
to suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. It was one of the most
infamous punishments of cowardice in Sparta, that they who turned their
backs in the day of battle were obliged to appear abroad with one half
of their beard shaved, and the other half unshaved. The easterns
considered the beard as venerable, because it distinguished men from
women, and was the mark of freemen in opposition to slaves. It was
still, in times comparatively modern, the greatest indignity that could
be offered in Persia. Shah Abbas, king of that country, enraged that the
emperor of Hindostan had inadvertently addressed him by a title far
inferior to that of the great shah-in-shah, or king of kings, ordered
the beards of the ambassadors to be shaved off, and sent them home to
their master. “One of the buffoons of the bashaw,” says Belzoni, “took
it into his head one day, for a frolic, to shave his beard, which is no
trifle among the Turks; for some of them, I really believe, would sooner
have their head cut off than their beard. In this state he went home to
his women, who actually thrust him out of the door; and such was the
disgrace of cutting off his beard, that even his fellow buffoons would
not eat with him till it was grown again.”

SHEAF. After the feast of the passover the Jews brought a sheaf into the
temple, as the first fruits of the barley harvest, Lev. xxiii, 10, 12;
and these were the ceremonies that were then performed. On the 16th of
the month Nisan, in the evening, when the feast day of the passover was
ended, and the second day was begun, which was a working day, the house
of judgment deputed three men to go in solemnity, and gather the sheaf
of barley. The inhabitants of the neighbouring cities came together, to
be present at the ceremony. The barley was gathered in the territory of
Jerusalem. The deputies demanded three times successively if the sun was
set; and were as often answered that it was. Then they demanded three
times if they might be permitted to cut the sheaf, and permission was as
often granted. They reaped it out of three different fields, with three
different sickels, and put the ears into three boxes to carry to the
temple. This sheaf was threshed in the court; and of the grain they took
a full omer, and after it had been winnowed, parched, and bruised, they
sprinkled oil over it, and added a handful of incense; then the priest
who received the offering, waved it before the Lord to the four quarters
of the world, crosswise; he cast part of it upon the altar, and the rest
was his own. After this every one might begin to reap the harvest.

SHEBA. Of “the queen of Sheba,” mention is made 1 Kings x, 1, 2, &c; 2
Chron. ix, 1, 2, &c; Matt. xii, 42; Luke xi, 31. She is called “queen of
the south,” and was, according to some, a queen of Arabia; and,
according to others, a queen of Ethiopia. Josephus says, that Sheba was
the ancient name of the city of Meroe, before Cambyses gave it that of
his sister; and that it was from thence the queen came of whom we are
speaking. This opinion has much prevailed. The Abyssinians at this day,
maintain, that this princess was of their country, and that her
posterity reigned there a long time. They preserve a catalogue of them,
their names and successions.

שח SHEEP, שה, occurs frequently, and צאן, a general name for both sheep
and goats, considered collectively in a flock, Arabic _zain_. The sheep
is a well known animal. The benefits which mankind owe to it are
numerous. Its fleece, its skin, its flesh, its tallow, and even its
horns and bowels are articles of great utility to human life and
happiness. Its mildness and inoffensiveness of temper, strongly
recommend it to human affection and regard; and have designated it the
pattern and emblem of meekness, innocence, patience, and submission. It
is a social animal. The flock follow the ram as their leader; who
frequently displays the most impetuous courage in their defence: dogs,
and even men, when attempting to molest them, have often suffered from
his sagacious and generous valour. There are two varieties of sheep
found in Syria. The first, called the “Bidoween sheep,” differs little
from the large breed among us, except that the tail is somewhat longer
and thicker. The second is much more common, and is more valued on
account of the extraordinary bulk of its tail, which has been remarked
by all the eastern travellers. The carcass of one of these sheep,
without including the head, feet, entrails, and skin, weighs from fifty
to sixty pounds, of which the tail makes up fifteen pounds. Some of a
larger size, fattened with care, will sometimes weigh one hundred and
fifty pounds, the tail alone composing one third of the whole weight. It
is of a substance between fat and marrow, and is not eaten separately,
but mixed with the lean meat in many of their dishes, and often also
used instead of butter. A reference to this part is made in Exod. xxix,
22; Lev. iii, 9; where the fat and the tail were to be burnt on the
altar of sacrifice. Mr. Street considers this precept to have had
respect to the health of the Israelites; observing that “bilious
disorders are very frequent in hot countries; the eating of fat meat is
a great encouragement and excitement to them; and though the fat of the
tail is now considered as a delicacy, it is really unwholesome.” The
conclusion of the seventeenth verse, which is, “Ye shall eat neither fat
nor blood,” justifies this opinion. The prohibition of eating fat, that
is of fat unmixed with the flesh, the omentum or caul, is given also,
Lev. vii, 23.

SHEKEL, שקל, signifies weight, money, shekel, _siclus_, a Hebrew weight
and money, Exod. xxx, 23, 24; 2 Sam. xiv, 26. Shekel is used to denote
the weight of any thing; as iron, hair, spices, &c. Dr. Arbuthnot makes
the weight of the shekel equal to 9 dwt. 24⁄7 gr.
English troy weight; and the value equal to 2s. 3⅜d. sterling money: but
the golden shekel was worth 1_l._ 16_s._ 6_d._ English money. Some are
of opinion that the Jews had two kinds of shekels, namely, the common
one already noticed, and the shekel of the sanctuary, which last they
make double the former. But most authors make them the same, and think
that the word sanctuary is added to express a just and exact weight,
according to the standards kept in the temple or tabernacle. Moses, Num.
xviii, 16, and Ezekiel, xlv, 12, say, that the shekel was worth twenty
gerahs.

SHEM, the son of Noah, Gen. vi, 10. He was born A. M. 1558. It is the
opinion of the generality of commentators, that Shem was younger than
Japheth, and the second son of Noah, for reasons given under the article
JAPHETH. See also Gen. ix, 23–25. He lived six hundred years, and died
A. M. 2158. The posterity of Shem obtained their portion in the best
parts of Asia. The Jews ascribe to Shem the theological tradition of the
things that Noah had learned from the first men. Shem communicated them
to his children, and by this means the true religion was preserved in
the world. Some have thought Shem the same as Melchisedec, and that he
himself had been at the school of Methuselah before the deluge: that he
gave to Abraham the whole tradition, the ceremonies of the sacrifices of
religion, according to which this patriarch afterward offered his
sacrifices. But this opinion has no adequate support. Lastly, the Jews
say, that he taught men the law of justice, and the manner of reckoning
months and years, and the intercalations of the months. All that can be
said as to these speculations is, that Noah and all his sons were the
depositaries of the knowledge which existed among men before the flood,
and were perhaps both specially qualified by God first to attain it, and
then to transmit it to their descendants. Shem had five sons, Elam,
Asher, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aran, who peopled the richest provinces of
Asia.

SHEPHERDS. The patriarchal shepherds, rich in flocks and herds, in
silver and gold, and attended by a numerous train of servants purchased
with their money, or hired from the neighbouring towns and villages,
acknowledge no civil superior; they held the rank, and exercised the
rights, of sovereign princes; they concluded alliances with the kings in
whose territories they tended their flocks; they made peace or war with
the surrounding states; and, in fine, they wanted nothing of sovereign
authority but the name. Unfettered by the cumbrous ceremonies of regal
power, they led a plain and laborious life, in perfect freedom and
overflowing abundance. Refusing to confine themselves to any particular
spot, (for the pastures were not yet appropriated,) they lived in tents,
and removed from one place to another in search of pasture for their
cattle. Strangers in the countries where they sojourned, they refused to
mingle with the permanent settlers, to occupy their towns, and to form
with them one people. They were conscious of their strength, and jealous
of their independence; and although patient and forbearing, their
conduct proved, on several occasions, that they wanted neither skill nor
courage to vindicate their rights and avenge their wrongs. In the
wealth, the power, and the splendour of patriarchal shepherds, we
discover the rudiments of regal grandeur and authority; and in their
numerous and hardy retainers, the germ of potent empires. Hence the
custom so prevalent among the ancients, of distinguishing the office and
duties of their kings and princes, by terms borrowed from the pastoral
life: Agamemnon, shepherd of the people, Αγαμεμνονα ποιμενα λαων, is a
phrase frequently used in the strains of Homer. The sacred writers very
often speak of kings under the name of shepherds, and compare the royal
sceptre to the shepherd’s crook: “He chose David also his servant, and
took him from the sheep folds; from following the ewes great with young,
he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So
he fed them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by
the skilfulness of his hands.” And Jehovah said to David himself: “Thou
shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”
The royal Psalmist, on the other hand, celebrates under the same
allusions, the special care and goodness of God toward himself, and also
toward his ancient people. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.”
“Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock;
thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth.” In many other
places of Scripture, the church is compared to a sheep fold, the saints
to sheep, and the ministers of religion to shepherds, who must render,
at last, an account of their administration to the Shepherd and Overseer
to whom they owe their authority.

The patriarchs did not commit their flocks and herds solely to the care
of menial servants and strangers; they tended them in person, or placed
them under the superintendence of their sons and their daughters, who
were bred to the same laborious employment, and taught to perform,
without reluctance, the meanest services. Rebecca, the only daughter of
a shepherd prince, went to a considerable distance to draw water; and it
is evident, from the readiness and address with which she let down her
pitcher from her shoulder, and gave drink to the servant of Abraham, and
afterward drew for all his camels, that she had been long accustomed to
that humble employment. From the same authority we know that Rachel, the
daughter of Laban, kept her father’s flocks, and submitted to the
various privations and hardships of the pastoral life, in the deserts of
Syria. The patriarch Jacob, though he was the son of a shepherd prince,
kept the flocks of Laban, his maternal uncle; and his own sons followed
the same business, both in Mesopotamia, and after his return to the land
of Canaan. This primeval simplicity was long retained among the Greeks.
Homer often sends the daughters of princes and nobles to tend the
flocks, to wash the clothes of the family at the fountain, or in the
flowing stream, and to perform many other menial services. Adonis, the
son of Cinyras, a king of Cyprus, fed his flocks by the streaming
rivers:

            _Et formosus oves ad flumina pavit Adonis._
                                        VIR. Ecl. x, l. 18.
            “Along the streams his flock Adonis fed.”
                                        DRYDEN.

Andromache, the wife of Hector, complains that Achilles had slain her
seven brothers when they were tending their flocks and herds. Æneas
pastured his oxen on Mount Ida, when Achilles seized them, and forced
the Trojan hero to flee. Phœbus himself was a keeper of oxen in the
groves and valleys of Mount Ida. This custom has descended to modern
times; for in Syria the daughters of the Turcoman and Arabian shepherds,
and in India the Brahmin women of distinction, are seen drawing water at
the village wells, and tending their cattle to the lakes and rivers.

The flocks and herds of these shepherds were immensely numerous. The
sheep of the Bedoween Arabs in Egypt, and probably throughout the east,
are very fine, black-faced and white-faced, and many of them clothed in
a brown coloured fleece: and of this superior breed the ample flocks of
the Syrian shepherds consisted. So great was the stock of Abraham and
Lot, that they were obliged to separate, because “the land was not able
to bear them.” From the present which Jacob made to his brother Esau,
consisting of five hundred and eighty head of different sorts, we may
form some idea of the countless numbers of great and small cattle which
he had acquired in the service of Laban. In modern times, the numbers of
cattle in the Turcoman flocks, which feed on the fertile plains of
Syria, are almost incredible. They sometimes occupy three or four days
in passing from one part of the country to another. Chardin had an
opportunity of seeing a clan of Turcoman shepherds on their march, about
two days’ distance from Aleppo. The whole country was covered with them.
Many of their principal people with whom he conversed on the road,
assured him, that there were four hundred thousand beasts of carriage,
camels, horses, oxen, cows, and asses, and three millions of sheep and
goats. This astonishing account of Chardin is confirmed by Dr. Shaw, who
states, that several Arabian tribes, who can bring no more than three or
four hundred horses into the field, are possessed of more than as many
thousand camels, and triple the number of sheep and black cattle.
Russel, in his “History of Aleppo,” speaks of vast flocks which pass
that city every year, of which many sheep are sold to supply the
inhabitants. The flocks and herds which belonged to the Jewish
patriarchs were not more numerous.

The care of such overgrown flocks, says Paxton, required many shepherds.
These were of different kinds; the master of the family and his
children, with a number of herdsmen who were hired to assist them, and
felt but little interest in the preservation and increase of their
charge. In Hebrew, these persons, so different in station and feeling,
were not distinguished by appropriate names; the master, the slave, and
the hired servant, were all known by the common appellation of
shepherds. The distinction, not sufficiently important to require the
invention of a particular term, is expressed among every people by a
periphrasis. The only instance in the Old Testament, in which the hired
servant is distinguished from the master, or one of his family, occurs
in the history of David, where he is said to have left the sheep, על
שומר, “in the hand of a keeper,” while he went down to visit his
brethren, and the armies who were fighting against the Philistines under
the banners of Saul, 1 Samuel xvii, 20. This word exactly corresponds
with the Latin term _custos_, “a keeper,” which Virgil uses to denote a
hireling shepherd, in his tenth Eclogue:

           _Atque utinam ex vobis unus vestrique fuissem,_
           _Aut custos gregis, aut maturæ vinitor uvæ._

           “O that your birth and business had been mine,
           To feed the flock and prune the spreading vine!”
                                                     WHARTON.

In such extensive pastoral concerns, the vigilance and activity of the
master were often insufficient for directing the operations of so many
shepherds, who were not unfrequently scattered over a considerable
extent of country. An upper servant was therefore appointed to
superintend their labours, and take care that his master suffered no
injury. In the house of Abraham, this honourable station was held by
Eliezer, a native of Damascus, a servant in every respect worthy of so
great and good a master. The numerous flocks of Pharaoh seem to have
required the superintending care of many overseers, Gen. xlvii, 6. Doeg,
an Edomite, was entrusted with the whole pastoral establishment of Saul,
1 Sam. xxi, 7. But in the reign of David, the important office of chief
herdsman was abolished, and the vast flocks and herds of that monarch
were entrusted to a number of superintendents; animals of the same
species forming a separate flock, under its proper overseer, 1
Chronicles xxvii, 29. These overseers, in the language of the Hebrews,
were called the princes of the flock; they were treated with great
distinction, and seem to have been selected in the reign of David from
among the nobles of his court. Eumæus, a person of noble birth,
agreeably to this custom, was charged with the care of the herds of
swine belonging to Ulysses. The office of chief shepherd is frequently
mentioned by the classic authors of antiquity. Diodorus relates from
Ctesias, that Simma was overseer of the royal flocks under Ninus, king
of Assyria. According to Plutarch, one Samo managed the flocks and herds
of Neoptolemus, the king of the Molossians. The office of chief shepherd
was also known among the Latins; for, in the seventh Æneid, Tyrrheus is
named as governor of the royal flocks:

             _Tyrrheusque pater, cui regia parent_
             _Armenta, et late custodia credita camp._

             “Their father, Tyrrheus, did his fodder bring;
             Tyrrheus, chief ranger to the Latian king.”
                                            DRYDEN.

And Livy informs us, that Faustulus held the same office under Numitor,
king of the Latins. But it is needless to multiply quotations; every
scholar knows that the Greek and Roman classics abound with allusions to
this office, which in those days was one of great importance and
dignity, on the faithful discharge of which the power and splendour of
an eastern potentate greatly depended. The office of chief shepherd,
therefore, being in pastoral countries one of great trust, of high
responsibility, and of distinguished honour, is with great propriety
applied to our Lord by the Apostle Peter: “And when the chief shepherd
shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory which fadeth not away,”
1 Peter v, 4. The same allusion occurs in these words of Paul: “Now the
God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ,
that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will,” Hebrews
xiii, 20.

SHIBBOLETH, “an ear of corn,” was a word which the Gileadites used as
the test of an Ephraimite. For the Ephraimites could not, from disuse,
pronounce the Hebrew letter _shin_; therefore, they said Sibboleth
instead of Shibboleth, Judges xii, 6. The Greeks, says Hartley, have not
the sound _sh_ in their language: hence they are liable to be detected,
like the Ephraimites. I was struck with this circumstance, in learning
Turkish from a Greek tutor; _pasha_, he pronounced _pasa_; _shimdi_, he
called _simdi_; _Dervish_, _Dervis_, &c. _Shibboleth_ he would, of
course, pronounce _Sibboleth_.

SHIELD. See ARMS.

SHILOH, Gen. xlix, 10. The Hebrew text is, “until Shiloh come.” All
Christian commentators agree, that this word ought to be understood of
the Messiah, that is, of Jesus Christ. The LXX. read it, “Until the
coming of him to whom it is reserved.” It must be owned that the
signification of the Hebrew word Shiloh is not well known. Some
translate the clause, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till he
comes to whom it belongs;” others, “till the coming of the peacemaker,
or the pacific, or prosperity;” and some, “The sceptre shall not depart
from Judah till its end, its ruin,” till the downfall of the kingdom of
the Jews. However, this much is clear, that the ancient Jews are in this
matter agreed with the Christians, in acknowledging that the word stands
for Messiah, the King. It is thus that the paraphrasts, Onkelos and
Jonathan, and the ancient Hebrew commentaries upon Genesis, and the
Talmudists explain it. If Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not make use
of this passage to prove the coming of the Messiah, it was because then
the completion of this prophecy was not sufficiently manifest. The
sceptre still continued among the Jews; they had still kings of their
own nation, in the persons of the Herods; but soon after the sceptre was
entirely taken away from them, and a people began to be gathered to
Christ, out of the Gentile nations.

2. SHILOH, a celebrated city of the tribe of Ephraim, twelve miles from
Shechem, Joshua xviii, xix, xxi. It was in this place that the
tabernacle of the Lord was set up, when the people were settled in the
country. The ark and the tabernacle of the Lord continued at Shiloh from
A. M. 2560 till 2888, when it was taken by the Philistines, under the
administration of the high priest Eli, 1 Sam. iv. Here the Prophet
Ahijah dwelt, 1 Kings xiv, 2.

SHINAR, a province of Babylonia, where men undertook to build the tower
of Babel, Genesis xi, 2; x, 10. Calneh was built in this country.
Amraphel was king of Shinar in the days of Abraham, Genesis xiv, 1. See
BABYLON.

SHISHAK, king of Egypt, declared war against Rehoboam in the fifth year
of the reign of that prince, 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3, &c. This Shishak,
according to Sir Isaac Newton, was the greatest conqueror, and the most
celebrated hero, of all antiquity, being the son of Ammon, or the
Egyptian Jupiter, and known to the Greeks by the name of Bacchus,
Osiris, and Hercules; was the Belus of the Chaldeans, and the Mars or
Mavors of the Thracians, &c. He made great conquests in India, Assyria,
Media, Scythia, Phenicia, Syria, Judea, &c. His army was at last routed
in Greece by Perseus; which, with other circumstances, compelled him to
return home.

SHITTIM, SITTIM, SITTAH, שטים, Exod. xxv, 5, 10, 13, 23, 28; xxvi, 26,
32, 37; xxvii, 1, 6; xxx, 5; xxxv, 7, 24; xxxvi, 20, 31, 36; xxxvii, 1,
4, 10, 15, 25, 28; xxxviii, 1, 6; Deut. x, 3; Isaiah xli, 19. What
particular species of wood this is, interpreters are not agreed. The
LXX. render ἄσηπτα ξύλα, _incorruptible wood_. St. Jerom says, the
shittim wood grows in the deserts of Arabia, and is like white thorn, as
to its colour and leaves: but the tree is so large as to furnish very
long planks. The wood is hard, tough, smooth, and extremely beautiful.
It is thought that this wood is the black acacia, because that, it is
said, is the most common tree growing in the deserts of Arabia; and
agrees with what the Scriptures say of the shittim wood. The _acacia
vera_ grows abundantly in Egypt, in places far from the sea; in the
mountains of Sinai, near the Red Sea, and in the deserts. It is of the
size of a large mulberry tree. The spreading branches and larger limbs
are armed with thorns which grow three together; the bark is rough; the
leaves are oblong, and stand opposite each other; the flowers, though
sometimes white, are generally of a bright yellow; and the fruit which
resembles a bean, is contained in pods like those of the lupin. “The
acacia tree,” says Dr. Shaw, “being by much the largest and most common
tree in these deserts, Arabia Petræa, we have some reason to conjecture,
that the shittim wood was the wood of the acacia; especially as its
flowers are of an excellent smell, for the shittah tree is, in Isaiah
xli, 19, joined with the myrtle and other fragrant shrubs.”

SHOES. To put off the shoes from one’s feet, was an act of reverence to
the Divine majesty of God, Exod. iii, 5. It was likewise a sign of
mourning and humiliation. David went up the ascent of Mount Olivet
barefoot, 2 Sam. xv, 30; Isa. xx, 2, 4; Ezek. xxiv, 17. See SANDAL.

SHOULDER. To give or lend the shoulder for the bearing of a burden,
signifies to submit to servitude. “Issachar bowed his shoulder to bear,
and became a servant unto tribute,” Gen. xlix, 15. And Isaiah, x, 27,
comforting Israel with the promise of deliverance from Assyria, says,
“His burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder.” The Scripture
calls that a rebellious shoulder, a withdrawing shoulder, which will not
submit to the yoke; and to bear it together with joint consent, is
termed “serving with one shoulder.” To bear any thing upon the shoulder,
is to sustain it, and this is applied to government and authority. Thus
Messiah was to bear the government upon his shoulder: “For unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,” &c,
Isa. ix, 6; and God promises Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, to give him the
key of the house of David, and to lay it upon his shoulder; “so he shall
open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open;” that
is, the sole authority shall rest upon him.

SHUSHAN, or SUSA, the ancient capital of Persia, seated on the river
Ulai, the modern Abzal. After the union of the kingdoms of Media and
Persia by Cyrus, Susa was made the winter residence of the kings of
Persia, from its southern position, and the shelter afforded by a range
of mountains on the north and east, which rendered the heat
insupportable in the summer season; while Ecbatana, in Media, from its
greater elevation, and more northern situation, was preferred at this
season, as being more cool and agreeable. Here the transactions occurred
related in the book of Esther. Here also Daniel had the vision of the
ram with two horns, and the goat with one horn, &c, in the third year of
Belshazzar’s reign. Susa was situated in the ancient province of Elam,
or Elymais, called also Susiana, and now forming a part of Kuzestan. It
has for several hundred years, like Babylon, been reduced to a heap of
undistinguished ruins. Mr. Kinneir says, “About seven or eight miles to
the west of Dezphoul, commence the ruins of Shus, stretching not less,
perhaps, than twelve miles, from one extremity to the other. They extend
as far as the eastern bank of the Kerah; occupying an immense space
between that river and the Abzal; and, like the ruins of Ctesiphon,
Babylon, and Kufa, consist of hillocks of earth and rubbish, covered
with broken pieces of brick and coloured tile. The largest and most
remarkable of these mounds stand at the distance of about two miles from
the Kerah. The first is, at the lowest computation, a mile in
circumference, and nearly a hundred feet in height; and the other,
although not quite so high, is double the circuit of the former. These
mounds bear some resemblance to the pyramids of Babylon; with this
difference, that instead of being entirely made of brick, they are
formed of clay and pieces of tile, with irregular layers of brick and
mortar, five or six feet in thickness, to serve, it should seem, as a
kind of prop to the mass. Large blocks of marble, covered with
hieroglyphics, are not unfrequently here discovered by the Arabs when
digging in search of hidden treasure; and at the foot of the most
elevated of the pyramids stands the tomb of Daniel, a small and
apparently a modern building, erected on the spot where the relics of
that prophet are believed to rest. The site of the city of Shus is now a
gloomy wilderness, infested by lions, hyænas, and other beasts of prey.
The dread of these furious animals compelled Mr. Monteith and myself to
take shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel’s
tomb.” Of this tomb Sir John Malcom observes, that “it is a small
building, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes who watch the remains
of the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims who
visit the holy sepulchre. These dervishes are now the only inhabitants
of Susa; and every species of wild beast roams at large over that spot
on which some of the proudest palaces ever raised by human art once
stood.” He also observes, respecting the authenticity of this tomb, that
“although the building at the tomb of Daniel be comparatively modern,
nothing could have led to its being built where it is, but a belief that
this was the real site of the prophet’s sepulchre.”

SIDON, or ZIDON, a celebrated city and port of Phenicia, and one of the
most ancient cities in the world; as it is supposed to have been founded
by Sidon, the eldest son of Canaan, which will carry it up to above two
thousand years before Christ. But if it was founded by Sidon, his
descendants were driven out by a body of Phenician colonists, or Cushim
from the east; who are supposed either to have given it its name, or to
have retained the old one in compliment to their god Siton, or Dagon.
Its inhabitants appear to have early acquired a preëminence in arts,
manufactures, and commerce; and from their superior skill in hewing
timber, by which must be understood their cutting it out and preparing
it for building, as well as the mere act of felling it, Sidonian workmen
were hired by Solomon to prepare the wood for the building of his
temple. The Sidonians are said to have been the first manufacturers of
glass; and Homer often speaks of them as excelling in many useful and
ingenious arts, giving them the title of Πολυδαιδάλοι. Add to this, they
were, if not the first shipwrights and navigators, the first who
ventured beyond their own coasts, and in those early ages engrossed the
greatest part of the then commerce of the world. The natural result of
these exclusive advantages to the inhabitants of Sidon was, a high
degree of wealth and prosperity; and content with the riches which their
trade and manufactures brought them, they lived in ease and luxury,
trusting the defence of their city and property, like the Tyrians after
them, to hired troops; so that to live in ease and security, is said in
Scripture to be after the manner of the Sidonians. In all these
respects, however, Sidon was totally eclipsed by her neighbour and rival
Tyre; whose more enterprising inhabitants pushed their commercial
dealings to the extremities of the known world, raised their city to a
rank in power and opulence unknown before, and converted it into a
luxurious metropolis, and the emporium of the produce of all nations.
After the subversion of the Grecian empire by the Romans, Sidon fell
into the hands of the latter; who, to put an end to the frequent revolt
of the inhabitants, deprived it of its freedom. It then fell
successively under the power of the Saracens, the Seljukian Turks, and
the sultans of Egypt; who, in 1289, that they might never more afford
shelter to the Christians, destroyed both it and Tyre. But it again
somewhat revived, and has ever since been in the possession of the
Ottoman Turks.

SIGN. This word is used in the sense of token and pledge; as, when the
Lord gave to Noah the rainbow, as a sign of his covenant, Gen. ix, 12,
13; and when he appointed to Abraham the use of circumcision, as the
seal of the covenant he had made with him and his posterity, Gen. xvii,
11. Sign is also put for a miracle: “Thou shalt do these signs and
wonders in the midst of Egypt,” Exodus iv, 7–9, &c. A sign or token is
often put for the proof or evidence of a thing: For example, “This shall
be a token or sign unto thee, that I have sent thee,” Exod. iii, 12.
“Shew me a sign, that thou talkest with me,” Judges vi, 17, that is a
proof. “What shall be the sign,” or evidence, “that the Lord will heal
me?” 2 Kings xx, 8. This acceptation agrees with the first above
mentioned; as also what is said in Gen. iv, 15, “And the Lord set a mark
or sign upon Cain;” he gave him a pledge that his life should not be
taken away. The signs of heaven, and the signs of the magicians, are the
phenomena of the heavens, and the impostures of magicians, which they
made use of for the purposes of deception: “The Lord frustrateth the
tokens or signs of the liars, and maketh diviners mad,” Isaiah xliv, 25.
“Be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at
them,” Jer. x, 2. To be a sign was farther to be a type, or prediction,
of what should happen. Thus the Prophet Isaiah, viii, 18, “Behold, I and
the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and for wonders
in Israel.” See also Ezek. iv, 3.

SILAS, or SYLVANUS, was, according to St. Luke, Acts xv, 22, one of the
“chief men among the brethren,” which makes it probable, that he was of
the number of the seventy disciples. When a dispute was raised at
Antioch about the observation of the legal ceremonies, they chose Paul,
Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, to go to Jerusalem, to advise with the
Apostles concerning this question. He is thought to be the same Silas
who is mentioned by the name of Sylvanus, in the title of the two
epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. St. Peter sent his first
epistle by him from Rome, wherein he styles him “a faithful brother.”
Silas joined himself to St. Paul; and after Saul and Barnabas had
parted, on account of John Mark, Acts xv, 37–41, Silas followed St.
Paul, and went with him to visit the churches of Syria and Cilicia.

SILENCE. This word not only signifies to refrain from speaking; but also
in the style of the Hebrews, it is taken for, “to be quiet, to remain
immovable.” As for example: “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,” in
Hebrew, be silent. “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,”
Joshua x, 12, 13, or were silent, at the commandment of Joshua.

SILOAH, the same as Siloam, Neh. iii, 15; Luke xiii, 4; a fountain under
the walls of Jerusalem, toward the east, between the city and the brook
Kidron, perhaps the same with Enrogel. Near this was a tower, Luke xiii,
4.

שריקות SILK, משי. As the word which is rendered “silk” in our version
more probably meant cotton, or rather muslin, it is doubtful whether
silk is mentioned expressly in the Scripture, unless, perhaps, in Isaiah
xix, 9, where we find the Hebrew word שריקות, from שרק, _yellowish_,
_tawny_; which is generally the natural colour of raw silk; hence the
Latin sericum: or it may be from the Seres, a nation whence the Greeks
and Romans first obtained the article silk. Calmet remarks that the
ancient Greeks and Romans had but little knowledge of the nature of
silk. The Seres communicated their silk to the Persians, from whom it
passed to the Greeks, and from them to the Romans. But the Persians and
orientals for a long time kept the secret of manufacturing it among
themselves. Silk was first brought into Greece after Alexander’s
conquest of Persia, and came into Italy during the flourishing times of
the Roman empire; but was long so dear in all these parts as to be worth
its weight in gold. At length the emperor Justinian, who died in the
year 365, by means of two monks, whom he sent into India for that
purpose, procured great quantities of silk worms’ eggs to be brought to
Constantinople, and from these have sprung all the silk worms and all
the silk trade that have been since in Europe, See FLAX.

SILVER, כסף, Gen. xx, 16; ἀργύριον, 1 Pet. i, 18; Acts iii, 4; xx, 33; a
well known metal, of a white shining colour; next in value to gold. It
does not appear to have been in use before the deluge; at least Moses
says nothing of it: he speaks only of the metals brass and iron, Gen.
iv, 22. But in Abraham’s time it was become common, and traffic was
carried on with it, Gen. xxiii, 2, 15. Yet it was not then coined, but
was only in bars or ingots; and in commerce was always weighed.

SIMEON, son of Jacob and Leah, was born A. M. 2247, Genesis xxix, 33;
xxxiv, 25. Jacob, on his death bed, showed his indignation against
Simeon and Levi for their cruelty to the Shechemites, Gen. xlix, 5: “I
will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” And in effect
these two tribes were scattered in Israel. As to Levi, he never had any
fixed lot or portion; and Simeon received only a canton that was
dismembered from the tribe of Judah, Joshua xix, 1, &c, and some other
lands they went to conquer in the mountains of Seir, and the desert of
Gedor, 1 Chronicles iv, 27, 39, 42.

2. SIMEON, a holy man, who was at Jerusalem, full of the Holy Ghost, and
expecting the redemption of Israel, Luke ii, 25, 26, &c. The Holy Ghost
had assured him, that he should not die before he had seen the Christ of
the Lord; he therefore came into the temple, prompted by inspiration,
just at the time when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus Christ there, in
obedience to the law. Simeon took the child into his arms, gave thanks
to God, and then blessed Joseph and Mary. It is believed, with good
reason, that he died soon after he had given his testimony to Jesus
Christ. Some have conjectured, that Simeon, who received Jesus Christ
into his arms, was the same as Simeon the Just, the son of Hillel, and
master of Gamaliel, whose disciple St. Paul was. See SANHEDRIM.

SIMON MACCABÆUS, surnamed Thossi, son of Mattathias, and brother of
Judas and Jonathan. He was chief prince and pontiff of the Jews from A.
M. 3860 to 3869, and was succeeded by John Hyrcanus. For the particulars
of his life and transactions, see 1 Mac. ii, 65; v, 17; x, 74–82; xii,
33, &c; xiii, 1, &c; xiv, 4, &c; xv, 1, &c.

2. SIMON, the Canaanite, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It is doubtful
whether the name of Canaanite was derived to him from the city Cana in
Galilee, or whether it should not be taken according to its
signification in the Hebrew, by deriving it from the root _kana_, “to be
zealous,” and this is the opinion of some learned men. See Luke vi, 15;
Acts i, 13, where he is surnamed Zelotes; see also Matt. x, 4; Mark iii,
18.

3. SIMON, brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; that is to
say, his cousin-german, being son of Mary, sister to the holy virgin. He
is thought to be the same with Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and son of
Cleopas.

4. SIMON MAGUS. Of this heretic, or rather father of heresy, Dr. Burton
gives the following account:--Justin Martyr, about A. D. 140, presented
a defence of Christianity to the emperor Antoninus Pius, in which he
mentions, as a well known fact, that Simon, a native of Gittum, a
village in Samaria, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, was looked
upon there as a god, and had a statue erected to him, with a Latin
inscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges. Justin adds,
that nearly all the Samaritans, and a few also in other nations,
acknowledged and worshipped him as the supreme God. There is in this
passage such a minute detail, such a confident appeal to the emperor’s
own knowledge of what the apologist was saying, that we can hardly
suppose the story to be false, when not only the emperor, but every
person in Rome would have been able to detect it. I would observe, also,
that Justin Martyr was himself a native of Samaria; hence he was able to
name the very place where Simon was born; and when he says, in his
second defence, which was presented a few years later, “I have despised
the impious and false doctrine of Simon which is in my country;” when we
see the shame which he felt at the name of Christian being assumed by
the followers of that impostor; we can never believe that he would have
countenanced the story, if the truth of it had not been notorious, much
less would he have given to his own country the disgrace of originating
the evil.

Simon Magus was a native of Gittum, a town in Samaria; and it is stated
in a suspicious document of ancient though doubtful date, that he
studied for some time at Alexandria. Concerning the time of his birth,
and of his first rising into notice, little can now be known. The only
contemporary document which mentions him is the Acts of the Apostles;
and we there read, that, when Philip the deacon preached the Gospel in
Samaria after the death of Stephen, “there was a certain man, called
Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the
people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one; to whom
they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is
the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long
time he had bewitched them with sorceries,” Acts viii, 9–11. According
to my calculation, the death of Stephen happened in the same year with
the crucifixion of our Lord; and it appears from the passage now quoted,
that Simon’s celebrity had begun some time before. We are then told that
“Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued
with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were
done,” Acts viii, 13. I need not mention how he shortly fell away from
the faith which he had embraced, and how St. Peter rebuked him for
thinking that the gift of God might be purchased for money, Acts viii,
20; but I would observe, that some of those persons who insist upon the
fact that Simon was not a Christian appear to have forgotten that he was
actually baptized. For a time, at least, he believed in Jesus Christ;
and part of this belief he appears always to have retained; that is, he
always believed that Jesus Christ was a being more than human, who came
from God. If these events happened, as I have supposed, within a short
time of our Lord’s ascension, the fathers had good reason to call Simon
Magus the parent of all heresies; for he must then have been among the
first persons, beyond the limits of Jerusalem, who embraced the Gospel;
and we might hope that there was no one before him who perverted the
faith which he had professed.

From the detailed account which we have of Simon in the Acts of the
Apostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things: 1. That St.
Luke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the Gospel; and he
mentions this because it was the first: and 2. That when St. Luke wrote
the Acts of the Apostles the heresy of Simon was widely spread; and
therefore he tells his readers how it had begun. Concerning the
remainder of Simon’s life we know little, and in that little it is
difficult to separate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the
reasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says
that Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted
numerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr; but
he adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St.
Peter came to Rome at the same time; and that, in consequence of his
preaching, the popularity of the impostor was entirely destroyed. This
would be a most interesting and important fact, if we were certain of
its being true; but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon
Magus going to Rome; and later writers have so embellished the story of
this meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous,
that criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which
we have of Simon’s death is, in a few words, as follows: St. Peter and
St. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ;
and, in proof of his assertion, he undertook to raise himself aloft into
the air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed; but the
two Apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell
to the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to
give this marvellous narration, without forgetting that we are treating
of a grave and sacred subject; and the question for us to consider is,
whether we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is
most probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth. I must
observe, in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the
fourth century, is the first person who says anything of Simon’s death
at all approaching to this story; nor does he by any means give it all
the particulars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed,
also, that Eusebius, who wrote after Arnobius, does not say any thing of
Simon’s extraordinary end; but merely states that his credit and
influence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in
Rome. It is probable, therefore, that no Greek writer before the time of
Eusebius had mentioned this story; but, on the other hand, there is such
a host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or
other connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome,
that we might be carrying our skepticism too far if we rejected it.

With respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that
Christ held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught; but
to define with accuracy the various points of this philosophy, is a
difficult, if not impossible, task. The fathers perhaps may be suspected
of laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of
their accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we
may extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this
instance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority
of Justin Martyr. That writer says that nearly all the inhabitants of
Samaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and
worshipped Simon Magus as the first or supreme God: and in another place
he says that they styled him God, above all dominion and authority and
power. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine, and
said that Simon declared himself to the Samaritans as the Father, to the
Jews as the Son, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost. But I
cannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in
wickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be
collected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave
himself out to be “some great one,” and that the people said of him,
“This man is the great power of God,” Acts viii, 10. Such is the title
which he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to
think that he afterward raised his pretensions, and identified himself
with God. He gave himself out as “the great power of God,” that is, a
person in whom divine power resided: and, after he had heard the
Apostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have
said, that the God whose minister he was, and who had always been
worshipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the Jews by his Son, and
to the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe
that he declared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or
rather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had
descended afterward upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had
a real body, but he taught that he was only a phantom. To this he added,
that the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided
in himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he
was the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the
Son to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world.

Another charge, which is equally difficult to believe, relates to a
female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea,
or conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another
mental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the
angels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and
writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the
absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living
person with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be
assumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the
Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first
cause, or Bythus, act upon Σιγὴ, or Ἐννοία, that is, upon his own mind,
and produce the first pair of æons. This then was the doctrine of Simon:
the supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of
angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or
principal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said
that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he,
who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have
argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of
its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which
is impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the
supreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one
of those successive generations of æons which were derived from God; not
the æon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue
mankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative æon. Simon was
also inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be
born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His
other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not
inspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior
beings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He
denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his
followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious
conduct.

Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the
pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon
himself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the
Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil
spirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied
the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so
commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of
evil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was
created by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a
corrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the
mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the
supreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The
first intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world:
Simon also taught that the angels, or æons, created the world; but in
one respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato;
for they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted
contrary to the wishes of the supreme God.

SIN, the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of
God, 1 John iii, 4. Original sin is that whereby our whole nature is
corrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or,
according to the ninth article of the church of England, “It is that
whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his
own nature, inclined to evil.” This is sometimes called, “indwelling
sin,” Rom. vii. The imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, is
also what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin.
Actual sin is a direct violation of God’s law, and generally applied to
those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or
children, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission
consist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of
commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts,
or doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which
arise from ignorance, surprise, &c. Secret sins are those committed in
secret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see
the evil, Psalm xix, 7–12. Presumptuous sins are those which are done
boldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according
to some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which Christ wrought by
the power of the Holy Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather
be called, many scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, who, beholding our
Lord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the
prince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy Ghost Satan, a
most horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ,
and salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness,
Mark iii, 22–30. No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy,
except those who were spectators of Christ’s miracles. There is,
however, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves
consideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Bishop
Tomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all
the three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of
them affirms that those who had ascribed Christ’s power of casting out
devils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is
not mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according
to the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the
Jews of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed
an unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares
that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him;” that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the
Son of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the
authority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they
may repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the
reviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more
heinous nature: “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.” “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath
never forgiveness.” “Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it
shall not be forgiven.” It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost
could not be committed while our Saviour was upon earth, since he always
speaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension
into heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy
Ghost enabled the Apostles to work miracles, and communicated to them a
variety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers
to Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would
blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin
would be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence
of the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who
rejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity
of being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of
pardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men
would consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they
are supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from
the dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of
the Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated;
circumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they
preached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who
refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah during his actual ministry.
Though this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be
remedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But,
on the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and
complete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the
inspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of
conviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and
consequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be
incapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin
against the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the Gospel as
preached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which
they taught “by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the
Holy Ghost,” Heb. ii, 4. It was unpardonable, because this was the
consummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the
divine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all
other sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and
unalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would
appear from this, that those only committed or could commit this
irremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by
the Holy Spirit in the Apostles after Christ’s ascension and the day of
pentecost. Our Lord’s declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews.
This view will serve to explain those passages in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in which the hopeless case of Jewish apostates is described.
But see BLASPHEMY.

SIN, DESERT OF. To this the tenth station the Israelites came exactly a
month after they left Egypt. And here again they murmured for “the bread
and the flesh-pots of Egypt.” So the Lord gave them quails for a day,
and manna for forty years, till they came to the borders of Canaan. On
this occasion the institution of the Sabbath was revived, as a day of
rest, which had been intermitted during their Egyptian bondage. On this
day there fell no manna, but on the preceding they were directed to
gather two days’ provision. To perpetuate the memorial of “this bread
from heaven” to future generations, a pot of manna, which was preserved
fresh, by a standing miracle, was ordered to be laid up beside the ark
of the covenant, in the sanctuary, Exod. xvi.

SINAI, a famous mountain of Arabia Petræa, on which God gave the law to
Moses, Exod. xix, 1; xxiv, 16; xxxi, 18; xxxiv, 2, 4, &c; Lev. xxv, 1;
xxvi, 46. It stands in a kind of peninsula, formed by the two arms of
the Red Sea; one extending north, called the Gulf of Kolsom; the other
extending east, called the Gulf of Elan. The Arabs call Mount Sinai by
the name of Tor, that is, the mountain, by way of excellence; or Gibel
Mousa, “the mountain of Moses.” It is two hundred and sixty miles from
Cairo, which is a journey of ten days. The wilderness of Sinai, where
the Israelites continued encamped almost a year, and where Moses erected
the tabernacle of the covenant, is considerably elevated above the rest
of the country; the ascent to it is very craggy, the greater part cut
out of the rock; then one comes to a large space of ground, which is a
plain surrounded on all sides by rocks and eminences, whose length is
nearly twelve miles. Toward the extremity of this plain, on the north,
two high mountains appear; the highest is called Sinai, the other Horeb.
They are of very steep ascent, and do not stand on much ground in
comparison to their extraordinary height. Sinai is at least one third
part higher than the other, and its ascent more upright and difficult.
The top of the mountain terminates in an uneven and rugged space, which
might contain about sixty persons. On this eminence is built a little
chapel, called St. Catherine’s, where it is thought the body of this
saint rested for three hundred and sixty years; but afterward it was
removed into a church at the foot of the mountain. Near this chapel
issues a fountain of very good fresh water; it is looked upon as
miraculous, it not being conceivable how water can flow from the brow of
so high and so barren a mountain. Mount Horeb stands west of Sinai; so
that at sun-rising the shadow of Sinai covers Horeb. Beside the little
fountain at the top of Sinai, there is another at the foot of Horeb,
which supplies the monastery of St. Catherine. Five or six paces from
thence they show a stone, whose height is four or five feet, and breadth
about three, which they say is the very stone from whence Moses caused
the water to gush out. Its colour is of a spotted grey; and it is, as it
were, set in a kind of earth, where no other rock appears. This stone
has twelve holes or channels, which are about a foot wide, from whence
they say the water issued which the Israelites drank.

“Sinai,” says Sandys, “has three tops of a marvellous height; that on
the west side, where God appeared to Moses in a bush, fruitful in
pasturage, far lower than the middlemost, and shadowed when the sun
riseth thereon; which is that whereon God gave the law to Moses, and
which is now called the Mount of Moses, at the foot of which stands the
monastery called St. Catherine’s, from which there were steps formerly
up to the very top of the mountain, and were computed fourteen thousand
in number. At present some of them are broken, but those that remain are
well made, and easy to go up and down. There are, in several places of
the ascent, good cisterns; and especially near the top, a fair and good
one. The third or most easterly summit is called by the religious in
those parts, Mount Catherine; on the top of which there is a dome, under
which they say was interred the body of this saint, brought thither by
angels after she was beheaded at Alexandria.” One may judge of the
height of St. Catherine’s Mount, which certainly is not so high as that
of Moses by a third part, from this circumstance, that Thevenot found
much snow on both when he was there, which was in February. The
monastery of St. Catherine is from Cairo some eight days’ journey over
the deserts.

SION, or ZION, MOUNT, a mount or hill on the south of Old Jerusalem or
Salem, and higher than that on which the ancient city stood. This hill
was, perhaps, on this account, made choice of by the Jebusites for
building a fort or citadel upon; which fort was taken by David, who
transferred his court thither from Hebron, and brought the ark of the
Lord and set it in a tabernacle or tent pitched for it. On this account
it is, that this hill is so frequently styled in the Psalms the “holy
hill;” and, by way of excellence, is used in the poetical language of
Scripture to denote the whole city of Jerusalem. Here David built a
palace, and a city, called after him the city of David; and which
subsequently formed a part of Jerusalem, enclosed within the same walls,
although a great part of the hill is now left without them; while, on
the contrary, Calvary, which is supposed to have stood formerly without
the walls, is now enclosed within them, the city having drawn itself
round about this sacred mount. “This hill,” says M. Chateaubriand, “is
of a yellowish colour, and barren appearance; open in form of a
crescent, toward Jerusalem; and is about as high as Montmartre at Paris,
but rounder at the top. This sacred summit is distinguished by three
monuments, or, more properly, by three ruins, the house of Caiaphas, the
place where Christ celebrated his last supper, and the tomb or palace of
David. From the top of the hill you see, to the south, the valley of Ben
Hinnom; beyond this, the field of blood, purchased with the thirty
pieces of silver given to Judas; the hill of Evil Counsel, the tombs of
the judges, and the whole desert toward Hebron and Bethlehem. To the
north, the wall of Jerusalem, which passes over the top of Sion,
intercepts the view of the city, the site of which gradually slopes
toward the Valley of Jehoshaphat.”

Dr. Richardson observes of Sion, “At the time when I visited this sacred
ground, one part of it supported a crop of barley, another was
undergoing the labour of the plough, and the soil turned up consisted of
stones and lime mixed with earth, such as is usually met with in the
foundations of ruined cities. It is nearly a mile in circumference, is
highest on the west side, and toward the east falls down in broad
terraces on the upper part of the mountain, and narrow ones on the side
as it slopes down toward the brook Kedron. Each terrace is divided from
the one above it by a low wall of dry stone, built of the ruins of this
celebrated spot. The terraces near the bottom of the hill are used as
gardens, and are watered from the pool of Siloam. We have here another
remarkable instance of the special fulfilment of prophecy. ‘Therefore
shall Zion for your sakes be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall
become heaps,’ Micah iii, 12.” Mr. Jolliffe represents the hill of Sion
as not more raised above the city than the Aventine hill above the Roman
forum; but conjectures that its height, from its base in the Valley of
Gehinnon, from which it rises abruptly, may be equivalent to some of the
lowest hills which encompass Bath; that is, if the estimate be correct,
about three hundred and sixty feet, which is the height of the lowest of
the hills above that city.

SISTER, in the style of the Hebrews, has equal latitude as brother. It
is used not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father
and mother, but also for a sister only by the same father or by the same
mother, or a near relation only. Sarah is called sister to Abraham, Gen.
xii, 13; xx, 12, though only his niece according to some, or sister by
the father’s side according to others. In the law, Lev. xviii, 18, it is
forbidden to take to wife the sister of a wife; to marry two sisters;
or, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one
already. Literally, “Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister to
afflict her;” as if meaning to forbid polygamy. In the Gospels, the
brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ are his cousins, children of the
sisters of the holy virgin, Matt. xiii, 56; Mark vi, 3.

SLAVE. See SERVANT.

SLEEP, SLEEPING, SLUMBERING, is taken either for the sleep or repose of
the body; or for the sleep of the soul, which is supineness, indolence,
stupidity; or for the sleep of death. “You shall sleep with your
fathers;” you shall die, as they are dead. Jeremiah, li, 39, threatens
Babylon, in the name of the Lord, with a perpetual sleep, out of which
they shall not awake. Daniel, xii, 2, speaks of those that sleep in the
dust of the grave. “Lazarus our friend sleepeth; let us go and awake
him,” John xi, 11; he is dead, let us go and raise him up. “Awake, thou
that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee
light,” Eph. v, 14. Here St. Paul speaks to those that were dead in sin
and infidelity. St. Peter says of the wicked, “Their damnation
slumbereth not,” 2 Peter ii, 3. God is not asleep, he will not forget to
punish them in his own due time. Isaiah, lxv, 4, speaks of a
superstitious practice among the Pagans, who went to sleep in the
temples of their idols, to obtain prophetic dreams: “They remain among
the graves, and lodge in the monuments.” The word, which we translate
“monuments,” signifies places “kept” or “observed.” Some interpret it of
idol temples, some of caves and dens, in which the Heathens used to
worship their idols; and some of tombs or monuments for dead persons.
Thus also the superstitious and idolatrous Jews, in contempt of the
prophets, and of the temple of the Lord, went into the tombs and temples
of idols to sleep there, and to have dreams that might discover future
events to them. The Pagans for this purpose used to lie upon the skins
of the sacrificed victims.

SLINGS. See ARMS.

SMYRNA, a city of Asia Minor, and one of the finest in all the Levant.
It contended for the honour of giving birth to Homer, and its title is
by many thought to be the best founded. The Christian church in Smyrna
was one of the seven churches of Asia to which the Apostle John was
commanded to address an epistle, Rev. ii, 8–10. The present Smyrna,
which the Turks call Esmir, is about four miles in circumference, and
contains a population of about a hundred thousand souls. It is less
remarkable for the elegance of its buildings than for the beauty of its
situation, the extent of its commerce, and the riches of its
inhabitants.

SOCINIANS, a sect so called from Faustus Socinus, who died in Poland in
1604. This celebrated man was born in Tuscany, and was descended from an
ancient and noble family. In the earlier period of his life he devoted
little time to literary acquisitions, but he was possessed of a vigorous
understanding, and of that steady fortitude which qualified him for the
memorable part which he afterward acted. His connection with his uncle
Lælius probably gave a bias to his mind with respect to religion. He
warmly embraced his tenets, and he spent a great part of his days in
studying and disseminating them. Having left his native country, he
visited Poland; and finally he settled in it for the express purpose of
propagating his own peculiar views of religious truth. The fundamental
principles which he assumed were, the rejection of all mystery from
revelation, and the necessity of trying its doctrines by the light of
reason; and he rigorously applied this latter maxim in conducting his
theological investigations. He inculcated in the strictest sense, the
unity of God; considered the Word and the Holy Ghost as attributes of
the supreme Being; taught that Christ was a man peculiarly honoured by
the Almighty, having been born through the operation of the Spirit; and
that he was so highly exalted, in consequence of his office as the
Saviour of the world, that he might be styled the Son of God, and ought
to be worshipped. Struck with several declarations of our Lord which
seemed to imply that he had descended from heaven, and which militated
against his leading tenet respecting Jesus, he endeavoured to evade the
application of them, by supposing or affirming that, previous to the
commencement of our Saviour’s ministry, he had, through the power of
God, been taken up to the celestial regions, and had in them received
from the Almighty the truths which he was commissioned to reveal.

The first reception of Socinus in Poland, even by those who might have
been expected to welcome him, was most discouraging. The Unitarian
churches which had been previously established in that kingdom,
differing from him in several points, would not admit him into their
communion; and he had to encounter the enmity of the great majority of
Christians, who abhorred his tenets, and branded them as impious. But,
notwithstanding all this, and although he was visited with much
suffering and affliction, his perseverance, his talents, and his zeal
soon excited admiration; his views were adopted by many even in the
highest stations of life; his principles were embodied in a catechism,
which, though not imposed upon his followers, they read with very
extensive acquiescence; and he had the satisfaction of beholding the
sentiments which he had long cherished, embraced by various churches
enjoying the protection of government, and permitted to establish
seminaries of education by which the impression made on the public mind
might be preserved and deepened. There was not, however, perfect
unanimity of faith among all his associates who united in denying the
divinity of our Lord. Vast numbers of these, previous to their having
perused the papers of Lælius Socinus, had so far received the system of
Arianism, that they believed Christ to have existed before he entered
into the world; and although many, in consequence of the reasonings and
representations of Socinus, abandoned this doctrine, it was retained by
some, who, from their leader, were called Farnovians. Socinus conducted
himself toward these men with admirable address. Fully aware that the
tendency of their having departed so far from the orthodox tenets was to
lead them to still farther recession, and sensible that his own system
naturally and consequentially resulted from what they readily admitted,
he used every method to conciliate them, and he permitted them to remain
with his followers, upon condition of their not openly insisting on the
preëxistence of Christ. They did, however, at length separate from the
great body of his adherents; but they gradually approached nearer and
nearer to them, and, upon the death of Farnovius, most of them
incorporated themselves with the Socinians, and all trace of them as a
distinct party was obliterated.

Socinus was much more agitated by the promulgation of an opinion very
opposite to those now mentioned. As might have been anticipated, there
were some who, having adopted the sentiments of Lælius Socinus as to the
simple humanity of Christ, deduced from this tenet consequences which
appeared to them obviously to flow from it, although these had not been
perceived or admitted by Lælius himself. A striking example of this took
place in the time of Faustus Socinus. Francis David, a man of
considerable influence among the Unitarians, being the superintendent of
their churches in Transylvania, maintained that, as Christ was born just
like other men, so he continued, notwithstanding his exaltation, to be
merely a human being; and that therefore all invocation of him, and
worship paid to him, were to be shunned as impiety or idolatry. Socinus
inveighed with the utmost warmth against this opinion; he used every
method to induce David to renounce it; and, at the desire of one of his
friends, he resided for a considerable time at the house of his
opponent, that the subject at issue might be fully and calmly discussed.
He failed, however, in accomplishing his object. David persisted, as he
had, upon the ground which he had taken, good reason to do, in asserting
the doctrine which he had announced; and he was soon after this thrown
by the prince of Transylvania into prison, where he lingered for several
years, and then died at an advanced age. It has been insinuated that
Socinus was accessary to this cruel deed of detestable persecution; and,
although attempts have been made to wipe off the imputation, there is
too much cause to think that it is not wholly unfounded. Most certain it
is, that he had it much at heart to root out what he viewed as the
heresy of David, and that the support of it after the death of the
unhappy sufferer by some distinguished Unitarians gave him much
uneasiness. It is not unlikely that the zeal which he thus displayed
arose from his apprehension that the tenets which he opposed would
supplant his own, and from the difficulty that he must have experienced
in turning aside the inferences which were affirmed to follow from what
he admitted. If such was the case, and it seems in many respects more
probable than the conjecture of Mosheim, that it is to be attributed to
the dread of rendering the sect more odious than it actually was, we
have a striking proof of his discernment, though at the expense of his
candour; for the present creed of Unitarianism approaches much nearer to
that of David than to the doctrines of the founder of Socinianism
himself.

But, while he was thus disquieted by opposition which, after the liberty
with which he had himself departed from the faith of the most ancient
and numerous Christian churches, should have created no surprise, he was
highly gratified by the zeal and the establishment of his followers.
Under the protection of the ample toleration which they enjoyed in
Poland they were sedulous in their attempts to imprint their tenets upon
those among whom they lived, and to send these tenets abroad to foreign
nations. The Anti-trinitarians in Poland had early translated the
Scriptures, and their successors under Socinus composed many works with
the design of defending the principles of their faith. They also sent
missionaries to propagate their views and to disseminate the books which
supported them, anticipating success similar to that which had
accompanied their efforts in Transylvania. But in Hungary and in Austria
they were successfully opposed by the united and cordial efforts of
Catholics and Protestants. In Holland they were more fortunate; and in
England they established only one congregation, which differed in some
points from the parent sect, and which soon dwindled away.

These failures, which the ardour, the ability, and the high rank of many
who engaged in the diffusion of Socinianism were unable to prevent, were
soon followed by their expulsion from the country in which they had so
long remained in security and peace. Toward the middle of the
seventeenth century some of the students attending the academy at Racow,
wantonly insulted the feelings and the principles of the Catholics, by a
contemptible act of outrage against a crucifix, which, with stones, they
threw down from the place in which it had been erected. By men warmly
attached to their own religion, and who had at all times regarded the
Socinians as undermining its foundation, this youthful excess was
represented as confirming all the charges that had been made against the
community to which the perpetrators belonged, and they determined to
exert themselves to procure their punishment or extirpation. The
supporters of the established religion accordingly applied to the diet
at Warsaw; and, notwithstanding the powerful influence used in favour of
the Socinians, a cruel edict was passed, abolishing their academy at
Racow, banishing the learned men who had taught in it, breaking the
printing presses, and shutting up the churches. This edict was carried
into effect with much severity; but it did not exhaust the enmity now
cherished against the sect; for within a few years after, by a solemn
act of the Polish diet, they were banished from the territories of the
republic, and, with sad departure from the tolerant and beneficent
spirit of the Gospel, death was denounced against all who held their
opinions, or who even sheltered and protected those who entertained
them. A short time was allowed to the unfortunate victims to arrange
their affairs before they bade an eternal adieu to scenes which all the
ties of human life must have endeared to them; but this period was
abridged. Some, however, had escaped the operation of the law, and had
remained in Poland; but three years after the edict was renewed, and the
Socinians who still lingered in their beloved country were driven from
it with a rigour and an inhumanity reflecting infamy upon those who were
guilty of them, and leading to the most melancholy reflections upon that
dismal perversion of all that is amiable in our nature, which has so
often been effected by a mistaken zeal for a religion breathing the
tenderest concern for the happiness of mankind. The principles of
Socinus were, notwithstanding, secretly fostered, and various causes
tended to perpetuate them even where in profession they were abjured.
The propensity, so natural to man, of dissipating every shade of
mystery, and casting the light of his own understanding around the
subjects of his contemplation, did not cease to operate; and the
application of this principle, so gratifying to the pride of human
reason, carried many farther than even Socinus had probably anticipated.

The Socinians hold, that Jesus Christ was a mere man, who had no
existence before he was born of the virgin Mary; that the Holy Ghost is
no distinct person; but that the Father only is truly and properly God.
They own that the name of God is given in Scripture to Jesus Christ, but
contend that it is only a deputed title; which, however, invests him
with a great authority over all creatures. They deny the doctrine of
satisfaction and imputed righteousness, and say, that Christ only
preached the truth to mankind, set before them in himself an example of
heroic virtue, and sealed his doctrines with his blood. Original sin
they esteem a mere scholastic chimera. Some of them, likewise, maintain
the sleep of the soul, which, they say, becomes insensible at death, and
is raised again with the body at the resurrection, when the good shall
be established in the possession of eternal felicity, while the wicked
shall be consigned to a fire that will torment them, not eternally, but
for a certain duration, proportioned to their demerits.

SODOM, the capital of Pentapolis, which for some time was the residence
of Lot, the nephew of Abraham. The history of its destruction is given
in the book of Genesis. See ABRAHAM, LOT, and DEAD SEA.

SOLOMON, or SALOMON, son of David and Bathsheba, was born A. M. 2971.
The Lord loved him, and sent Nathan to David to give Solomon the name of
Jedidiah, or, “beloved of the Lord,” 2 Sam. xii, 24, 25. This was
probably when Nathan assured David that his son should succeed him, and
that he should inherit those promises which had been made to him some
years before, when he had conceived the design of building a temple to
the Lord; for then God declared, by the prophet Nathan, that the honour
of building a temple should be reserved for his son, 2 Sam. vii, 5, &c.
Solomon, being confirmed in his kingdom, contracted an alliance with
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and married his daughter, A.M. 2291. He brought
her to Jerusalem, and had apartments for her in the city of David, till
he should build her a palace, which he did some years afterward, when he
had finished the temple. It is thought that on occasion of this
marriage, Solomon composed the Canticles, which are a kind of
epithalamium. The Scripture speaks of the daughter of Pharaoh, as
contributing to pervert Solomon, 1 Kings xi, 1, 2; Neh. xiii, 26; and it
is very likely, that if at first this princess might seem converted to
the Lord, she afterward might retain her private disposition to
idolatry, and might engage her husband in it.

Solomon, accompanied by his troops and all Israel, went up to Gibeon,
where was then the brazen altar, upon which he offered a thousand
burnt-offerings. The night following, God appeared to him in a dream,
and said, “Ask of me what thou wilt.” Solomon begged of God a wise and
understanding heart, and such qualities as were necessary for the
government of the people committed to him. This request pleased the
Lord, and was fully granted by him. Solomon returned to Jerusalem, where
he offered a great number of sacrifices on the altar before the ark of
the Lord, and made a great feast for his servants. He enjoyed a profound
peace throughout his dominions; Judah and Israel lived in security; and
his neighbours either paid him tribute, or were his allies; he ruled
over all the countries and kingdoms from the Euphrates to the Nile, and
his dominions extended even beyond the former; he had abundance of
horses and chariots of war; he exceeded the orientals, and all the
Egyptians, in wisdom and prudence; he was the wisest of mankind, and his
reputation was spread through all nations. He composed or collected,
three thousand proverbs, and one thousand and five canticles. He knew
the nature of plants and trees, from the cedar on Libanus to the hyssop
on the wall; also of beasts, of birds, of reptiles, of fishes. There was
a concourse of strangers from all countries to hear his wisdom, and
ambassadors from the most remote princes.

When Hiram, king of Tyre, knew that Solomon was made king of Israel, he
sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his accession to the crown. Some
time afterward, Solomon desired him to supply wood and workmen, to
assist in building a temple to the Lord. Hiram gladly undertook this
service, and Solomon, on his part, obliged himself to give twenty
thousand measures of wheat, and twenty thousand measures of oil. The
Hebrew and the Vulgate have only twenty measures of oil; but the reading
ought no doubt to be twenty thousand. Solomon began to build the temple
in the fourth year of his reign, and the second after the death of
David; four hundred and eighty years after the exodus from Egypt. He
employed in this great work seventy thousand proselytes, descendants of
the ancient Canaanites, in carrying burdens, fourscore thousand in
cutting stones out of the quarries, and three thousand six hundred
overseers of the works; beside thirty thousand Israelites in the
quarries of Libanus.

The temple was completed in the eleventh year of Solomon, so that he was
but seven years in performing this vast work. The dedication was made
the year following, A. M. 3001. To make this ceremony the more august,
Solomon chose for it the eighth day of the seventh month of the holy
year, which was the first of the civil year, and answered to our
October. The ceremony of the dedication lasted seven days, at the end of
which began the feast of tabernacles, which continued seven days longer;
so that the people continued at Jerusalem fourteen or fifteen days, from
the eighth to the twenty-second of the seventh month. When the ark was
placed in the sanctuary, while the priests and Levites were celebrating
the praises of the Lord, the temple was filled with a miraculous cloud,
so that the priests could no longer stand to perform the functions of
their ministry. Then Solomon, being on his throne, prostrated himself
with his face to the ground; and rising up, and turning toward the
sanctuary, he addressed his prayer to God, and besought him that the
house which he had built might be acceptable to him, that he would bless
and sanctify it, and hear the prayers of those who should address him
from this holy place. He besought him also to fulfil the promises he had
made to David his servant in favour of his family, and of the kings his
successors. Then turning himself to the people, he solemnly blessed
them. Fire coming down from heaven consumed the victims and burnt
sacrifices on the altar, and the glory of the Lord filled the whole
temple. On this day the king caused to be sacrificed twenty-two thousand
oxen, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep for peace-offerings. And
because the altar of burnt-offerings was not sufficient for all these
victims, the king consecrated the court of the people.

Solomon afterward built a palace for himself, and another for his queen,
the king of Egypt’s daughter. He was thirteen years in finishing these
buildings, and employed in them whatever the most exquisite art, or the
most profuse riches, could furnish. The palace in which he generally
resided was called the house of the forest of Lebanon; probably because
of the great quantity of cedar used in it. Solomon also built the walls
of Jerusalem, and the place called Millo in this city; he repaired and
fortified Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, the two Bethhorons, Upper and Lower,
Baalath, and Palmyra in the desert of Syria. He also fortified the
cities where he had magazines of corn, wine, and oil; and those where
his horses and chariots were kept. He brought under his government the
Hittites, the Hivites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, which remained
in the land of Israel. He made them tributaries, and compelled them to
work at the public works. He fitted out a fleet at Ezion-Geber, and at
Elath, on the Red Sea, to go to Ophir. Hiram, king of Tyre, furnished
him with mariners, who instructed the subjects of Solomon. They
performed this voyage in three years, and brought back gold, ivory,
ebony, precious wood, peacocks, apes, and other curiosities. In one
voyage they brought Solomon four hundred and fifty talents of gold, 2
Chron. ix, 21. About the same time, the queen of Sheba came to
Jerusalem, attracted by the great fame of the king. She brought rich
presents of gold, spices, and precious stones; and proposed several
enigmas and hard questions, to which Solomon gave her such satisfactory
answers, that she owned what had been told her of his wisdom and
magnificence was far short of what she had found. The king, on his part,
made her rich presents in return.

Solomon was one of the richest, if not the very richest, of all princes
that have ever lived; and the Scripture expressly tells us he exceeded
in riches and wisdom all the kings of the earth. His annual revenues
were six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold, without reckoning
tributes from kings and nations, or paid by Israelites, or sums received
for customs. The bucklers of his guards, and the throne he sat on, were
overlaid with gold. All the vessels of his table, and the utensils of
his palaces, were of gold. From all parts he received presents, vessels
of gold and silver, precious stuffs, spices, arms, horses, and mules;
and the whole earth desired to see his face, and to hear the wisdom
which God had put into his heart. But the latter actions of his life
disgraced his character. Beside Pharaoh’s daughter, he married wives
from among the Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, Sidonians, and Hittites.
He had seven hundred wives, who were so many queens, beside three
hundred concubines. These women perverted his heart in his declining
age, so that he worshipped Ashtoreth, goddess of the Sidonians, Moloch,
idol of the Ammonites, and Chemosh, god of the Moabites. To these he
built temples on the Mount of Olives, over against and east of
Jerusalem, and thus insulted openly the Majesty he had adored.

Solomon died after he had reigned forty years, A. M. 3029. He might be
about fifty-eight years of age; for he was about eighteen when he began
to reign. Josephus makes him to have reigned eighty years and to have
lived ninety-four years; but this is a manifest error. The history of
this prince was written by the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo. He was
buried in the city of David; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.
Of all the ingenious works composed by Solomon, we have nothing
remaining but his Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; that is,
every literary monument respecting him has perished, except those
written under inspiration--the inspired history which registers his
apostasy, and his own inspired works, which, in all the principles they
contain, condemn his vices. Some have ascribed to him the book of
Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; but these were written by Hellenistic Jews.

SOUL, that immortal, immaterial, active substance or principle in man,
whereby he perceives, remembers, reasons, and wills. See MATERIALISM.

SOWING. Our Lord, in his parable of the sower, says, “Some seeds fell by
the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them.” Buckingham, in his
Travels in Palestine, remarks, “We ascended to an elevated plain where
husbandmen were sowing, and some thousands of starlings covered the
ground, as the wild pigeons do in Egypt, laying a heavy contribution on
the grain thrown into the furrows, which are not covered by harrowing,
as in Europe.” The sowing “beside all waters,” mentioned by Isaiah,
seems to refer to the sowing of rice, which is done on low grounds
flooded, and prepared for sowing by being trodden by oxen and asses,
mid-leg deep; thus, they send “forth thither the feet of the ox and the
ass.”

SPARROW, צפור, Gen. vii, 14, and afterward frequently; ϛρουθίον, Matt.
x, 29; Luke xii, 6, 7; a little bird every where known. The Hebrew word
is used not only for a sparrow, but for all sorts of clean birds, or for
those the use of which was not forbidden by the law. That the sparrow is
not intended in Psalm cii, 7, is evident from several circumstances; for
that is intimated to be a bird of night, one that is both solitary and
mournful; none of which characteristics is applicable to the sparrow,
which rests by night, is gregarious and cheerful. It seems rather to
mean a bird melancholy and drooping, much like one confined in a cage.
See SWALLOW.

SPEECH. See LANGUAGE.

SPIDER, עכביש, Job viii, 14; Isa. lix, 5. An insect well known,
remarkable for the thread which it spins, with which it forms a web of
curious texture, but so frail that it is exposed to be broken and
destroyed by the slightest accident. To the slenderness of this filmy
workmanship, Job compares the hope of the wicked. This, says Dr. Good,
was “doubtless a proverbial allusion; and so exquisite, that it is
impossible to conceive any figure that can more fully describe the utter
vanity of the hopes and prosperity of the wicked.”

               “Deceiving bliss! in bitter shame it ends,
               His prop a cobweb, which an insect rends.”

So Isaiah says, “They weave the web of the spider; of their webs no
garment shall be made; neither shall they cover themselves with their
works.”

SPIKENARD, נרד. By this was meant a highly aromatic plant growing in the
Indies, called “nardostachys,” by Dioscorides and Galen; from whence was
made the very valuable extract or unguent, or favourite perfume, used at
the ancient baths and feasts, _unguentum nardinum_, _unguentum nardi
spicatæ_, [the perfume or unction of spikenard,] which it appears from a
passage in Horace, was so valuable, that as much of it as could be
contained in a small box of precious stone, was considered as a sort of
equivalent for a large vessel of wine, and a handsome quota for a guest
to contribute at an entertainment, according to the custom of antiquity:

                _Nardo vina merebere:
                 Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum._

              “Bring you the odours, and a cask is thine.
              Thy little box of ointment shall produce
              A mighty cask.”
                                         FRANCIS.

St. Mark, xiv, 3, mentions “ointment of spikenard very precious,” which
is said to be worth more than three hundred denarii; and John, xii, 3,
mentions a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly; the house was
filled with the odour of the ointment; it was worth three hundred
denarii. It is not to be supposed that this was a Syrian production, but
the true “atar” of Indian spikenard; an unguent, containing the very
essence of the plant, and brought at a great expense from a remote
country.

SPIRIT, in Hebrew, רוח, in Greek, ϖνεῦμα, and in Latin, _spiritus_, is
in the Scriptures sometimes taken for the Holy Ghost, the third person
of the Holy Trinity. The word signifies also the reasonable soul which
animates us, and continues in existence even after the death of the
body: that spiritual, thinking and reasoning substance, which is capable
of eternal happiness, Num. xvi, 22; Acts vii, 59. The term spirit is
also often used for an angel, a demon, and a ghost, or soul separate
from the body. It is said, in Acts xxiii, 8, that the Sadducees denied
the existence of angels and spirits. Jesus Christ appearing to his
disciples, said to them, Luke xxiv, 39, “Handle me and see, for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” And St. Paul calls the
good angels “ministering spirits,” Heb. i, 14. In 1 Sam. xvi, 14; xviii,
10; xix 9, it is said that an evil spirit from the Lord troubled Saul:
and we have also the expression unclean spirits. Add to this, spirit is
sometimes put for the disposition of the heart or mind: see Num. v, 14;
Zech. xii, 10; Luke xiii, 11; Isa. xi, 2. Discerning of spirits, or the
secret character and thoughts of men, was a gift of God, and placed
among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii, 10; 1 John iv,
1.

STAR, in Hebrew, בוכב. Under the name of stars, the ancient Hebrews
comprehended all the heavenly bodies, constellations, and planets; in a
word, all the luminaries, the sun and moon excepted. The number of the
stars was looked upon as infinite. And the Psalmist, to exalt the power
and magnificence of God, says, that he numbers the stars and calls them
by their names; and so are they put to express a vast multitude, Gen.
xv, 5; xxii, 17; Exod. xxxiii, 13.

STEPHEN, the first martyr. He is always put at the head of the seven
deacons; and it is believed he had studied at the feet of Gamaliel. As
he was full of the Holy Ghost, and of zeal, Acts vi, 5, 6, &c, he
performed many wonderful miracles: and those of the synagogue of the
Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and others, disputing
with him, could not withstand the wisdom and the power with which he
spoke. Then having suborned false witnesses, to testify that they had
heard him blaspheme against Moses, and against God, they drew him before
the sanhedrim. Stephen appeared in the midst of this assembly, with a
countenance like that of an angel; and the high priest asking him what
he had to answer, in his defence he rapidly traced the history of the
Jews, showing that they had always opposed themselves to God and his
prophets; faithfully upbraided them with the hardness of their hearts,
with their putting the prophets to death, and, lastly, with slaying
Christ himself. At these words they were filled with rage, and gnashed
their teeth against him. But Stephen, lifting up his eyes to heaven,
calmly exclaimed, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing
at the right hand of God.” Then the Jews cried out, and stopped their
ears as though they had heard blasphemy, and falling on him, they drew
him out of the city, and stoned him. The witnesses laid down their
clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, afterward St. Paul, who
then appears to have commenced his career of persecution. “And they
stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not
this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep,” an
example of the majesty and meekness of true Christian heroism, and as
the first, so also the pattern, of all subsequent martyrs. His Christian
brethren forsook not the remains of this holy man; but took care to bury
him, and accompanied his funeral with great mourning, Acts viii, 2.

STOICS, a sect of Heathen philosophers, Acts xvii, 18. Their
distinguishing tenets were, that God is underived, incorruptible, and
eternal; possessed of infinite wisdom and goodness; the efficient cause
of all the qualities and forms of things; and the constant preserver and
governor of the world: That matter, in its original elements, is also
underived and eternal; and is by the powerful energy of the Deity
impressed with motion and form: That though God and matter subsisted
from eternity, the present regular frame of nature had a beginning
originating in the gross and dark chaos, and will terminate in a
universal conflagration, that will reduce the world to its pristine
state: That at this period all material forms will be lost in one
chaotic mass; and all animated nature be reunited to the Deity: That
from this chaotic state, however, the world will again emerge by the
energy of the efficient principle; and gods, and men, and all forms of
regulated nature be renewed and dissolved, in endless succession: And
that after the revolution of the great year all things will be restored,
and the race of men will return to life. Some imagined, that each
individual would return to its former body; while others supposed, that
similar souls would be placed in similar bodies. Those among the stoics
who maintained the existence of the soul after death, supposed it to be
removed into the celestial regions of the gods, where it remains until,
at the general conflagration, all souls, both human and divine, shall be
absorbed in the Deity. But many imagined that, before they were admitted
among the divinities, they must purge away their inherent vices and
imperfections, by a temporary residence in some aërial regions between
the earth and the planets. According to the general doctrine of the
stoics, all things are subject to a stern irresistible fatality, even
the gods themselves. Some of them explained this fate as an eternal
chain of causes and effects; while others, more approaching the
Christian system, describe it as resulting from the divine decrees--the
fiat of an eternal providence. Considering the system practically, it
was the object of this philosophy to divest men of their passions and
affections. They taught, therefore, that a wise man might be happy in
the midst of torture; and that all external things were to him
indifferent. Their virtues all arose from, and centred in, themselves;
and self approbation was their great reward.

STONE. This word is sometimes taken in the sense of rock, and is applied
figuratively to God, as the refuge of his people. See _Rock_, The
Hebrews gave the name of “stones” to the weights used in commerce; no
doubt because they were originally formed of stone. “Just weights,” is
therefore in Hebrew, “just stones.” “The corner stone,” or “the head
stone of the corner,” is a figurative representation of Christ. It is
the stone at the angle of a building, whether at the foundation or the
top of the wall. Christ was that corner stone, which, though rejected by
the Jews, became the corner stone of the church, and the stone that
binds and unites the synagogue and the Gentiles in the unity of the same
faith. Some have thought the showers of stones cast down by the Lord out
of heaven, mentioned several times in the Old Testament, to be showers
of hail of extraordinary size; which was probably the case, as they even
now sometimes occur in those countries in a most terrific and
destructive form, and show how irresistible an agent this meteor is in
the hands of an offended God. The knives of stone that were made use of
by the Jews in circumcision, were not enjoined by the law; but the use
of them was founded, either upon custom, or upon the experience that
this kind of instrument is found to be less dangerous than those made of
metal. Zipporah made use of a stone to circumcise her sons, Exod. iv,
25. Joshua, v, 2, did the same, when he caused such of the Israelites to
be circumcised at Gilgal, as had not received circumcision during their
journey in the wilderness. The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, made
use of knives of stone to open dead bodies that were to be embalmed; and
Pliny assures us, that the priests of the mother of the gods had sharp
stones, with which they cut and slashed themselves, which they thought
they could not do with any thing else without danger. Great heaps of
stones, raised up for a witness of any memorable event, and to preserve
the remembrance of some matter of great importance, are among the most
ancient monuments. In those elder ages, before the use of writing, these
monuments were instead of inscriptions, pyramids, medals, or histories.
Jacob and Laban raised such a monument upon Mount Gilead in memory of
their covenant, Gen. xxxi, 46. Joshua erected one at Gilgal, made of
stones taken out of the Jordan, to preserve the memorial of his
miraculous passage over this river, Josh. iv, 5–7. The Israelites that
dwelt beyond Jordan also raised one upon the banks of the river, as a
testimony that they constituted but one nation with their brethren on
the other side, Joshua xxii, 10. Sometimes they heaped up such a
collection of stones upon the burying place of some odious persons, as
was done in the case of Achan and Absalom, Joshua vii, 26; 2 Kings
xviii, 17.

A “heart of stone” may be understood several ways. Job, xli, 24,
speaking of the leviathan, says, that “his heart is as firm as a stone,
yea as hard as a piece of the nether millstone:” that is, he is of a
very extraordinary strength, boldness, and courage. It is said, 1 Sam.
xxv, 37, that Nabal’s heart died within him, and he became as a stone,
when he was told of the danger he had incurred by his imprudence; his
heart became contracted or convulsed, and this was the occasion of his
death. Ezekiel, xxxvi, 26, says, that the Lord will take away from his
people their heart of stone, and give them a heart of flesh; that is, he
will render them contrite, and sensible to spiritual things. “I will
give him a white stone,” Rev. ii, 17; that is, I will give him full and
public pardon and absolution. It is spoken in allusion to an ancient
custom of delivering a white stone to such as they acquitted in
judgment. They used likewise to give a white stone to such as conquered
in the Grecian games.

STORK, חסידה, Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18; Job xxxix, 13; Psalm civ, 17;
Jer. viii, 7; Zech. v, 9; a bird similar to the crane in size, has the
same formation as to the bill, neck, legs, and body, but is rather more
corpulent. The colour of the crane is ash and black; that of the stork
is white and brown. The nails of its toes are also very peculiar; not
being clawed like those of other birds, but flat like the nails of a
man. It has a very long beak, and long red legs. It feeds upon serpents,
frogs, and insects, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among
unclean birds. As it seeks for these in watery places, nature has
provided it with long legs; and as it flies away, as well as the crane
and heron, to its nest with its plunder, therefore its bill is strong
and jagged, the sharp hooks of which enable it to retain its slippery
prey. It has long been remarkable for its love to its parents, whom it
never forsakes, but tenderly feeds and cherishes when they have become
old, and unable to provide for themselves. The very learned and
judicious Bochart has collected a variety of passages from the ancients,
in which they testify this curious particular. Its very name in the
Hebrew language, _chasida_, signifies mercy or piety: and its English
name is taken, if not directly, yet secondarily, through the Saxon, from
the Greek word στοργὴ, which is often used for natural affection.

             The stork’s an emblem of true piety;
             Because, when age has seized and made his dam
             Unfit for flight, the grateful young one takes
             His mother on his back, provides her food,
             Repaying thus her tender care of him
             Ere he was fit to fly.
                                             BEAUMONT.

It is a bird of passage, and is spoken of as such in Scripture: “The
stork knoweth her appointed time,” Jer. viii, 7.

            Who bid the stork, Columbus-like, explore
            Heavens not its own, and worlds unknown before?
            Who calls the council, states the certain day,
            Who forms the phalanx, and who points the way?
                                               POPE.

Bochart has collected several testimonies of the migration of storks.
Ælian says, that in summer time they remain stationary, but at the close
of autumn they repair to Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. “For about the
space of a fortnight before they pass from one country to another,” says
Dr. Shaw, “they constantly resort together, from all the adjacent parts,
in a certain plain; and there forming themselves, once every day, into a
‘douwanne,’ or council, (according to the phrase of these eastern
nations,) are said to determine the exact time of their departure, and
the place of their future abodes.” See SWALLOW.

STRANGER. Moses inculcated and enforced by numerous and by powerful
considerations, as well as by various examples of benevolent
hospitality, mentioned in the book of Genesis, the exhibition of
kindness and humanity to strangers. There were two classes of persons
who, in reference to this subject, were denominated _strangers_, גרים.
One class were those who, whether Hebrews or foreigners, were destitute
of a home, in Hebrew תושבים. The others were persons who, though not
natives, had a home in Palestine; the latter were גרים, _strangers_ or
_foreigners_, in the strict sense of the word. Both of these classes,
according to the civil code of Moses, were to be treated with kindness,
and were to enjoy the same rights with other citizens, Lev. xix, 33, 34;
xxiv, 16, 22; Num. ix, 14; xv, 14; Deut. x, 18; xxiii, 7; xxiv, 17;
xxvii, 19. In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were
natives of another country, but who had come, either from choice or from
necessity, to take up their residence among the Hebrews, appear to have
been placed in favourable circumstances. At a later period, namely, in
the reigns of David and Solomon, they were compelled to labour on the
religious edifices which were erected by those princes; as we may learn
from such passages as these: “And Solomon numbered all the strangers
that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his
father had numbered them; and they were found a hundred and fifty
thousand and three thousand and six hundred; and he set three score and
ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens,” &c, 1 Chron. xxii, 2; 2
Chron. ii, 1, 16, 17. The exaction of such laborious services from
foreigners was probably limited to those who had been taken prisoners in
war; and who, according to the rights of war, as they were understood at
that period, could be justly employed in any offices, however low and
however laborious, which the conqueror thought proper to impose. In the
time of Christ, the degenerate Jews did not find it convenient to render
to the strangers from a foreign country those deeds of kindness and
humanity which were not only their due, but which were demanded in their
behalf by the laws of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by
the word רע, _neighbour_, their friends merely, and accordingly
restricted the exercise of their benevolence by the same narrow limits
that bounded in this case their interpretation; contrary as both were to
the spirit of those passages which have been adduced above, Lev. xix,
18.

STREETS, CORNERS OF. Our Lord reproves the Pharisees for praying in the
corners of the streets, that is, choosing public places for what ought
to have been private devotion. The Hindoos, Mohammedans, and others
still have this practice. “Both Hindoos and Mussulmans offer their
devotions in the most public places; as, at the landing places of
rivers, in the public streets, and on the roofs of boats, without the
least modesty or attempt at concealment.” “An aged Turk,” observes
Richardson, “is particularly proud of a long flowing white beard, a well
shaved cheek and head, and a clean turban. It is a common thing to see
such characters, far past the bloom of life, mounted on stone seats,
with a bit of Persian carpet, at the corner of the streets, or in front
of their bazaars, combing their beards, smoking their pipes, or drinking
their coffee, with a pitcher of water standing beside them, or saying
their prayers, or reading the Koran.”

STUMBLING, STONE OF. “We set out from Argos very early in the morning,”
says Hartley, “and were almost eleven hours in reaching Tripolitza. The
road is, for the most part, dreary; leading over lofty and barren hills,
the principal of which is Mount Parthenius. In England, where the roads
are so excellent, we do not readily perceive the force and just
application of the Scriptural figures, derived from a ‘stone of
stumbling, and a rock of offence,’ Isaiah viii, 14, and similar
passages; but in the east, where the roads are, for the most part,
nothing more than an accustomed track, the constant danger and
impediment arising to travellers from stones and rocks fully explain the
allusion.”

In the grand description which Isaiah gives, lxiii, 13, of God “with his
glorious arm” leading his people through the Red Sea, it is said, “That
led them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they
should not stumble;” that is, who preserved them from falling amidst the
numerous inequalities in the bed of the sea, caused in some instances by
deep cavities, and in others by abrupt intervening rocks. The figure is
a very natural one, especially in the east, where the Arabs and Tartars
are famed for their dexterity in the management of even bad horses. A
curious instance of this occurs in Colonel Campbell’s “Overland Journey
to the East Indies.” Speaking of the Tartar, an accredited courier of
the Turkish government, under whose guidance he travelled in disguise
across the desert from Aleppo to Mosul, he says, “One day, after riding
about four miles from a caravansera, at which we had changed our cattle,
I found that a most execrably bad horse had fallen to my lot. He was
stiff, feeble, and foundered; in consequence of which he stumbled very
much, and I every minute expected that he would fall and roll over me. I
therefore proposed to the guide to exchange with me; a favour which he
had hitherto never refused, and for which I was the more anxious as the
beast that he rode was of the very best kind. To my utter astonishment,
he peremptorily refused; and as this had been a day of unusual
taciturnity on his part, I attributed his refusal to peevishness and ill
temper, and was resolved not to let the matter rest there. I therefore
desired the interpreter to inform him, that as he had at Aleppo agreed
to change horses with me as often as I pleased, I should consider our
agreement infringed if he did not comply, and would write to the consul
at Aleppo to that effect. As soon as this was conveyed to him, he seemed
strongly agitated by anger, yet endeavoured to conceal his emotions
under affected contempt and derision, which produced from him one of the
most singular grins that ever yet marred the human physiognomy. At
length he broke forth:--‘You will write to Aleppo, will you? Foolish
Frank! they will not believe you,’ &c.--‘Why do you not, then,’ said I,
interrupting him; ‘why do you not perform your promise by changing
horses, when you are convinced in your conscience (if you have any) that
it was part of our agreement?’--‘Once for all, I tell you,’ interrupted
he, ‘I will not give up this horse. There is not,’ said he
gasconadingly, ‘there is not a Mussulman that ever wore a beard, not to
talk of a wretched Frank, who should get this horse from under me. I
would not yield him to the Commander of the Faithful this minute, were
he in your place; and I have my own reasons for it.’--‘I dare say you
have,’ returned I, ‘love of your ease, and fear of your bones.’ At
hearing this he grew quite outrageous; called Mohammed and Allah to
witness, that he did not know what it was to fear any thing; declared
that he was convinced some infernal spirit had that day got possession
of me, &c. At length observing that I looked at him with sneering
contemptuous defiance, he rode up alongside of me. I thought it was to
strike, and prepared to defend myself. I was however mistaken: he
snatched the reins out of my hand, and caught hold of them collected
close at the horse’s jaw, then began to flog my horse and to spur his
own, till he got them both into full speed: nor did he stop there, but
continued to belabour mine with his whip and to spur his own, driving
headlong over every impediment that came in our way, till I really
thought he had run mad, or designed to kill me. Several times I was on
the point of striking him with my whip, in order to knock him off his
horse; but as often patience providentially came in to my assistance,
and whispered to me to forbear, and see it out. Meantime I considered
myself as being in some danger; and yet such was the power which he had
over the cattle, that I found it impossible to stop him. So, resigning
the event to the direction of Providence, I suffered him, without a
farther effort, to proceed. He continued this for some miles, over an
uncultivated tract, here and there intersected with channels formed by
rills of water in the periodical rains, thickly set with low furze,
ferns, and other dwarf bushes, and broken up and down into little hills.
His horse carried him clear over all; and though mine was every minute
stumbling and nearly down, yet, with a dexterity inexpressible and a
vigour altogether amazing, he kept him up by the bridle, and, I may say,
_carried_ him gallantly over every thing. At all this I was very much
astonished; and, toward the end, as much pleased as astonished; which he
perceiving, cried out frequently and triumphantly, ‘Behold, Frank,
behold!’ and at last, drawing in the horses, stopping short, and looking
me full in the face, he exclaimed, ‘Frank, what say you now?’ For some
time I was incapable of making him any answer, but continued surveying
him from head to foot as the most extraordinary savage I had ever
beheld; while he stroked his whiskers with great self-complacency and
composure, and nodded his head every now and then, as much as to say,
‘Look at me! Am I not a very capital fellow?’ We alighted on the brow of
a small hill, whence was to be seen a full and uninterrupted prospect of
the country all round. The interpreter coming up, the Tartar called to
him, and desired him to explain to me carefully the meaning of what he
was about to say. ‘You see those mountains,’ said he, pointing to the
east; ‘they are in the province of Kurdestan, and inhabited by a vile
race of robbers, who pay homage to a god of their own, and worship the
devil from fear. They live by plunder; and often descend from those
mountains, cross the Tigris which runs between them and us, and plunder
and ravage this country in bands of great number and formidable
strength, carrying away into slavery all they can catch, and killing all
who resist them. This country therefore, for some distance round us, is
very dangerous to travellers, whose only safety lies in flight. Now it
was our misfortune this morning to get a very bad horse. Should we meet
with a band of those Curds, what could we do but fly? And if you, Frank,
rode this horse, and I that, we could never escape; for I doubt _you
could not keep him up from falling under_ ME, _as I did under_ YOU. I
should therefore come down and be taken; you would lose your guide and
miss your way; and all of us would be undone.’ As soon as the
interpreter had explained this to me, ‘Well,’ continued the Tartar,
‘what does he say to it now?’--‘Why, I say,’ returned I, ‘that you have
spoken good sense and sound reason; and I am obliged to you.’ This, when
fully interpreted, operated most pleasingly upon him, and his features
relaxed into a broad look of satisfaction.”

SUPERSTITION may be described to be either the careful and anxious
observation of numerous and unauthorized ceremonies in religion, under
the idea that they possess some virtue to propitiate God and obtain his
favour, or, as among Pagans and others, the worship of imaginary
deities, and the various means of averting evil by religious ceremonies,
which a heart oppressed with fears, and a perverted fancy, may dictate
to those ignorant of the true God, and the doctrines of salvation. Dr.
Neander observes, The consideration of human nature and history shows us
that the transition from unbelief to superstition is always easy. Both
these conditions of the human heart proceed from the self-same ground,
the want of that which may be properly called faith, the want of a life
in God, of a lively communion with divine things by means of the inward
life; that is, by means of the feelings. Man, whose inward feelings are
estranged from the divine nature, is inclined, sometimes to deny the
reality of that of which he has nothing within him, and for the
conception and application of which to himself he has no organ. Or else,
the irresistible force of his inward nature impels man to recognize that
higher power from which he would fain free himself entirely, and to seek
that connection with it which he cannot but feel needful to his comfort;
but, inasmuch as he is without any real inward sympathy of disposition
with the Divinity, and wants a true sense of holiness, the Divinity
appears to his darkened religious conscience only under the form of
power and arbitrary rule. His conscience paints to him this power as an
angry and avenging power. But as he has no idea of that which the
Divinity really is, he cannot duly understand this feeling of
estrangement from God, this consciousness of divine wrath; and, instead
of seeking in moral things the source of this unquiet feeling, which
leaves him no rest by day or night, and from which there is no escape,
he fancies that by this or that action, which of itself is perfectly
indifferent, he may have offended this higher power, and he seeks by
outward observances again to reconcile the offended power. Religion here
becomes a source, not of life, but of death; the source, not of
consolation and blessing, but of the most unspeakable anxiety which
torments man day and night with the spectres of his own imagination.
Religion here is no source of sanctification, but may unite in man’s
heart with every kind of untruth, and serve to promote it. There is one
kind of superstition in which, while man torments himself to the utmost,
he still remains estranged from the true nature of inward holiness; and
while he is restrained from many good works of charity by his constant
attendance on mischievous, arbitrary, and outward observances, he is
still actuated by a horror of any great sin, a superstition in which man
avoids pleasure so completely that he falls into the opposite extreme;
and even the most innocent enjoyments, which a childlike simplicity
would receive with thankfulness from the hand of a heavenly Father, he
dares not indulge in. But there is also another kind of superstition,
which makes it easy for man, by certain outward observances, to silence
his conscience under all kinds of sin, and which therefore serves as a
welcome support to it.

SUPPER, LORD’S, derives its name from having been instituted by Jesus,
after he had supped with his Apostles, immediately before he went out to
be delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of
the children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the
Almighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing
their first-born, but charged the destroying angel to pass over the
houses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the
original sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews
observed the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of
Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every
house, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the
night of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the
altar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the
people in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master
of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his
family to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to
which in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper with his
disciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any
person that reads the words of the institution without having formed a
previous opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been
intended by him as a memorial of that event which was to happen not many
hours after. “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it
unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke xxii, 19,
20. He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of
which some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and
by saying, “This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of
me,” he declared to his Apostles that this was the representation of his
death by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The Apostle
Paul, not having been present at the institution, received it by
immediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he
delivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi, 23–26, implies that it was
not a rite confined to the Apostles who were present when it was
instituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians till
the end of the world. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Whether we consider
these words as part of the revelation made to St. Paul, or as his own
commentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him,
they mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the
perpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first
instituted in presence of the Apostles.

There is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord’s
Supper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should
commemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the
institution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the
original sacrifice: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” and by
his substitution our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we
have a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by
it, are remembered. Hence the Lord’s Supper was early called the
eucharist, from its being said by St. Luke, “Jesus, when he took the
bread, gave thanks;” and his disciples in all ages, when they receive
the bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians, as to Jews,
there is “a night to be much observed unto the Lord,” in all
generations. To Christians, as to Jews, the manner of observing the
night is appointed. To both it is accompanied with thanksgiving.

The Lord’s Supper exhibits, by a significant action, the
characteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its
author, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies,
was a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity
of every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins.
By partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most
interesting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far
from being ashamed of the suffering of their Master, they glory in his
cross; and, while they thus perform the office implied in that
expression of the Apostle, “Ye do show forth the Lord’s death,” they at
the same time cherish the sentiments by which their religion ministers
to their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death
of Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the
disinterested love and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without
feeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany
an action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm
affection, the love of Christ will constrain them to fulfil the purposes
of his death, by “living unto him who died for them;” and we have reason
to hope, that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered,
he will come and bless his people. As the object of faith is thus
explicitly set before them in every commemoration, so the renewed
exercise of that faith, which the ordinance is designed to excite, must
bring renewed life, and a deeper experience of the “great salvation.”
See SACRAMENT.

SURETY, in common speech, is one who gives security for another; and
hence it has become prevalent among theological writers to confound it
with the terms substitute and representative, when applied to Christ. In
fact, the word “surety” occurs only once in our translation of the
Scriptures, namely, Heb. vii, 22: “By so much was Jesus made the surety
of a better covenant.” It is certainly true that the Son of God, in all
that he has done or is still doing as Mediator, may be justly viewed as
the surety of the new and everlasting covenant, and as affording the
utmost security to believers that, as the Father hath given all things
into his hands, they will be conducted with effect, and all the
exceeding great and precious promises of that covenant assuredly be
accomplished. But this does not appear to be the precise idea which the
Apostle has in view in the above passage. This has been sufficiently
evinced by many critics and commentators, particularly by Pierce,
Macknight, and M’Lean, in their notes on the place. The substance of
their remarks is, that the original term employed by the Apostle, and
which occurs no where else in Scripture, is ἔγγυος, which is derived
from ἐγγὺς, _near_, and signifies _one who draws near_, or who brings
others near; which sense of the word will not very well accord with that
of a substitute or representative. The Greek commentators very properly
explain the word by μεσίτης, _a mediator_. Now, as in this passage a
comparison is stated between Jesus, as a high priest, and the Levitical
high priests; and as the latter were considered by the Apostle to be the
mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the
Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices; it is evident that the
Apostle in this passage terms Jesus the High Priest or Mediator of the
better covenant, because, through his mediation, or in virtue of the
sacrifice which he offered of himself to God, believers receive all the
blessings of the new covenant. And as in verse 16 the Apostle had said
that “by the introduction of a better hope we draw near to God,” he, in
verse 22, very properly calls Jesus ἔγγυος, “he by whom we draw nigh,”
thereby denoting the effect of his mediation. From the whole, therefore,
it is plain that the word “surety” in this place is equivalent with that
of mediator or high priest.

SWALLOWS, סיס, a bird too well known to need description. Our
translators of the Bible have given this name to two different Hebrew
words. The first, דרור, in Psalm lxxxiv, 3, and Prov. xxvi, 2, is
probably the bird which Forskal mentions among the migratory birds of
Alexandria, by the name of _dururi_; and the second, עגור, Isa. xxxviii,
14, and Jer. viii, 7, is the crane; but the word סיס, in the two last
places rendered in our version “crane,” is really the swallow. So the
Septuagint, Vulgate, and two ancient manuscripts, Theodotion, and Jerom,
render it, and Bochart and Lowth follow them. Bochart assigns the note
of this bird for the reason of its name, and ingeniously remarks that
the Italians about Venice call a swallow _zizilla_, and its twittering
_zizillare_. The swallow being a plaintive bird, and a bird of passage,
perfectly agrees with the meaning of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The annual
migration of the swallow has been familiarly known in every age, and
perhaps in every region of the earth. In Psalm lxxxiv, 3, it is said,
“The sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.” By the
altars of Jehovah we are to understand the temple. The words probably
refer to the custom of several nations of antiquity,--that birds which
built their nests on the temples, or within the limits of them, were not
suffered to be driven away, much less killed; but found a secure and
uninterrupted dwelling. Hence, when Aristodicus disturbed the birds’
nests of the temple of Kumæ, and took the young from them, a voice,
according to a tradition preserved by Herodotus, is said to have spoken
these words from the interior of the temple: “Most villainous of men,
how darest thou to drive away such as seek refuge in my temple?” The
Athenians were so enraged at Atarbes, who had killed a sparrow which
built on the temple of Æsculapius, that they killed him. Among the
Arabs, who are more closely related to the Hebrews, birds which build
their nests on the temple of Mecca have been inviolable from the
earliest times. In the very ancient poem of a Dschorhamidish prince,
published by a Schulten, in which he laments that his tribe had been
deprived of the protection of the sanctuary of Mecca, it is said,

                “We lament the house, whose dove
                Was never suffer’d to be hurt:
                She remain’d there secure; in it, also,
                The sparrow built its nest.”

In another ancient Arabian poet, Nabega, the Dhobianit swears “by the
sanctuary which affords shelter to the birds which seek it there.”
Niebuhr says, “I will observe, that among the Mohammedans, not only is
the _kaba_ a refuge for the pigeons, but also on the mosques over the
graves of Ali and Hassein, on the Dsjamea, or chief mosque, at Helle,
and in other cities, they are equally undisturbed.” And Thevenot
remarks: “Within a mosque at Oudjicum lies interred the son of a king,
called Schah-Zadeh-Imam Dgiafer, whom they reckon a saint. The dome is
rough cast over; before the mosque there is a court, well planted with
many high plane trees, on which we saw a great many storks, that haunt
thereabout all the year round.” See SPARROW.

SWAN, תנשמת, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 16. The Hebrew word is very
ambiguous, for in the first of these places, it is ranked among
water-fowls; and by the Vulgate, which our version follows, rendered
“swan,” and in the thirtieth verse, the same word is rendered “mole,”
and ranked among reptiles. Some translate it in the former place, “the
bat,” which they justify by the affinity which there is between the bat
and the mole. The LXX. in the former verse render it ϖορφυρίωνα, the
_porphyrion_, or “purple bird,” probably the “flamingo;” and in the
latter, “ibis.” Parkhurst shows that the name is given from the
creature’s breathing in a strong and audible manner; and Michaëlis
learnedly conjectures, that in verse eighteen, and Deut. xiv, 16, it may
mean the “goose,” which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of
“breathing out” or “hissing,” when approached.

SWEDENBORGIANS denote that particular denomination of Christians who
admit the testimony of Baron Swedenborg, and receive the doctrines
taught in the theological writings of that author. Emanuel Swedenborg
was the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose
name was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his
time. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688. He enjoyed early
the advantages of a liberal education, and being naturally endowed with
uncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the
sciences was rapid and extensive; and he soon distinguished himself by
several publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal
genius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that under the care
of his pious and reverend father our author’s religious instruction was
not neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his
life and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of
a mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the
relative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by
Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his
seat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly
of the states. The philosophical works, published in Latin, by Baron
Swedenborg, are numerous; but his theological works are said to be still
more so.

1. The first and principal distinguishing doctrine contained in the
writings of Baron Swedenborg, and maintained by his followers, relates
to the person and character of Jesus Christ, and to the redemption
wrought by him. On this subject it is insisted that Jesus Christ is
Jehovah, manifested in the flesh; and that he came into the world to
glorify his human nature, by making it one with the divine. It is
therefore insisted farther that the humanity of Jesus Christ is itself
divine, by virtue of its indissoluble union with the indwelling Father,
agreeably to the testimony of St. Paul, that, “in Jesus Christ dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. ii, 9; and that thus, as to
his humanity, he is the Mediator between God and man, since there is now
no other medium of God’s access to man, or of man’s access to God, but
this divine humanity, which was assumed for this purpose. Thus it is
taught, that in the person of Jesus Christ dwells the whole Trinity of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father constituting the soul of the
above humanity, while the humanity itself is the Son, and the divine
virtue or operation proceeding from it is the Holy Spirit; forming
altogether one God, just as the soul, the body, and operation of man,
form one man. On the subject of the redemption wrought by this incarnate
God, it is lastly taught that it consisted not in the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ, but in the real subjugation of the powers of
darkness and their removal from man, by continual combats and victories
over them, during his abode in the world; and in the consequent descent
to man of divine power and life, which was brought near to him in the
thus glorified humanity of this victorious God. They who receive this
testimony concerning Jesus Christ therefore acknowledge no other God but
him; and believe that in approaching his divine humanity, they approach,
at the same time, and have communication with, all the fulness of the
Godhead, seeing and worshipping the invisible in the visible, agreeably
to the tenor of those words of Jesus Christ: “He that believeth on me
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that seeth me,
seeth him that sent me,” John xii, 44, 45.

2. A second doctrine taught by the same author relates to the sacred
Scripture, or word of God, which is maintained to be divinely inspired
throughout, and, consequently, to be the repository of the whole will
and wisdom of the most high God. It is, however, insisted, that this
will and wisdom are not in all places discoverable from the letter or
history of the sacred pages, but lie deeply concealed under the letter.
For it is taught by Baron Swedenborg, that the sense of the letter of
the holy word is the basis, the continent, and the firmament, of its
spiritual and celestial senses, being written according to the doctrine
of correspondencies between things spiritual and things natural, and
thus designed by the Most High as the vehicle of communication of the
eternal spiritual truths of his kingdom to the minds of men. It is
farther endeavoured to be shown that Jesus Christ spake continually
according to this same doctrine, veiling divine and spiritual truths
under natural images, especially in his parables, and thus communicating
to man the most important mysteries relative to himself and his kingdom,
under the most beautiful and edifying figures taken from the natural
things of this world. Thus, according to Baron Swedenborg, even the
historical parts both of the Old and New Testament contain vast stores
of important and spiritual wisdom under the outward letter; and this
consideration, as he farther asserts, justifies the pages of divine
revelation, even in those parts which to a common observer appear
trifling, nugatory, and contradictory. It is lastly maintained, on this
subject, that the sacred Scripture, or word of God, is the only medium
of communication and conjunction between God and man, and is likewise
the only source of all genuine truth and knowledge respecting God, his
kingdom, and operation, and the only sure guide for man’s understanding,
in whatever relates to his spiritual or eternal concerns.

3. The next branch of the system is practical, and relates to the life,
or to that rule of conduct on the part of man which is truly acceptable
to the Deity, and at the same time conducive to man’s eternal happiness
and salvation, by conjoining him with his God. This rule is taught to be
simply this: to shun all known evils as sins against God, and at the
same time to love, to cherish, and to practise whatsoever is wise,
virtuous, and holy, as being most agreeable to the will of God, and to
the spirit of his precepts. On this subject it is strongly and
repeatedly insisted that evil must of necessity remain with man, and
prove his eternal destruction, unless it be removed by sincere
repentance, leading him to note what is disorderly in his own mind and
life; and, when he has discovered it, to fight resolutely against its
influence, in dependence on the aid and grace of Jesus Christ. It is
insisted farther, that this opposition to evil ought to be grounded on
the consideration that all evil is against God, since, if evil be
combated from any inferior motive, it is not radically removed, but only
concealed, and on that account is even more dangerous and destructive
than before. It is added, that when man has done the work of repentance,
by shunning his hereditary evils as sins against God, he ought to set
himself to the practice of what is wise and good by a faithful,
diligent, and conscientious discharge of all the duties of his station;
by which means his mind is preserved from a return of the power of
disorder, and kept in the order of heaven, and the fulfilment of the
great law of charity.

4. A fourth doctrine inculcated in the same writings, is the coöperation
on the part of man with the divine grace or agency of Jesus Christ. On
this subject it is insisted that man ought not indolently to hang down
his hands, under the idle expectation that God will do every thing for
him in the way of purification and regeneration, without any exertion of
his own; but that he is bound by the above law of coöperation to exert
himself, as if the whole progress of his purification and regeneration
depended entirely on his own exertions; yet, in exerting himself, he is
continually to recollect, and humbly to acknowledge, that all his power
to do so is from above, agreeably to the declaration of Jesus Christ,
“Without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 5.

5. A fifth and last distinguishing doctrine taught in the theological
writings of our author, relates to man’s connection with the other
world, and its various inhabitants. On this subject, it is insisted, not
only from his view of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the
experience of the author himself, that every man is in continual
association with angels and spirits, and that without such association
he could not possibly think or exert any living faculty. It is insisted
farther, that man, according to his life in the world, takes up his
eternal abode, either with angels of light, or with the spirits of
darkness; with the former, if he is wise to live according to the
precepts of God’s holy word; or with the latter, if, through folly and
transgression, he rejects the counsel and guidance of the Most High.

Some other peculiar doctrines of minor importance might be enlarged on
in this place if it was deemed necessary; such as the doctrine
concerning the human soul, as being in a human form; concerning the
marriage of the good and the true, as existing in the holy word, and in
all things in nature. But it may be observed generally, that the
fundamental error of the system is a denial of the divinity of Christ,
while it appears to be acknowledged, and of the doctrine of the
atonement. Many true things are said also of the figurative and typical
character of the word of God; but the interpretation of it in this view
runs into the wildest extravagance for want of principles; while the
whole is clothed with mysticism on the one hand and gross and carnal
conceptions of spiritual things on the other. There is, indeed, much in
which this sect agrees with other Christians, and much, therefore, that
is true in their strange system; but it is unconnected with other great
and vital truths of the Gospel; and is joined also with great errors. It
is a dreamy delusion, which defies all rational defence: it rests upon
the assumed experience of a man of genius, it is true, but one who was
not always in his wits.

In London, and some of the other cities and great towns in England,
places of public worship have been opened, for the express purpose of
preaching the preceding doctrines. In all such places particular forms
of prayer have been adopted, in agreement with the ideas of the
worshippers, as grounded in the religious sentiments above stated,
especially respecting the supreme object of adoration, who is
acknowledged to be the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in his divine
humanity. But in no place have any peculiar rites and ceremonies been
introduced, the worshippers being content with retaining the celebration
of the two sacraments of baptism and the holy supper, since no other
rites are insisted on by the author whose testimony they receive. It is
believed, by a large majority of them, that it was never his intention
that any particular sect should be formed upon his doctrines, but that
all who receive them, whether in the establishment, or in any other
communion of Christians, should be at perfect liberty either to continue
in their former communion, or to quit it, as their conscience dictates.
England appears to be the country where the system has been most
generally received. Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but
perhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him, was his
asserting, that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years,
he enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and
during that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred
Scriptures, hitherto undiscovered! This is a correspondence with the
invisible world, to which few or no writers, before or since his time,
ever pretended, if we except the Arabian prophet.

SWINE, חזיר, Lev. xi, 7; Deut. xiv, 8; Psalm lxxx, 13; Prov. xi, 22;
Isaiah lxv, 4; lxvi, 3, 17; χοῖρος, Matt. vii, 6; viii, 30; Mark v, 14;
Luke viii, 33; xv, 15; the plural of hog, an animal well known. In
impurity and grossness of manners, this creature stands almost
unrivalled among the order of quadrupeds; and the meanness of his
appearance corresponds to the grossness of his manners. He has a most
indiscriminate, voracious, and insatiable appetite. The Prophet Isaiah,
lxv, 4, charges his degenerate people with eating swine’s flesh, and
having broth of abominable things in their vessels, Isaiah lxvi, 3.
Conduct so contrary to their solemn engagements, so hateful in the sight
of the Holy One, though long endured, was not always to pass with
impunity. “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the
gardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the
abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord,”
Isaiah lxvi, 17. Such a sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord,
because the eating of the blood was prohibited, and because the
sacrifice consisted of swine’s flesh. To these precepts and
threatenings, which were often enforced by severe judgments may be
traced the habitual and unconquerable aversion of the latter Jews to the
use of swine’s flesh; an aversion which the most alluring promises and
the most cruel sufferings have been found alike insufficient to subdue.

In such detestation was the hog held by the Jews that they would not so
much as pronounce its name, but called it “the strange thing;” and we
read in the history of the Maccabees, that Eleazer, a principal scribe,
being compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to open his mouth and receive
swine’s flesh, spit it forth, and went of his own accord to the torment,
choosing rather to suffer death than to break the law of God, and give
offence to his nation, 2 Mac. vi, 18; vii, 1. It is observed that when
Adrian rebuilt Jerusalem, he set up the image of a hog, in bas-relief,
upon the gates of the city, to drive the Jews away from it, and to
express the greater contempt for that miserable people. It was avarice,
a contempt of the law of Moses, and a design to supply the neighbouring
idolaters with victims, that caused whole herds of swine to be fed on
the borders of Galilee. Whence the reason is plain of Christ’s
permitting the devils to throw the swine headlong into the lake of
Genesareth, Matthew viii, 32. We read, in Matthew vii, 6, “Give not that
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
There is a similar maxim in the Talmudical writings: “Do not cast pearls
before swine;” to which is added, by way of explanation, “Do not offer
wisdom to one who knows not the value of it, but profanes its glory.”

SYCAMINE, συκάμινος, in Arabic _sokam_, Luke xvii, 6. This is a
different tree from the sycamore, mentioned Luke xix, 4. Dioscorides
says that this tree is the mulberry, though he allows that some
apprehend that it is the same with the sycamore. Galen has a separate
article on the _sycamorus_, which he speaks of as rare, and mentions as
having seen it at Alexandria in Egypt. The Greeks name the _morus_ the
sycamine. Grotius says the word συκάμινος has no connection with συκέη,
_the fig-tree_, but is entirely Syrian, שקמין, in Hebrew, שקמים. It
should seem, indeed, to be very similar to the mulberry, as not only the
Latin, but the Syriac and the Arabic, render it by _morus_; and thus
Coverdale’s, the Rheim’s, and Purver’s English translations render it by
the mulberry; and so it is in Bishop Wilson’s Bible.

SYCAMORE, שקמות, שקמים, 1 Kings x, 27; 1 Chron. xxvii, 28; 2 Chron. i,
15; Psalm lxxviii, 47; Isa. ix, 9; Amos viii, 14; συκομορέα, Luke xix,
4; a large tree, according to the description of Theophrastus,
Dioscorides, and Galen, resembling the mulberry-tree in the leaf, and
the fig in its fruit; hence its name, compounded of συκέη _fig_, and
μόρος, _mulberry_; and some have fancied that it was originally produced
by ingrafting the one tree upon the other. Its fruit is palatable. When
ripe it is soft, watery, somewhat sweet, with a little of an aromatic
taste. The trees are very common in Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt; grow
large, and to a great height; and though their grain is coarse are much
used in building. To change sycamores into cedars, Isa. ix, 10, means,
to render the buildings of cities, and the state of the nation, much
more magnificent than before. Dr. Shaw remarks, that as the grain and
texture of the sycamore is remarkably coarse and spongy, it could
therefore stand in no competition at all with the cedar for beauty and
ornament. We meet with the same opposition of cedars to sycamores in 1
Kings x, 27, where Solomon is said to have made silver as the stones,
and cedars as the sycamores of the vale for abundance. “By this
_mashal_, or figurative and sententious speech,” says Bishop Lowth,
“they boast, in this place of Isaiah, that they shall be easily able to
repair their present losses, suffered, perhaps, by the first Assyrian
invasion under Tiglath-Pileser, and to bring their affairs to a more
flourishing condition than ever.” The wood of this tree is very durable.
“The mummy chests,” says Dr. Shaw, “and whatever figures and instruments
of wood are found in the catacombs, are all of them of sycamore, which,
though spongy and porous to appearance, has, notwithstanding, continued
entire and uncorrupted for at least three thousand years. From its value
in furnishing wood for various uses, from the grateful shade which its
wide-spreading branches afforded, and on account of the fruit which
Mallet says the Egyptians hold in the highest estimation, we perceive
the loss which the ancient inhabitants of Egypt must have felt when
their vines were destroyed with hail, and their sycamore trees with
frost,” Psalm lxxviii, 47. “The sycamore,” says Mr. Norden, “is of the
height of a beech, and bears its fruit in a manner quite different from
other trees; it has them on the trunk itself, which shoots out little
sprigs, in form of grape stalks, at the end of which grow the fruit
close to one another, almost like clusters of grapes. The tree is always
green, and bears fruit several times in the year, without observing any
certain seasons; for I have seen some sycamores that have given fruit
two months after others. The fruit has the figure and smell of real
figs, but is inferior to them in the taste, having a disgustful
sweetness. Its colour is a yellow, inclining to an ochre, shadowed by a
flesh colour. In the inside it resembles the common figs, excepting that
it has a blackish colouring with yellow spots. This sort of tree is
pretty common in Egypt; the people, for the greater part, live upon its
fruit, and think themselves well regaled when they have a piece of
bread, a couple of sycamore figs, and a pitcher of water.” There might
be many of these trees in Judea. David appointed a particular officer,
whose sole duty it was to watch over the plantations of sycamore and
olive-trees, 1 Chron. xxviii, 28; and being joined with the olive, the
high estimation in which it was held is intimated; for the olive is
considered as one of the most precious gifts which the God of nature has
bestowed on the oriental nations. There seem to have been great numbers
of them in Solomon’s time, 1 Kings x, 27; and in the Talmud they are
mentioned as growing in the plains of Jericho.

One curious particular in the cultivation of the fruit must not be
passed over. Pliny, Dioscorides, and Theophrastus observe that the fruit
must be cut or scratched, either with the nail or with iron, or it will
not ripen; but four days after this process it will become ripe. To this
same purpose Jerom, on Amos vii, 14, says, that without this management
the figs are excessively bitter. These testimonies, together with the
Septuagint and Vulgate version, are adduced to settle the meaning of the
word בולס, in Amos vii, 14, which must signify scraping, or making
incisions in the sycamore fruit; an employment of Amos before he was
called to the prophetic office: “I was no prophet, neither was I a
prophet’s son; but I was a herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit.”
Hasselquist, describing the _ficus sycamorus_, or Scripture sycamore,
says, “It buds the latter end of March, and the fruit ripens in the
beginning of June. At the time when the fruit has arrived to the size of
an inch diameter, the inhabitants pare off a part at the centre point.
They say that without this paring it would not come to maturity.” The
figs thus prematurely ripened are called _djumeis_ _bædri_, that is,
“precocious sycamore figs.” As the sycamore is a large spreading tree,
sometimes shooting up to a considerable height, we see the reason why
Zaccheus climbed up into a sycamore tree to get a sight of our Saviour.
This incident also furnishes a proof that the sycamore was still common
in Palestine; for this tree stood to protect the traveller by the side
of the highway.

SYENE, a city of Egypt, now called Assouan, situated at its southern
extremity. Ezekiel, xxix, 10, describing the desolation to be brought
upon Egypt says, “Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make the
land of Egypt utterly desolate, from the tower of Syene even to the
border of Cush,” or Arabia, or, as some read it, “from Migdol to Syene,”
implying, according to either version of the passage, the whole length
of the country from north to south. The latitude of Syene, according to
Bruce, is 24° 0´ 45´´; that of Alexandria, 31° 11´ 33´´; difference 7°
10´ 48´´, equal to four hundred and thirty geographical miles on the
meridian, or about five hundred British miles; but the real length of
the valley of Egypt, as it follows the windings of the Nile, is full six
hundred miles.

SYNAGOGUE, συναγωγὴ, “an assembly,” Rev. ii, 9; iii, 9. The word often
occurs in the Gospels and in the Acts, because Jesus Christ and his
Apostles generally went to preach in those places. Although the
sacrifices could not be offered, except in the tabernacle or the temple,
the other exercises of religion were restricted to no particular place.
Accordingly we find that the praises of God were sung, at a very ancient
period, in the schools of the prophets; and those who felt any
particular interest in religion, were assembled by the seers on the
Sabbath, and the new moons, for prayers and religious instruction, 1
Sam. x, 5–11; xix, 18–24; 2 Kings iv, 23. During the Babylonish
captivity, the Jews, who were then deprived of their customary religious
privileges, were wont to collect around some prophet or other pious man,
who taught them and their children in religion, exhorted to good
conduct, and read out of the sacred books, Ezek. xiv, 1; xx, 1; Dan. vi,
11; Neh. viii, 18. These assemblies, or meetings, became, in progress of
time, fixed to certain places, and a regular order was observed in them.
Such appears to have been the origin of synagogues.

In speaking of synagogues, it is worthy to be noticed, that there is
nothing said in respect to the existence of such buildings in Palestine,
during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are, therefore, by some
supposed to have been first erected under the Maccabean princes, but
that, in foreign countries, they were much more ancient. Whether this
statement be correct or not, it is nevertheless certain, that in the
time of the Apostles, there were synagogues wherever there were Jews.
They were built, in imitation of the temple of Jerusalem, with a court
and porches, as is the case with the synagogues in the east at the
present day. In the centre of the court is a chapel, supported by four
columns, in which, on an elevation prepared for it, is placed the book
of the law, rolled up. This, on the appointed days, is publicly read. In
addition to the chapel, there is erected within the court a large
covered hall or vestry, into which the people retire, when the weather
happens to be cold and stormy, and each family has its particular seat.
The uppermost seats in the synagogue, that is, those which were nearest
the chapel where the sacred books were kept, were esteemed peculiarly
honourable, Matt. xxiii, 6; James ii, 3. The “proseuchæ,” ϖροσευχαὶ, are
understood by some to be smaller synagogues, but by others are supposed
to be particular places under the open sky, where the Jews assembled for
religious exercise. But Josephus calls the proseucha of Tiberias a large
house, which held very many persons. See _Proseuchæ_. The Apostles
preached the Gospel in synagogues and proseuchæ, and with their
adherents performed in them all the religious services. When excluded,
they imitated the Jews in those places, where they were too poor to
erect these buildings, and held their religious meetings in the houses
of individuals. Hence we not only hear of synagogues in houses in the
Talmud, but of churches in houses in the New Testament, Rom. xvi, 5; 1
Cor. xvi, 19; Col. iv, 15; Phil. ii; Acts iii, 46; v, 42. The Apostles
sometimes hired a house, in which they performed religious services, and
taught daily, Acts xix, 9; xx, 8. Συναγωγὴ means literally a convention
or assembly, but by metonymy, was eventually used for the place of
assembling; in the same way, that ἐκκλησία, which means literally a
calling together, or convocation, signifies also at the present time the
place of convocation. Synagogues were sometimes called by the Jews
schools; but they were careful to make an accurate distinction between
such, and the schools, properly so called, the מדרשים, or “sublimer
schools,” in which the Talmud was read, while the law merely was read in
the synagogues, which they placed far behind the Talmud.

The mode of conducting religious instruction and worship in the
primitive Christian churches was derived for the most part from the
practice which anciently prevailed in synagogues. But there were no
regular teachers in the synagogues who were officially qualified to
pronounce discourses before the people; although there were interpreters
who rendered into the vernacular tongue, namely, the _Hebræo-aramean_,
the sections, which had been publicly read in the Hebrew.

The “synagogue preacher,” דרשן, whose business it is, in consequence of
his office, to address the people, is an official personage that has
been introduced in later times; at least we find no mention of such a
one in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the time of Christ, the
person who read the section for the Sabbath, or any other person who was
respectable for learning and had a readiness of speech, addressed the
people, Luke iv, 16–21; Acts xiii, 5, 15; xv, 21; Matt. iv, 23.

The other persons who were employed in the services and government of
the synagogue, in addition to the one who read the Scriptures, and the
person who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows: 1.
“The ruler of the synagogue,” ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ראש הכנסת, who presided
over the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons
who were acceptable voluntarily offered themselves, Mark v, 22, 35–38;
Luke viii, 41; xiii, 14, 15; Acts xiii, 15. 2. “The elders of the
synagogue,” וקנים, ϖρεσβύτεροι. They appear to have been the counsellors
of the head or ruler of the synagogue, and were chosen from among the
most powerful and learned of the people, and are hence called
ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, Acts xiii, 15. The council of elders not only took a part
in the management of the internal concerns of the synagogue, but also
punished transgressors of the public laws, either by turning them out of
the synagogue, or decreeing the punishment of thirty-nine stripes, John
xii, 42; xvi, 2; 2 Cor. xi, 24. 3. “The collectors of alms,” גבאי צדקה,
διάκονοι, “deacons.” Although every thing which is said of them by the
Jews was not true concerning them in the time of the Apostles, there can
be no doubt that there were such officers in the synagogues at that
time, Acts vi. 4. “The servants of the synagogue,” חזן, ὑπηρέτης, Luke
iv, 20; whose business it was to reach the book of the law to the person
who was to read it, and to receive it back again, and to perform other
services. The ceremonies which prevail in the synagogues at the present
day in presenting the law were not observed in the time of our Saviour.
5. “The messenger or legate of the synagogue,” שליה צבור. This was a
person who was sent from synagogues abroad, to carry alms to Jerusalem.
The name, messenger of the synagogue, was applied likewise to any
person, who was commissioned by a synagogue, and sent forth to propagate
religious knowledge. A person likewise was denominated the messenger, or
angel, ἄγγελλος, τῆς ἄγγελλος ἐκκλησίας, &c, who was selected by the
assembly to recite for them the prayers; the same that is called by the
Jews of modern times the synagogue singer, or cantilator, Rev. ii, 1, 8,
12, 18; iii, 1, 7, 14.

The Jews anciently called those persons who, from their superior
erudition, were capable of teaching in the synagogue, פרנסים,
“shepherds,” or “pastors.” They applied the same term, at least in more
recent times, to the elders of the synagogue, and also to the collectors
of alms, or deacons. The ground of the application of this term in such
a way, is as follows: the word פרנם is, without doubt, derived from the
Greek word ϖύρνος, “bread,” or “a fragment of bread;” and, as it is used
in the Targums, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb רעה, “to feed.” It is
easy to see, therefore, how the word פרנס might be applied to persons
who sustained offices in the synagogue, in the same way as רעה is
applied to kings, &c.

We do not find mention made of public worship in the synagogues, except
on the Sabbath, Matthew xii, 9; Mark i, 21; iii, 1; vi, 2; Luke iv, 16,
32, 33; vi, 6; xiii, 10; Acts xiii, 14; xv, 21; xvi, 13–25; xvii, 2;
xviii, 4. What is said of St. Paul’s hiring the school of one Tyrannus
at Ephesus, and teaching in it daily, is a peculiar instance, Acts xix,
9, 10. Yet there can be no doubt that those Jews who were unable to go
to Jerusalem attended worship on their festival days, as well as on the
Sabbath, in their own synagogues. Individuals sometimes offered their
private prayers in the synagogue. When an assembly was collected
together for worship, the services began, after the customary greeting,
with a doxology. A section was then read from the Mosaic law. Then
followed, after the singing of a second doxology, the reading of a
portion from the prophets, Acts xv, 31; Luke iv, 16. The person whose
duty it was to perform the reading, placed upon his head, as is done at
the present day, a covering called _tallith_, to which St. Paul alludes,
2 Cor. iii, 15. The sections which had been read in the Hebrew were
rendered by an interpreter into the vernacular tongue, and the reader or
some other man then addressed the people, Luke iv, 16; Acts xiii, 15. It
was on such occasions as these, that Jesus, and afterward the Apostles,
taught the Gospel. The meeting, as far as the religious exercises, were
concerned, was ended with a prayer, to which the people responded Amen,
when a collection was taken for the poor.

The customs which prevail at the present day, and which Vitringa has
treated of, were not all of them practised in ancient times. The
readers, for instance, were not then, as they are at the present day,
called upon to perform, but presented themselves voluntarily, Luke iv,
16; the persons also who addressed the people were not rabbins expressly
appointed for that purpose, but were either invited from those present,
or offered themselves, Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv, 17. The parts to be
publicly read, likewise, do not appear to have been previously pointed
out, although the book was selected by the ruler of the synagogue, Luke
iv, 16. Furthermore, the forms of prayer that are used by the Jews at
the present time do not appear to have been in existence in the time of
Christ; unless this may perhaps have been the case in respect to the
substance of some of them, especially the one called שמץ קרי, concerning
which the Talmudists, at a very early period, gave many precepts.

It was by ministering in synagogues that the Apostles gathered the
churches. They retained also essentially the same mode of worship with
that of the synagogues, excepting that the Lord’s Supper was made an
additional institution, agreeably to the example of Christ, Acts ii, 42;
xx, 7–11; 1 Cor. xi, 16–34. They were at length excluded from the
synagogue and assembled at evening in the house of some Christian, which
was lighted for the purpose with lamps, Acts xx, 7–11. The Apostle, with
the elders, when engaged in public worship, took a position where they
would be most likely to be heard by all. The first service was merely a
salutation or blessing, namely, “The Lord be with you,” or, “Peace be
with you.” Then followed the doxologies and prelexions, the same as in
the synagogues. The Apostle then addressed the people on the subject of
religion, and urged upon them that purity of life which it required.
Prayer succeeded, which was followed by the commemoration of the
Saviour’s death in the breaking and distribution of bread. The meeting
was ended by taking a collection for the poor, especially those at
Jerusalem, 2 Cor. ix, 1–15.

Those who held some office in the church were the regularly qualified
instructers in these religious meetings; and yet laymen had liberty to
address their brethren on these occasions the same as in the synagogues;
also to sing hymns, and to pray; which, in truth, many of them did,
especially those who were supernaturally gifted, not excepting the
women. Those females who were not under a supernatural influence were
forbidden by the Apostle Paul to make an address on such occasions, or
to propose questions; and it was enjoined on those who did speak, not to
lay aside their veils, 1 Cor. xi, 5; xiv, 34–40. The reader and the
speaker stood; the others sat; all arose in the time of prayer. Whatever
was stated in a foreign tongue was immediately rendered by an
interpreter into the speech in common use. This was so necessary, that
Paul enjoined silence on a person who was even endowed with supernatural
gifts, provided an interpreter was not at hand, 1 Cor. xiv, 1–33. It was
the practice among the Greek Christians to uncover their heads when
attending divine service, 1 Cor. xi, 11–16; but in the east, the ancient
custom of worshipping with the head covered was retained. Indeed, it is
the practice among the oriental Christians to the present day, not to
uncover their heads in their religious meetings, except when they
receive the eucharist.

It is affirmed that in the city of Jerusalem alone there were no less
than four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty synagogues. Every
trading company had one of its own, and even strangers built some for
those of their own nation. Hence we find synagogues of the Cyrenians,
Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics, appointed for such as came up to
Jerusalem from those countries, Acts vi, 9.

SYNODS, though actually synonymous with COUNCILS, are in common
historical parlance employed to designate minor ecclesiastical
conventions. In virtue of this distinction councils have usually claimed
for themselves the ample epithet of _œcumenical_ or _general_, while
synods have long been known only by the humbler term of _local_ or
_provincial_. In the apostolic age four local assemblies were held,
which some have called councils and others synods. The first was
convened for the election of a successor to Judas in the apostleship,
Acts i, 26. At the second, seven deacons were chosen, Acts vi, 5. The
third, like the two which preceded it, was held at Jerusalem, according
to some authors, A. D. 47, but, according to others, A. D. 51; that is,
at the latest, eighteen years after Christ’s ascension. It originated in
the attempt made to oblige the Gentile converts at Antioch to submit to
the rite of circumcision. St. Paul and Barnabas opposed this attempt;
and, after “no small dissension and disputation,” it was determined,
that the question should be referred to the judgment of the Apostles and
elders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, some of the Apostles and several of
the “elders came together” to deliberate on the propriety of dispensing
with the ceremonial law. The result of their deliberations was, that the
Mosaic ordinances, being too rigorous, should be abrogated; and that
their decision should be communicated to “the brethren which were of the
Gentiles,” Acts xv, 1–30. The fourth apostolic synod was convened in
reference to the toleration of legal rites, Acts xxi, 18. With respect
to all these, the fact is, that, instead of being councils or synods in
any proper sense, they were mere meetings of the church at Jerusalem,
and all of them ordinary meetings except the third, when they assembled
upon the request of the deputies from Antioch who came to ask advice.

Dr. Neander, speaking of the origin, use, and abuse of synods, says,--As
a closer bond of union was early formed between the churches of the same
province, so also the Christian catholic spirit introduced the custom
that, in all pressing matters, controversies on doctrinal points, things
relating to the ecclesiastical life, and very commonly in those relating
to church discipline, general deliberations should be held by deputies
from these churches. Such assemblies become familiar to us in the
controversies about the time of celebrating Easter, and in the
transactions about the Montanistic prophecies, in the last half of the
second century. But these provincial synods appear, for the first time,
as a constant and regular institution, fixed to definite times, about
the end of the second or the beginning of the third century; and it was
in this case a peculiarity of one country, where particular local causes
may have introduced such an arrangement earlier than in other regions.
This country was, in fact, exactly Greece, where, from the time of the
Achaic league, the system of confederation had maintained itself; and as
Christianity is able to connect itself with all the peculiarities of a
people, provided they contain nothing immoral, and, entering into them,
to take itself a peculiar form resembling them, so, also, it might
easily happen that here the civil federal spirit which already existed
worked upon the ecclesiastical catholic spirit, and gave it earlier than
in other regions a tolerably good form, so that out of the
representative assemblies of the civil communities, the Amphictyonic
councils, were formed the representative assemblies of the
ecclesiastical communities, that is, the provincial synods. As the
Christians, in the consciousness that they are nothing, and can do
nothing, without the Spirit from above, were accustomed to begin all
important business with prayer, they prepared themselves here, also, for
their general deliberations by common prayer, at the opening of these
assemblies, to Him who has promised that he will enlighten and guide, by
his Spirit, those who believe in him, if they will give themselves up to
him wholly, and that he will be among them, where they are gathered
together in his name. It appears that this regular institution met at
first with opposition as an innovation, so that Tertullian felt himself
called upon to stand up in its defence. Nevertheless, the ruling spirit
of the church decided for this institution; and, down to the middle of
the third century, the annual provincial synods appear to have been
general in the church, as we may conclude, because we find them
prevalent, at the same time, in parts of the church as far distant from
each other as North Africa and Cappadocia.

These provincial synods might certainly become very useful for the
churches; and, in many respects, they did become so. By means of a
general deliberation, the views of individuals might mutually be
enlarged and corrected; wants, abuses, and necessary reforms, might thus
more easily be mutually communicated, and be deliberated on in many
different points of view; and the experience of every individual, by
being communicated, might be made useful to all. Certainly, men had
every right to trust that Christ would be among them, according to his
promise, and would lead those who were assembled in his name by his
Spirit. Certainly it was neither enthusiasm nor hierarchical
presumption, if the deputies, collected together to consult upon the
affairs of their churches, and the pastors of these churches, hoped that
a higher Spirit than that of man, by his illumination, would show them
what they could never find by their own reason, whose insufficiency they
felt deeply, if it were left to itself. It would far rather have been a
proud self-confidence, had they been so little acquainted with the
shallowness of their own heart, the poverty of human reason, and the
self-deceits of human wisdom, as to expect that without the influence of
that higher Spirit of holiness and truth they could provide sufficiently
for the advantage of their churches. But this confidence, in itself just
and salutary, took a false and destructive turn, when it was not
constantly accompanied by the spirit of humility and self-watchfulness,
with fear and trembling; when men were not constantly mindful of the
important condition under which alone man could hope to share in the
fulfilment of that promise, in that divine illumination and
guidance,--the condition, that they were really assembled in the name of
Christ, in lively faith in him, and honest devotion to him, and prepared
to sacrifice their own wills; and when the people gave themselves up to
the fancy, that such an assembly, whatever might be the hearts of those
who were assembled, had unalienable claims to the illumination of the
Holy Spirit; for then, in the confusion and the intermixture of human
and divine, men were abandoned to every kind of self-delusion; and the
formula, “_Spiritu Sancto suggerente_,” “By the suggestion of the Holy
Spirit,” might become a pretence and sanction for all the suggestions of
man’s own will. And farther, the provincial synods would necessarily
become prejudicial to the progress of the churches, if, instead of
providing for the advantage of the churches according to the changing
wants of each period, they wished to lay down unchanging laws in
changeable things. Evil was it at last, that the participation of the
churches was entirely excluded from these synods, that at length the
bishops alone decided every thing in them, and that their power, by
means of their connection with each other in these synods, was
constantly on the increase. As the provincial synods were also
accustomed to communicate their resolutions to distant bishops in
weighty matters of general concernment, they were serviceable, at the
same time, toward setting distant parts of the church in connection with
each other, and maintaining that connection.

In the second century after the birth of Christ, eight local synods were
held on church affairs, about which little information is now extant,
except that they related to the heresy of Montanus, the rebaptizing of
heretics, and the time for celebrating the festival of Easter. In the
third century eighteen synods were held; the principal of which were,
that of Alexandria, against Origen; that of Africa, against the
schismatic Novatus; that of Antioch, against the heresy of Sabellius,
and another in the same city against Paul of Samosata; that of Carthage,
against such persons as fell away in time of persecution; and that of
Rome, against Novatian and other schismatics. Prior to the assembling of
the first general council at Nice, A. D. 325, three synods were held at
Sinuessa, Cirtha, and Alexandria, the subjects discussed in which are
unworthy of notice. Others were held, the discussions in which are so
far interesting as they show how desirous the Ante-Nicene fathers were
to regulate the doctrine and practice of the church according to the
apostolic model. The fourth was that of Elvira, which rejected by its
thirty-sixth canon any use whatever even of pictures. “We would not,”
say they, “have pictures placed in churches, that the object of our
worship and adoration should not be painted on their walls.” The synod
at Carthage not having brought the rival pretensions of Cæcilian and
Majorinus to the episcopate of that city to a favourable issue, the
Emperors Constantine appointed a commission (there being so few bishops
present, it could not deserve any other title) to sit, first at Rome,
and afterward at Arles, for the purpose of rehearing the matter. At
Arles, it was decreed, that Easter should be celebrated on the same
Sunday throughout the world; and that heretics, who had been baptized in
the name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized. The synods of Ancyra
and Neo-Cæsarea followed. The tenth canon, decreed by the latter, shows
the sense of the fathers on the subject of celibacy: namely, “If deacons
declare at the time of their ordination that they would marry, they
should not be deprived of their function if they did marry.” Rigid
decrees were passed generally against such of the clergy as ate meats
which had been sacrificed to idols. After the forementioned synods, two
were convened at Alexandria, A. D. 322, against Arius. But their acts
merge in the subsequent proceedings of the church. From the termination
of the council of Nice to the next œcumenical council, A. D. 381, no
fewer than forty-three synods, eastern and western were convened. The
professed object of these meetings was the tranquillity of the church;
yet, from the unhappy divisions which prevailed in these assemblies,
their deliberations were conducted with much of the violence of party
feeling; and, according as the one party or the other prevailed, they
severally hurled spiritual thunder-bolts against their doctrinal rivals,
as if against the enemies of God himself. Of the synod of Sardica a
separate and more particular account will be subsequently given, because
on the authority of that unimportant assembly the church of Rome grounds
the right of appeal to itself before any other church. In the whole, no
fewer than eighty-one synods were assembled throughout the universal
church in this century. The principal subjects which engaged their
attention related to Arianism, which was generally rejected by the
western church; but experienced various vicissitudes in the east,
according to the view taken of it by the reigning power. Unfortunately
for the peace of the church, this heresy gave birth to numerous others.
Marcellus, Photinus, Macedonius, and Priscilian, were severally betrayed
by their violence into systems no less revolting to reason and common
sense than the Arian impieties. Of sixty synods which were convened to
regulate the affairs of the church between the second and third general
councils, A. D. 381–431, more than half of that number were assembled in
Africa:--no inconsiderable proof of the vigilance exercised by the local
bishops over the interests of that portion of the church universal
committed to their care. In the latter part of the fifth century many
synods were held, some eastern and others western, but none of them
possessed peculiar interest. In the commencement of this century,
Zosimus, bishop of Rome, absolved the heresiarchs, Pelagius and
Cælestius, and by this act confirmed their errors. On the latter
appealing to him for support, Zosimus sent the Sardican canon to a
council held at the time in Carthage, as if that canon had been decreed
by the council of Nice; because it allowed the right of appeal to the
see of Rome. The African council rejected it with disdain, having found,
on reference to the eastern patriarchs, that no such canons belonged to
the Nicene council, or were ever before heard of. Thus was the reputed
infallible head of an equally infallible church detected in a gross act
of imposition; so gross as to compel our good Bishop Jewel to call
Zosimus “a forger and falsifier of councils,” The same pope pronounced
his unerring judgment in the dispute between the bishops of Arles and
Vincennes; while Boniface, his successor, under the influence of the
same inerrant principle and in the plenitude of the same apostolic
power, reversed that judgment. In the year 498, Symmachus and Laurentius
were elected to the pontificate on the same day by different parties;
and while they maintained the validity of their respective elections,
they reciprocally denounced each other. Where, then, did infallibility
reside before Theodoric, king of the Goths, gave it a supposed
habitation in the person of Symmachus? Theodoric, an Arian, and
consequently a heretic in the eyes of the Romish church, awarded the
keys of St. Peter to Symmachus; a circumstance which must have vitiated
the boasted apostolic succession in the bishops of Rome, and therefore
have destroyed their title to infallibility! Cabals and intrigues for
being elected to the popedom disgraced the commencement of the sixth
century. Their prevention in future, however, was decreed; and certain
rules, having in view the peace and order of the western church, were
laid down by two synods convened at Rome about the same time. From this
period to the middle of the century, upward of twenty local meetings of
the clergy were held in different parts of Europe, fifteen in Asia, and
only four in Africa. The directions for the married clergy, which
occasionally present themselves to view in the proceedings of these
synods, prove that _celibacy_ was not at this period a general
regulation; while _communion in both kinds_ appears to have been an
established usage. The synods which were held during the remainder of
the sixth century were confined to France and Spain. They amount in
number to twenty-six; and, like the rest of the minor class which
preceded them, canons are interspersed among their acts which have in
view the security of church property, and the rights, privileges, and
powers of the different ranks of the clergy. The remaining canons relate
to discipline, with the exception of the few which were at different
times ordained for the suppression of heretical opinions, for the
regulation of both the married and celibate clergy, and of the fees to
which they should be entitled on the performance of certain duties. In
none of them is to be found the least authority for the distinguishing
tenets of the modern church of Rome; so that, to the very close of the
sixth century, she may be considered as being orthodox, pure, and
uncorrupt. Whatever deference she might claim as an elder branch of the
church of Christ, she raised no pretensions to a lordly preëminence over
the rights and privileges of other churches. Her jurisdiction was
circumscribed within her own diocesan boundaries; and, beyond them, none
was demanded. After the commencement of the seventh century, however, a
complete change took place in this respect, so that if a comparison be
instituted between the tenets which the church of Rome held in the first
ages, and those which she subsequently professed, the precise period at
which the novelties commenced which now distinguish her from her former
self might easily be ascertained. The order of St. Benedict, which
served as a model for the other monastic fraternities that were
subsequently instituted, was founded in the early part of this century

As the history of synods after the sixth century dwindles down into a
meagre narrative of the unjust incroachments and corrupt innovations of
the church of Rome, and of the ineffectual struggles of Christian
churches in various parts of Europe to resist his usurpation, we shall
close this article with an account of the popish synod of Sardica and of
the Protestant synod of Dort. After a long night of darkness, the
glimmerings of a bright day were perceived at a distance, when, in the
fourteenth century, our celebrated countryman, the immortal Wickliffe,
appeared as the precursor of the reformation from popery. The light
increased during the succeeding century, when those brave witnesses for
the truth, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, suffered martyrdom; and the
sixteenth century was favoured with the full blaze of day when Luther
and Melancthon were encouraged and supported in their benevolent and
arduous undertaking, and succeeded in putting down the shadowy forms of
superstition and idolatry. Soon was the greatest part of irradiated
Europe called upon to rejoice in this light; and to some of the best
patriots in those countries that slighted such an opportunity, their own
culpable supineness or neglect has been a source of deep national regret
from one generation to another.

THE SYNOD OF SARDICA was held A. D. 347. The Emperors Constans and
Constantius, being anxious to restore that peace to the church of which
it was deprived by the continuance of Arius’s heresy, agreed to convene
an ecclesiastical assembly in Sardica, a city of Mæsia on the verge of
their respective empires. About a hundred western and seventy eastern
bishops attended; but altercation, and not debate, ensued. The smaller
party, apprehensive for their personal safety, withdrew to a town in
Thrace; a circumstance that disclosed the first symptoms of discord and
schism between the Greek and Latin churches. Before this period the
right of appeal from all other churches to the see of Rome had not been
claimed; but from it we date the first aspirations of Roman pontiffs to
lordly preëminence, and they bent their restless energies to establish a
spiritual tyranny over all the nations of the earth. Ecclesiastics,
excommunicated by the oriental or African churches, fled to Rome for
refuge, one after another; and as the bishop of that city afforded them
his protection, gratified as he was at every occasion which made it
necessary, they, in order to testify their gratitude, unwittingly
compromised the rights of the clergy, when, to the extent of their
individual sanction, they invested him with the appellant jurisdiction.
Among the refugees at Rome was the celebrated bishop of Alexandria.
Athanasius, persecuted by the Arian party in the east, knelt as a
suppliant on the threshold of the Vatican. Julius gladly espoused his
cause, and declared him to have been illegally condemned; a declaration
that seemed to come with authority, but which the eastern bishops
opposed as an usurpation of undue power. They went so far as even to
excommunicate Hosius, Gaudentius, Julius the bishop of Rome, and others,
on the alleged assumption of authority. They maintained the principle
laid down in the canons, that the judgment passed on any individual,
either by an eastern or western synod, ought to be confirmed by the
other. And while they complained that the bishops of the west should
disturb the whole church, on account of one or two troublesome fellows,
they accused them of arrogantly attempting to establish a new law for
the purpose of empowering themselves to reëxamine what had been already
determined. Chrysostom, too, in his distress, implored, at a subsequent
period, the interference of Innocent, the then occupant of the papal
chair, with the emperor of the east, for the purpose of procuring a
reversal of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by an
obscure synod in the suburbs of Chalcedon. But that father never once
supposed that the Roman pontiff had any right to hear his cause. His
appeal lay to the supreme tribunal of a free and general council, from a
packed assembly which the empress Eudoxia had been instrumental in
calling together, in order to effect his ruin. As these two cases of
Athanasius and Chrysostom are pleaded by Romish writers in support of
the appellant authority with which they invest the bishop of Rome, it is
a matter of importance to examine the stability of this ground-work, on
which is laid the immense structure of papal supremacy. Hosius, who
presided in the Sardican synod, as he did at every council where he
happened to be present, is reported to have proposed that an appeal
should be made to Rome out of respect to the chair of St. Peter, and
not, as was ruled at the council of Nice, to the bishops of the
neighbouring province, when any decision had been come to in a
provincial synod. But what is the language of the proposition made by
Hosius? “If it be a favourite object with you, let us honour the memory
of Peter, so that a letter may be addressed to Julius, bishop of Rome,
by those who decided on the matter; that, if necessary, the judgment may
be reviewed by the bishops in his neighbourhood, and that he may appoint
some to hear the cause.” Here neither canon nor Scripture is referred
to; while it is left optional with the assembly whether deference was or
was not to be paid to Julius, who is simply styled συνεπίσκοπος, “a
fellow bishop.” The fourth canon of this synod ordains, “that an
archbishop, &c, deposed by a provincial synod, must not be expelled,
until the bishop of Rome shall determine whether the cause shall be
reëxamined;” and the fifth canon decrees, “that the bishop of Rome, if
he deem it proper, shall order a rehearing of the matter; that, if
convenient, he shall send deputies for the purpose; if not, that he
should leave the decision of the case to the synod itself.” From the
third and fourth canons it appears that a novelty in discipline is
established, and made obligatory on the churches of both empires, but
only by a handful of bishops belonging to one of them; and from the
fifth, that the bishop of Rome, if he deemed a judgment erroneous, might
convene a new council and send deputies to it, for the purpose of
reconsidering the matter. These canons, no doubt, were very flattering
to the ambition of the Roman pontiff, and, accordingly, they are pleaded
in behalf of his supremacy; but how preposterous is it to ascribe that
to a human law, which, it is asserted, belongs to him by the law of God!
There are other canons regulating the intercourse between bishops and
the imperial court; after such a manner, however, as to make the bishop
of Rome the judge of the propriety of the petitions which they intended
to prefer. Notwithstanding all this, they can never be rescued from the
imputation of being forgeries. For, 1. They were never received by
either the eastern or African church as general laws. At the sixth
council of Carthage, Austin strenuously denied the right of appeal to
the Roman see, although a letter has been forged in his name,
strenuously contending for it, which is now deposited among the pious
frauds of the Vatican. It happened, also, in the early part of the fifth
century, that Appiarius, who had been excommunicated by the African
bishops, applied to Zosimus, bishop of Rome. This pontiff forthwith sent
them the Sardican canon, which conferred on him the right of appeal.
This they indignantly rejected, inasmuch as their predecessors, who
attended the council of Sardica, left no record of it; and because the
eastern patriarchs, whom they consulted on the occasion, not only
disclaimed all knowledge of any such canon being in existence, but
furnished their brethren with an exact copy of the Nicene canons, among
which the Sardican one was not to be found. 2. The Sardican canons were
not inserted in the code of canons approved of by the council of
Chalcedon. 3. The council which passed them is not reckoned, even by the
church of Rome, as one of the eighteen general councils, whose authority
it acknowledges; nor does Bellarmine himself say that it is one of those
councils which his church receives in part and rejects in part. 4. When
the western bishops entreated the Emperor Theodosius to summon a
council, A.D. 407, so far were they from making any allusion to the
doctrine of an appeal to the Roman see, that they distinctly disclaimed
the thought of such a prerogative, and only sought the fellowship of a
common arbitration. 5. Lastly, if, as the historian Sozomen says, the
Sardican synod wrote to Julius, bishop of Rome, to apprize him of what
they had done, and of their decrees being drawn up in the spirit of the
council of Nice, the purport of the letter was not so strong as that
which they addressed to the church of Alexandria, in which they pray it
to give its suffrage to the determination of the council, additional
suspicions are created. From all these circumstances taken together, it
is evident that no value is to be attached to the decrees of this
obscure council; and that, although due respect was paid to St. Peter’s
chair, it was no acknowledgment of the superiority of its possessor as
to ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction.

THE SYNOD OF DORT. The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the
corrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the
papal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to
recover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth
and her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were
Lutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of
public instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the
candidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might
naturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar
views of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly
observed by Le Vassor, “Some learned Hollanders had boldly defended this
doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor
at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their
writings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers,
who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their
productions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked
this impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect
liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and
when Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally
known; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the
consistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus,
and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation
with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the
difference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all
concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did
not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken
umbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of
Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful
insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some
time before, he looked upon as orthodox.” The struggles of the party of
Arminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a
toleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political
circumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that
period very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and
conducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort;
but in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic,
the elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King
James the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he
sent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the
condemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally
called, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of
the heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his
relations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of
Bohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he
completely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all
his hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant
Europe in the famous thirty years’ war.

The Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his
translation of the “Works of Arminius,” had long wished to have their
“Five Points” of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a
_provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have
them brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines.
But the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals.
If a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province
(Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from
trial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and
popular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed
nearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_
of Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the
principles of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral
parts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to
toleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to
the especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was
anticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines,
from all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north
of Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on
this subject were written by the public functionaries of the different
provinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the
learned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general
council_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they
display. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the
wisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover
for removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at
that time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were
placed in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest
reasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too
far, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply
with greater cogency to the convening of a general council.

The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient
liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which
possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own
affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and
illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the
appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected
individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill
the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been
ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and
scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated
respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians
to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to
succeed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had
forwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence,
and that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the
late unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not
only to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit
to propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily
completed, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told
Episcopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, “You may remember
what you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had
of late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer
judges and men in power, but persons under citation.” In such a state of
affairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a
national synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the
different classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each
province by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches
as had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper
and intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom
rested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had
not mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of
things, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they
were emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and
forcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they
occupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be
attempted with any probability of success, they employed the
ecclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed
vestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of
Calvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the
various districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the
subject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the
ministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the
dominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism
was in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that
far-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the
Arminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of
that persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The
Calvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus
given, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: “And since
there were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom
had been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the
Remonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of
the ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain
persons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod
[of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were
suspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons,
and by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points
of the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the
national synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in
the name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to
whom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had
fully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they
suspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.”
In the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at
the synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed,
respecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five
Points, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of
faith: “Such particular cases do not in any manner affect the common
cause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found
guilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical
censures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their
trials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.”
Because the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be
long absent from their respective congregations, such galloping
commissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to
traverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they
soon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out
reputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the
angel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and
desolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents
themselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic
constitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers
remained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or
under suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of
men that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then
sought to be accomplished.

In the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to
it, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made
of inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the
Palatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for
farther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to
the churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of
the principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their
opinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the
ancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the
subject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed
as men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account
improper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every
proposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh
were the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to
them, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained
with tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the
deputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the
train of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to
the synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men
of Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and
Nassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the
synod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of
partiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed
to them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic
doctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons
was not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches
of other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice’s schemes of
secular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his
utmost wishes, they no longer studied to “avoid the appearance of evil,”
but boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod
they had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method
of procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this
topic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the
Hague, says, “For a general confession of faith, at least so far as
those churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his
project very possible, there being no point of faith in which they
differ.” Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the
attendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but
the king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions
from becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations.

The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the
national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members
were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of
November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of
the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was
formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the
foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will
find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided
opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was
not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge
of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This
caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were
summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of
Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to
go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the
reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be
admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the
bearing of his opinions.”

It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of
ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having
any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic
plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were
the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at
all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between
Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of
each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons
as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that
they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the
seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously
declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as
the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies,
as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the
judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the
affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not
disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and
not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which
concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united
themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a
layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable
assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther
deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members
convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be
summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed
and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each
province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired,
if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay
commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the
secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting
their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the
secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day
the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for
amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the
determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many,
should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the
Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation,
commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after
the receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that
in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the
before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to
be necessary.” In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the
resolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to
obtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number
and under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request
known to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution
which had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they
replied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves
who were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if
they persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by
that act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to
entertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings.
Not being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they
deemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they
accounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume
that unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor
afterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the
brethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail.
On the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived,
and requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their
books, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to
appear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They
were introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at
a long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the
permission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the
synod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that
“the cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and
righteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments
drawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed
from the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked,
they left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States
General, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to
engage in a conference, if that should be required.” Then were they
desired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall
of the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled,
and informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod
next morning at nine o’clock. He added, according to Hales, “that they
came not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an
adverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no
purpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which
they were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose
their opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge
of them.” Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to
criticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no
other view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted,
according to the summons which they had received. The next day, December
7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired
and obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of
which occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble
sentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold.
The gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such
an impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and
even from some of the states’ deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage
to the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales’s
account, “signified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his
speech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of
it. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the
synod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn
for them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up
he must, and so he did.” In the session, December 10, after the
president had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed
with their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested
leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to
this; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard
Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the
synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the
acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause
it defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own
the members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority
of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed
enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as
those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy
schism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part
contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a
well constituted synod should consist. The observance of the
stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the
synod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the
Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the
Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The
production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic
persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against
the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave
dreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when
they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one
can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading
of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the
commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the
succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman
laboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial
constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in
reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had
appointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of
the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect
accused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great
personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the
latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland
divines, he said, “The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing
it. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of
doctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it,
and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true
colours.” Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in
behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority
of the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as
lawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian
fathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors
that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to
challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law
allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had
previously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to
try them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine
and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation.
Episcopius then said, “Mr. President, if you were in our places and we
in yours, would you submit to our judgment?” Bogerman replied, “If it
had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has
ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with
patience.” Episcopius rejoined, “It is one thing to acknowledge a person
for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which
he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be
persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you
are our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from
ours.”

On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were
urged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the
Confession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved
permission to read another document: after some demur, leave was
granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: “The celebrated
Paræus, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no
man to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in
the character of both adversaries and judges.” The rest of the paper was
occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in
the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their
want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They
declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to
the synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never
been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they
would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod.
This document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this
protest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited
Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those
methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and
not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers.
They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they
thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod,
without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the
individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who
had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference
in 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those
who appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents
and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under
discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a
ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be
suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent
degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had
time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons
with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be
viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without
exception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative
to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession,
the Remonstrants wished to enter on the “proposing, explanation, and
defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,”
according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited;
but the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those
expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to
themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to
enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was
accounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also
alleged, that “they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of
election, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty
lay.” They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation
discussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists of those days wished
to keep unconditional reprobation enshrined in the dark _penetralia_ of
their temples, only to be produced, as opportunity might serve, for
their own private purposes, either to terrify the careless among their
hearers, or to quicken the occasionally sluggish current of
congregational benevolence. It was not to be expected, therefore, that
the Calvinists of the synod would allow the Remonstrants to give
reprobation that prominence in their discussions to which it was justly
entitled. In one of the debates which these two questions produced,
Bogerman again took advantage of the disingenuous trickery which we have
just exposed, and asked Pynakker, one of the cited ministers, “Do you
imagine the synod will suffer the Remonstrants to examine the doctrine
of reprobation?” Pynakker replied, “Yes, I do: because, as this is the
chief source of the troubles of the church, it ought to be _first_
discussed.” Perceiving either that his meaning was not correctly
understood, or that he had expressed it in an imperfect manner, Pynakker
immediately explained himself by adding, that by _first_ he meant
_chiefly_, (both of which significations the Latin word conveys,) and by
acknowledging that election ought to have the precedence of discussion.
When relating this occurrence, Poppius remarks, “This, being received in
a wrong sense, was imputed to all of us, as though we were unanimously
of opinion, that the discussion of the doctrine of reprobation ought to
precede that of election. Upon this question the foreign divines and
others were desired by the president to deliver their sentiments.
However, the expression imputed to us was employed by none of us, much
less by all. But this was their manner: if one of us, in the name of
all, said any thing that proved advantageous to the rest, the president
seemed much displeased at our unanimity: then we were told that we were
cited singly and personally, and that we did not compose a society or
corporation. But when any of us happened to employ a word that was
capable of being wrested to our common injury and misconstrued, then
what was said by one was certain to be imputed to all!” After gaining a
favourable opportunity like this, Bogerman always hastily dismissed the
cited persons; and on this occasion he dwelt largely, in their absence,
on Pynakker’s expression, and persuaded the foreign divines that the
proposal of the Remonstrants, to treat of reprobation before election,
was a _sine quâ non_, and that without it was granted to them they would
not proceed. This alarmed all the Calvinistic brotherhood, who rose _vi
et armis_, delivered _seriatim_ their objections to such a bold
proceeding, and thought, with the professor of Heidelberg, “that it was
unreasonable for the Remonstrants to disturb the consciences of the
elect on account of God’s judgments against the reprobated, and to plead
the cause of the latter, as though they had been hired to undertake the
defence of those who had by the just judgment of God been rejected; and
that for these reasons the synod neither could nor ought to grant the
Remonstrant brethren any farther liberty, unless the members designed to
expose the orthodox doctrine of predestination to be openly ridiculed.”
Finding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of
reprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to
explain or defend their sentiments _vivâ voce_, “to explain their
doctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and
proceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to
refute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those
whom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or
defence seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the
questions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or
in oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best
qualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired
might not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a
manner as should not savour in the least of an insolent licentiousness:
and that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay
commissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure.” But these
very equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the
unsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out
to them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the
management of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old
trick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after
procuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at
length, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of
contumely and scorn which he could invent. Bogerman had previously
busied himself in extracting the opinions of the Remonstrants from such
writings of theirs as had been published long before, and in forming
them into articles, to be separately discussed by the synod. This
passing of judgment on the Remonstrants from the testimony of their own
writings, was an employment which Deodatus and his colleague from Geneva
had at one of the earliest sessions mentioned as very desirable, and in
which they appeared eager to engage. Any one who attentively reads the
Acts of the synod, and compares them with the private accounts both of
Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants will find, that this had also been
the intention of the president from the very commencement, and that all
his shifting schemes and boisterous conduct was intended to irritate the
Remonstrants, who possessed more patience than he had contemplated, and
who were therefore to be removed from the synod by a greater exercise of
art and with greater difficulty. But one of the greatest injuries of
which the Remonstrants had to complain, was, that the book from which
their supposed opinions were chiefly collected, was the production of a
declared enemy, who wrote a highly coloured account of a conference
respecting the Five Points, in which he pretended that the Calvinists
had obtained a complete victory. A Remonstrant author had also written
an able statement of the same conference, and had claimed a triumph for
his party. The latter would therefore have certainly been the most
proper authority from which to extract the real opinions of his body.

But though dismissed from their farther attendance on the synod, the
Remonstrants were not permitted to depart from Dort; the states’
commissioners having charged them not to quit the town, without their
special permission. The president, in his speech dimissory, had said,
that they would receive an intimation when the synod had any farther
occasion for them. When a Remonstrant deputy, by leave of the acting
burgomaster of Dort, who was one of the commissioners, had hastily gone
to Utrecht, to visit one of his children that was expected soon to die,
he was on his return called to an account for his conduct, and the
former order repeated. In the course of their detention at Dort during
eight months, they were as strictly watched as if they had been
condemned malefactors. One of them whose sister lay on her death-bed and
earnestly desired to see him, could not obtain permission to visit her
while she lived; and after her decease he was not allowed to attend her
funeral. Another, whose wife was near the time of her accouchment,
wished, like a good family man, to be at home for a few days at that
critical period; but his request was refused. When the uncle of another
of them was at the point of death, he longed for the presence of his
nephew, to receive his dying commands, and to benefit him by his
counsels and prayers; but the wishes of the good old man could not be
gratified. After his death, the nephew was not allowed to look after the
pressing concerns of his orphan cousins, although his uncle had
appointed him their legal guardian. None of these favours, though
reasonable and asked with much humility, could be obtained from the high
bigots, in whose hands, at that time, was vested the personal liberty of
the persecuted and cited Remonstrants. Toward the close of February, the
magistrates of different towns deposed from the ministry three of the
cited Remonstrant ministers who were present at the synod, and sent
regular notices to their families, speedily to quit the parsonage houses
which they severally occupied. These three good men, being heartily
tired of the strict durance in which they had been held since their
arrival at Dort, represented to the states’ commissioners, that, as they
were not now in the ministry, they could no longer be considered
amenable to the jurisdiction of the synod: this was the very argument of
the commissioners, when, at the commencement of the synod, the
Remonstrants had wished to have associated with them the two recently
deposed ministers, Grevinchovius and Goulart. Though, for very obvious
reasons, at that early stage of the business, they would permit no
Remonstrants to appear among the cited, “except such as were actually in
the exercise of the ministry;” yet they would not listen to the same
argument when it militated against their favourite purposes: and the
three ministers were commanded to remain at Dort with their brethren.
One of the three, however, whose wife then far advanced in pregnancy,
had been ordered to leave her house within eight days, ventured to
return to Horn, and to assist her to remove from their former dwelling.
But, on his arrival, he found her already removed to another house; and
his return to Dort was speedily required by the higher powers. To
expedite his departure, two or three of the Calvinist magistrates
employed their official authority in a manner the most reprehensible:
they placed him, like a criminal, in the town wagon openly before his
own door, though he had provided a carriage for himself on the outside
of the town, to which he wished to have retired privately and without
noise. A tumult ensued between the populace who were attached to their
good pastor, and the soldiers whom the magistrates had placed before his
house two hours before his departure. On his return to Dort, he was
severely examined before the commissioners respecting the unhappy
commotion; but being convinced that he had not been at all to blame in
that affair, they passed it over in silence. At different times the
Remonstrants wished to depute a few of their small body to the Hague, to
make a proper representation of the manner in which they were treated by
the synod; but this indulgence was invariably refused. Their only
resource then was, to write to their high mightinesses an account of
their proceedings, and to implore their interference and protection. But
such an attempt, in that posture of their affairs, was unavailing; for
their doom was already sealed. Soon after their appearance at Dort, the
magistrates of that city issued a proclamation, commanding the
inhabitants, all of whom were celebrated for their attachment to Calvin,
to refrain from insulting any of the foreign or native professors,
divines, or other persons that were called to appear at the synod, on
pain of summary punishment to the offenders. This document was not
required for the protection of the Calvinists; but the persecuted
Remonstrants were such objects of hatred to the populace, as scarcely to
be allowed to pass along the streets without being maltreated. This bad
spirit was excited and encouraged by the violent sermons which were
fulminated against them, from the different pulpits in the city.
Whenever these good men were required to be in attendance, (and they
were liable to be summoned from their lodgings at a few minutes’
notice,) they were not permitted to enter the large hall in which the
synodical sessions were held, but were ordered to wait the pleasure of
that venerable body in an ante-chamber, the door of which was generally
locked, and the passage leading to it guarded by two or three of the
police, who hindered them from holding any communication with their
friends, and kept them in as strict durance as if they had been
convicted of some capital offence. At the formal conclusion of the
principal business of the synod, May the 6th, when the farther
attendance of the foreign divines was declared to be no longer
necessary, the Remonstrants were summoned from their lodgings, and
waited upon the lay commissioners, at six o’clock in the evening, when
the resolution and censure of the synod were read to them in Latin by
Heinsius, the secretary; in which they were accused of “having corrupted
the true religion, dissolved the unity of the church, given grievous
cause of scandal, and shown themselves contumacious and disobedient: for
these several reasons, the synod prohibited them from the farther
exercise of their ministry, deprived them of their offices in the church
and university, and declared them incapable of performing any
ecclesiastical function, till, by sincere repentance, they should have
given the church full satisfaction, and, being thus reconciled to her,
should be re-admitted into her communion.” They were then required to
wait at Dort till farther orders from their high mightinesses; and when
they requested to have a copy of the synodical censure and sentence
against them, they were as usual refused. On the 24th of May, the cited
Remonstrants were summoned to appear before three new commissioners whom
the States General had deputed from their body, when each of them was
called into the room and separately interrogated; after which, he who
had been last called in was ordered into another room, and prevented
from holding any communication with those who had not been ushered into
the presence of the commissioners. The proposal and questions addressed
to each of them were in substance the following: “Since you have been
deprived by the synod, the States General have directed us to ask you
the following questions: Whether you are, notwithstanding this decision,
resolved to act as ministers? Or whether you will be content in future
to lead quiet and peaceable lives in obedience to the government, as
private burghers, without any place or office, abstaining from all
ecclesiastical ministrations in any meeting of the people of your sect,
from all manner of teaching and preaching, exhorting, reading,
administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, writing letters, or
transmitting papers?--It is the intention of their high mightinesses to
allow to those who shall conform to these requisitions such a competency
as may enable them to live comfortably either in or out of these united
provinces, as their own choice may determine.” In addition to these
things, Episcopius was required to promise, “not to write either letters
or books to confirm the people in the sentiments of the Remonstrants, or
to seduce them from the doctrine of the synod.” All of them professed
their willingness to obey their governors in all such matters as might
be performed with a safe conscience, to live peaceably themselves, and
to exhort all others to the same practice. They also expressed their
readiness to refrain from the exercise of their ecclesiastical functions
in the public churches; but none of them, except Leo, could reconcile it
to their consciences to abstain from feeding in smaller assemblies the
flock of Christ over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. The
majority of them added, “Not only those who abuse or squander away their
talent will be punished, but those also who bury it in the earth, either
through fear of trouble or hope of advantage. It is therefore our duty
to place our lights on candlesticks, and not to hide or smother them
under a bushel or an easy bed; and we hope your lordships will neither
hinder us, nor be displeased with us for so doing.” In a subsequent
interview with the commissioners, the Remonstrants proved, that their
reasons for continuing the exercise of their ministry had formerly
received the sanction of the States General themselves: for at the
treaty of Cologne, in 1579, their high mightinesses had insisted, “that
subjects who professed any religion different from that which was
established, could not satisfy their consciences by foregoing its
exercise.” But, after several unavailing conferences together, the
commissioners left them in a state of suspense and confinement, about
twenty days longer. During that time, several reports were brought to
them from various quarters, “that some great calamity was impending;”
and they were seriously advised to avoid it by a timely flight. They
were likewise informed of Barneveldt’s execution, and of the perpetual
imprisonment to which Grotius and Hogerbeets had been sentenced; and
that several of their brethren in the ministry, who had lately attended
a meeting at Rotterdam about their affairs in general, had been taken
into custody, and brought to the Hague, for that offence. They thought,
however, that all these reports were only intended to create an
artificial alarm, and to induce them to attempt an escape,--thus
delivering their enemies from the hatred to which they would be exposed
by their farther rigorous proceedings. But their firmness on that
occasion corresponded with all their previous conduct, and they refused
to dishonour their good cause by flight, or any other act of cowardice.
On the 3d of July, after having been summoned from Dort to the Hague,
they appeared before the States General, and when they had been called
in singly before their lordships, some time was spent to induce each of
them to sign the act of cessation from the ministry. But to these
renewed solicitations they separately returned the same modest answer as
that which they had delivered at Dort. After allowing them two days for
farther deliberation, their lordships on the fifth of the same month,
having heard a repetition of their refusal, passed a resolution to
banish them “out of the united provinces and the jurisdiction thereof,
without ever being allowed to return till the said states be fully
satisfied that they are ready to subscribe the said act of cessation,
and till they have obtained special leave from their high mightinesses
for that purpose, on pain, in case of non-compliance, of being treated
as disturbers of the public peace, for an example to others.” Episcopius
delivered a short speech, in which, among other matters, he reminded
their high mightinesses, “that they had been invited to a free synod,
and had received frequent verbal promises of a safe conduct.” To this
speech they did not deign a reply, but ordered the Remonstrants to be
conducted into another room, and to have the door locked and bolted,
while the provost and his officers attended on the outside for purposes
of intimidation. After being kept some time in this kind of imprisonment
they were at length permitted to depute to their high mightinesses two
of their body, who requested that they might have leave to adjust their
domestic affairs, to collect what was owing to them, and to pay their
debts, that their wives and children might not be rendered miserable and
turned naked into the streets. They offered to give unexceptionable
security for their return at such a period and to such places as their
lordships might require. While they were preferring this request, the
Heer Muis often interrupted them, and at last sarcastically told them
“not to be so greatly concerned about their families; for if they had
received an extraordinary call from God to serve his church, he would
undoubtedly support them after an extraordinary manner.” But the only
favour which the Remonstrants could obtain, was, the deferring of their
departure till four o’clock the next morning, provided each of them
would promise to retire to his lodgings without speaking to any body,
and to be ready at the appointed early hour next day. Each of them had
fifty guilders allowed for his travelling expenses, and a copy of the
sentence of the States General. But it was between nine and ten o’clock
the next day, before the magistrates removed them in nine wagons toward
Walwick in Brabant, the place of banishment which they had desired,
where they arrived after a journey of three days. The canons of Dort, as
the grand test of Calvinism, were then carried triumphantly by the
synodists throughout the land; and every clergyman, professor, and
schoolmaster, that refused to sign them, was deprived of his benefice
and compelled to lay aside his functions. Several of them, in addition
to their deprivation, were also banished out of the country, to various
parts on the continent. So ended these proceedings of the Synod of Dort
as to these suffering men; proceedings which would have disgraced the
worst age of popery!

While in a state of banishment, these excellent ministers of Christ
Jesus provided for the spiritual wants of their destitute flocks; and,
at the imminent hazard of life and liberty, discharged in person, as
often as they found opportunity, the duties of the pastoral office.
After the death of Prince Maurice, in 1631, they were permitted to
return to their native country, and to resume the peaceable exercise of
their ministry. But the immense literary labours in which they were
compelled to engage during this troublous period have, by the admirably
over-ruling acts of Divine Providence, been rendered most valuable
blessings to the whole of Christendom. Such doctrines and principles
were then brought under discussion, as served to enlighten every country
in Europe on the grand subject of civil and religious liberty, the true
nature of which has from that time been better understood, and its
beneficial effects more generally appreciated and enjoyed.

We subjoin their opinions on the “Five Points” in dispute between them
and the Contra-Remonstrants, translated from the Latin papers which they
presented to the synod. It is, however, necessary for the reader to be
apprized, that, in framing these doctrinal articles, which served them
as texts or theses for some most valuable dissertations on various
cognate subjects, they intended rather to expose the unguarded
assertions and extravagant dogmas of their theological adversaries, than
to exhibit a simple statement of their own sentiments.

I. _On predestination._ 1. God has not decreed to elect any one to
eternal life or to reprobate any man from it, in an order prior to that
by which he has decreed to create that man, without any insight into any
antecedent obedience or disobedience, but according to his own good
pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice, or of his
power or absolute dominion. 2. As the decree of God concerning both the
salvation and the destruction of every man is not the decree of an end
absolutely [_intenti_] fixed, it follows that neither are such means
subordinated to that decree as through them both the elect and the
reprobate may efficaciously and inevitably be brought to the destined
end. 3. Wherefore, neither did God with this design in one man Adam
create all men in an upright condition, nor did he ordain the fall or
even its permission, nor did he withdraw from Adam necessary and
sufficient grace, nor does he now cause the Gospel to be preached and
men to be outwardly called, nor does he confer on them the gifts of the
Holy Spirit,--[he has done none of these things with the design] that
they should be means by which he might bring some of mankind to life
everlasting, and leave others of them destitute of eternal life. Christ
the Mediator is not only the executor of election, but also the
foundation of the very decree of election itself. The reason [_causa_]
why some men are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith,
and are glorified, is not because they are absolutely elected to life
eternal: nor is the reason why others are deserted and left in the fall,
have not Christ bestowed upon them, or, farther, why they are
inefficaciously called, are hardened and damned, because these men are
absolutely reprobated from eternal life. 4. God has not decreed, without
the intervening of actual sins, to leave by far the greater part of
mankind in the fall, and excluded from all hope of salvation. 5. God has
ordained that Christ shall be the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world; and, in virtue of this decree, he has determined to justify and
save those who believe in him, and to administer to men the means which
are necessary and sufficient for faith, in such a manner as he knows to
be befitting his wisdom and justice. But he has not in any wise
determined, in virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ as a
Mediator for the elect only, and to endow them alone with faith through
an effectual call, to justify them, to preserve them in the faith, and
to glorify them. 6. Neither is any man by some absolute antecedent
decree rejected from life eternal, nor from means sufficient to attain
it: so that the merits of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the
Spirit, are capable of profiting all men for their salvation, and are in
reality profitable to all men, unless by an abuse of these blessings
they pervert them to their own destruction. But no man whatever is
destined to unbelief, impiety, or the commission of sin, as the means
and causes of his damnation. 7. The election of particular persons is
[_peremptoria_] absolute, from consideration of their faith in Jesus
Christ and their perseverance, but not without consideration of their
faith and of their perseverance in true faith as a prerequisite
condition in electing them. 8. Reprobation from eternal life is made
according to the consideration of preceding unbelief and perseverance in
unbelief, but not without consideration of preceding unbelief or
perseverance in unbelief. 9. All the children of believers are
sanctified in Christ; so that not one of them perishes who departs out
of this life prior to the use of reason. But some children of believers
who depart out of this life in their infancy, and before they have in
their own persons committed any sin, are on no account to be reckoned in
the number of the reprobate: so that neither is the sacred laver of
baptism, nor are the prayers of the church, by any means capable of
profiting them to salvation. 10. No children of believers who have been
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
and who live in the state of their infancy, are by an absolute decree
numbered among the reprobate.

II. _On the universality of the merit of Christ._ 1. The price of
redemption which Christ offered to his Father is in and of itself not
only sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but it has
also, through the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father,
been paid for all men and every man; and therefore no one is by an
absolute and antecedent decree of God positively excluded from all
participation in the fruits of the death of Christ. 2. Christ, by the
merit of his death, has [_hactenus_] thus far reconciled God the Father
to the whole of mankind,--that he can and will, without injury to his
justice and truth, enter into and establish a new covenant of grace with
sinners and men obnoxious to damnation. 3. Though Christ has merited for
all men and for every man reconciliation with God and forgiveness of
sins, yet, according to [_pactum_] the tenor or terms of the new and
gracious covenant, no man is in reality made a partaker of the benefits
procured by the death of Christ in any other way than through faith;
neither are the trespasses and offences of sinful men forgiven prior to
their actually and truly believing in Christ. 4. Those only for whom
Christ has died are obliged to believe that Christ has died for them.
But those whom they call reprobates, and for whom Christ has not died,
can neither be obliged so to believe, nor can they be justly condemned
for the contrary unbelief; but if such persons were reprobates, they
would be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.

III. & IV. _On the operation of grace in the conversion of man._ 1. Man
has not saving faith from and of himself, nor has he it from the powers
of his own free will; because in a state of sin he is able from and of
himself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, nothing that is
indeed saving good; of which description, in the first place, is saving
faith. But it is necessary that, by God in Christ through his Holy
Spirit, he should be regenerated and renewed in his understanding,
affections, will, and in all his powers, that he may be capable of
rightly understanding, meditating, willing, and performing such things
as are savingly good. 2. We propound the grace of God to be the
beginning, the progress, and the completion of every good thing; so that
even the man who is born again is not able without this preceding and
prevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and
coöperating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to
resist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good actions
which any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be ascribed to the
grace of God in Christ. 3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal,
care, study, and pains, which are employed to obtain salvation, before
faith and the Spirit of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do
we believe that they are more hurtful to man than useful and profitable.
But, on the contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn
on account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire
saving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man
capable of doing without divine grace,) are not only not hurtful and
useless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly necessary
for obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation. 4. The will of man in
a lapsed or fallen state, and before the call of God, has not the
capability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature;
and therefore we deny that the liberty of willing as well what is a
saving good as what is an evil is present to the human will in every
state or condition. 5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted,
is not irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his
word and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a
capability of believing, or supernatural power, and actually [_faciat_]
causes man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject
this grace and not believe, and therefore, also, to perish through his
own culpability. 6. Although, according to the most free and
unrestrained will of God, there is very great disparity or inequality of
divine grace, yet the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow,
upon all and upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as
much grace as is sufficient to promote [_suis gradibus_] in its
gradations the conversion of men; and therefore grace sufficient for
faith and conversion is conceded not only to those whom God is said to
be willing to save according to his decree of absolute election, but
likewise to those who are in reality not converted. 7. Man is able, by
the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do more good than he actually does, and
to omit more evil than he actually omits. Neither do we believe that God
[_simpliciter_] absolutely wills that man should do no more good than
that which he does, and to omit no more evil than that which he omits;
nor do we believe it to have been determinately decreed from all
eternity that each of such acts should be so done or omitted. 8.
Whomsoever God calls he calls them seriously, that is, with a sincere
and not with a dissembled intention and will of saving them. Neither do
we subscribe to the opinion of those persons who assert that God
outwardly calls certain men whom he does not will to call inwardly, that
is, whom he is unwilling to be truly converted, even prior to their
rejection of the grace of calling. 9. There is not in God a secret will
of that kind which is so opposed to his will revealed in his word, that
according to this same secret will he does not will the conversion and
salvation of the greatest part of those whom, by the word of his Gospel,
and by his revealed will, he seriously calls and invites to faith and
salvation. 10. Neither [_hîc_] on this point do we admit of a holy
dissimulation, as it is the manner of some men to speak, or of a twofold
person in the Deity. 11. It is not true, that, through the force and
efficacy of the secret will of God or of the divine decree, not only are
all good things necessarily done, but likewise all evil things; so that
whosoever commit sin, they are not able, in respect to the divine
decree, to do otherwise than commit sin; and that God wills, decrees,
and [_procurat_] is the manager of men’s sins, and of their insane,
foolish, and cruel actions, also of the sacrilegious blasphemy of his
own name; that he moves the tongues of men to blaspheme, &c. 12. We also
consider it to be a false and horrible dogma, that God by _secret_ means
impels men to the commission of those sins which he _openly_ prohibits;
that those who sin do not act in opposition to the true will of God and
that which is properly so called; that what is unjust, that is, what is
contrary to God’s command, is agreeable to his will; nay, farther, that
it is a real and capital fault to do the will of God.

V. _On the perseverance of true believers in faith._ 1. The perseverance
of believers in faith is not the effect of that absolute decree of God
by which he is said to have elected or chosen particular persons
circumscribed with no condition of their obedience. 2. God furnishes
true believers with supernatural powers or strength of grace, as much as
according to his infinite wisdom he judges to suffice for their
perseverance, and for their overcoming the temptations of the devil, the
flesh, and the world; and on the part of God stands nothing to hinder
them from persevering. 3. It is possible for true believers to fall away
from true faith, and to fall into sins of such a description as cannot
consist with a true and justifying faith; nor is it only possible for
them thus to fall, but such lapses not unfrequently occur. 4. True
believers are capable by their own fault of falling into flagrant crimes
and atrocious wickedness, to persevere and die in them, and therefore
finally to fall away and to perish. 5. Yet though true believers
sometimes fall into grievous sins, and such as destroy the conscience,
we do not believe that they immediately fall away from all hope of
repentance; but we acknowledge this to be an event not impossible to
occur,--that God, according to the multitude of his mercies may again
call them by his grace to repentance; nay, we are of opinion that such a
recalling has often occurred, although such fallen believers cannot be
“most fully persuaded” about this matter that it will certainly and
undoubtedly take place. 6. Therefore do we with our whole heart and soul
reject the following dogmas, which are daily affirmed in various
publications extensively circulated among the people: namely, (1.) “True
believers cannot possibly sin with deliberate counsel and design, but
only through ignorance and infirmity.” (2.) “It is impossible for true
believers, through any sins of theirs, to fall away from the grace of
God.” (3.) “A thousand sins, nay, all the sins of the whole world, are
not capable of rendering election vain and void.” If to this be added,
“Men of every description are bound to believe that they are elected to
salvation, and therefore are incapable of falling from that election,”
we leave men to think what a wide window such a dogma opens to carnal
security. (4.) “No sins, however great and grievous they may be, are
imputed to believers; nay, farther, all sins, both present and future,
are remitted to them.” (5.) “Though true believers fall into destructive
heresies, into dreadful and most atrocious sins, such as adultery and
murder, on account of which the church, according to the institution of
Christ, is compelled to testify that it cannot tolerate them in its
outward communion, and that unless such persons be converted, they will
have no part in the kingdom of Christ; yet it is impossible for them
totally and finally to fall away from faith.” 7. As a true believer is
capable at the present time of being assured concerning the integrity of
his faith and conscience, so he is able and ought to be at this time
assured of his own salvation and of the saving good will of God toward
him. On this point we highly disapprove of the opinion of the papists.
8. A true believer, respecting the time to come, can and ought, indeed,
to be assured that he is able, by means of watching, prayer, and other
holy exercises, to persevere in the true faith; and that divine grace
will never fail to assist him in persevering. But we cannot see how it
is possible for him to be assured that he will never afterward be
deficient in his duty, but that he will persevere, in this school of
Christian warfare, in the performance of acts of faith, piety, and
charity, as becomes believers; neither do we consider it to be a matter
of necessity that a believer should be assured of such perseverance.

Under the article PELAGIANS has been shown the line of distinction which
the Remonstrants drew between their doctrines and those of Pelagius; and
the following are the just distinctions, which they presented to the
synod of Dort, between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism: “But we must
declare, likewise, what our judgment is respecting Semi-Pelagianism. The
Massilians, after the time of Pelagius, partly corrected his error and
partly retained it; on which account they received from Prosper the
appellation of the _relics_ or _remains of Pelagius_, and are commonly
styled Semi-Pelagians. They allowed the existence of prevenient grace,
but only that which precedes or goes before good works; not that also
which precedes the commencement of faith and of a good will, by which
they believed that man preceded God,--yet this not always, but only
sometimes: On the contrary we say, that God precedes or goes before the
beginning of faith and of a good will; and that it is of grace both that
our will be excited to begin well, and likewise, that, being thus
prepared, it be led through to the grace of regeneration. The
Semi-Pelagians asserted, that man, through the previous dispositions
which had been implanted in his nature, obtained grace as a reward; and,
however they might sometimes decline the use of the term _merit_, they
by no means excluded merit itself: But we deny, that, through the
endeavours of nature, man merits grace. The opinion of the
Semi-Pelagians was, that, for the preservation of the grace of the Holy
Spirit, we want nothing more than that which either by nature we may
have, or that which we may once obtain in conjunction with grace: But we
acknowledge, that, in order to our perseverance in good, special grace
is likewise required.

“Wherefore we are unjustly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by the
Contra-Remonstrants, since we condemn in the Semi-Pelagians those things
which the church universal formerly condemned in them. Yet these are
great signs of inconstancy and consequently of a false judgment,--that
while some among them fasten Pelagianism upon us and others
Semi-Pelagianism, there are others who declare that we are nearly and
almost Semi-Pelagians, all of them having chosen and employed these
epithets only for purposes of odium. Our conclusion therefore is, that
we derogate nothing from divine grace, but acknowledge its supernatural
and unmerited acts, and their absolute necessity for the work of
conversion. But, on the other hand, we frankly confess, that the
indifferency or liberty of the will is not taken away by grace, but that
it is perfected for the better; and that the will is not necessitated,
or so determined toward good as not to be able to do the opposite.

“This was also the judgment of all antiquity and of the church
universal; and the orthodox accounted this way to be the safest, which
lay between two precipices, the one that of the Manichees, the other
that of the Pelagians. St. Jerom says, ‘We thus preserve free will, that
we do not deny to it the help which it requires in every thing which it
performs,’ _Dialog. adversus Pelagium_. And St. Augustine, who was at
other times a most fierce defender of absolute election, judiciously
observes, in his forty-sixth letter to Valentinus, ‘If there be no grace
of God, how does he save the world? And if there be no free will, how
does he judge the world?’ And, as St. Bernard says, in the commencement
of his book _On Grace and Free Will_, ‘Take away free will, and there
will be nothing to be saved; take away grace, and there will then be
nothing from which salvation can come.’ We have had regard to both of
them; lest, if we denied the existence of freedom in the will, we should
encourage the sloth and listlessness of men; or if the existence of
grace, we should give up the reins to pride and haughtiness.--From these
quotations [and others which they give] it is evident that the opinion
of the fathers was, that free will and grace so completely conspire
together, that free will is perfected by grace, and not destroyed; the
destruction of the will in this case being a calumny invented by the
Pelagians, which was generally refuted by the patrons of grace.”

For other particulars relating to general redemption consult the
articles ARMINIANISM, BAXTERIANISM, CALVINISM:CALVINISM, #CHURCH OF
ENGLAND, and LUTHERANS.

SYRACUSE, a famous city of Sicily, seated on the east side of the
island, Acts xxviii, 12.

SYRIA, that part of Asia which, bathed by the Mediterranean on the west,
had to the north Mount Taurus, to the east the Euphrates and a small
portion of Arabia, and to the south Judea, or Palestine. The orientals
called it Aram. The name, which has been transmitted to us by the
Greeks, is a corruption or abridgment of Assyria, which was first
adopted by the Ionians, who frequented these coasts after the Assyrians
of Nineveh had reduced that country to be a province of their empire,
about B. C. 750. By the appellation of Syria is ordinarily meant the
kingdom of Syria, of which, since the reign of the Seleucidæ, Antioch
has been the capital. The government of Syria was for a long time
monarchical; but some of its towns, which formed several states, were
republics. With regard to religion, the Syrians were idolaters. The
central place of their worship was Hieropolis, in which was a
magnificent temple, and near the temple a lake that was reputed sacred.
In this temple was an oracle, the credit of which the priests used every
method to support. The priests were distributed into various classes,
and among them were those who were denominated Galli, and who
voluntarily renounced the power of transmitting the succession in their
own families. The Syrians had bloody sacrifices. Among the religious
ceremonies of the Syrians, one was that any one who undertook a journey
to Hieropolis began with shaving his head and eye-brows. He was not
allowed to bathe, except in cold water, to drink any liquor, nor to lie
on any but a hard bed, before the term of his pilgrimage was finished.
When the pilgrims arrived, they were maintained at the public expense,
and lodged with those who engaged to instruct them in the sacred rites
and ceremonies. All the pilgrims were marked on the neck and wrists. The
youth consecrated to the goddess the first-fruits of their beard and
hair, which was preserved in the temple, in a vessel of gold or silver,
on which was inscribed the name of the person who made the offering. The
sight of a dead person rendered it unfit for any one to enter into the
temple during the whole day. The dynasties of Syria may be distributed
into two classes; those that are made known to us in the sacred
writings, or in the works of Josephus, acknowledged by the orientals;
and the Seleucidan kings, successors of Alexander, with whom we are
acquainted by Greek authors. The monarchy of Syria continued two hundred
and fifty-seven years.

SYRO-PHENICIA, or PHENICIA PROPER, called Syro or Syrian Phenicia from
being included in the kingdom of Syria. It implies that part of the
coast of Canaan on the Mediterranean in which the cities of Tyre and
Sidon were situated; and this same country, called Syro-Phenicia in the
Acts, is in the Gospels called the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. The woman
also called a Syro-Phenician in Mark vii, 26, is in Matt. xv, 22, called
a Canaanitish woman, because that country was still inhabited by the
descendants of Canaan, of whom Sidon was the eldest son.


TABERNACLE, in Hebrew, אהל, in Greek, σκηνἠ, a word which properly
signifies _a tent_, but is particularly applied by the Hebrews to a kind
of building in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God,
for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c, during the
journeyings of the Israelites in the wilderness; and after their
settlement in the land of Canaan made use of for the same purpose, till
the temple was built in Jerusalem. The tabernacle was covered with
curtains and skins. It was divided into two parts, the one covered, and
properly called the tabernacle, and the other open, called the court.
The covered part was again divided into two parts, the one called holy,
and the other called the holy of holies. The curtains which covered it
were made of linen of several colours embroidered. There were ten
curtains, twenty-eight cubits long, and four in breadth. Five curtains
together made two coverings, which, being made fast together, enveloped
all the tabernacle. Over the rest there were two other coverings, the
one of goat’s hair, and the other of sheep skins. These vails or
coverings were laid on a square frame of planks, resting on bases. There
were forty-eight large planks, each a cubit and a half wide, and ten
cubits high; twenty of them on each side, and six at one end to the
westward; each plank was supported by two silver bases; they were let
into one another, and held by bars running the length of the planks. The
holy of holies was parted from the rest of the tabernacle by a curtain,
made fast to four pillars standing ten cubits from the end. The whole
length of the tabernacle was thirty-two cubits, that is, about fifty
feet; and the breadth twelve cubits, or nineteen feet. The end was
thirty cubits high; the upper curtain hung on the north and south sides
eight cubits, and on the east and west four cubits. The court was a
place a hundred cubits long, and fifty in breadth, inclosed by twenty
columns, each of them twenty cubits high, and ten in breadth, covered
with silver, and standing on copper bases, five cubits distant from each
other, between which there were curtains drawn, and fastened with hooks.
At the east end was an entrance twenty cubits wide, covered with a
curtain hanging loose. In the tabernacle was the ark of the covenant,
the table of shew bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of
incense; and in the court opposite to the entrance of the tabernacle, or
holy place, stood the altar of burnt-offerings, and the laver or bason
for the use of the priests.

The tabernacle was finished on the first day of the first month of the
second year after the departure out of Egypt, A. M. 2514. When it was
set up, a dark cloud covered it by day, and a fiery cloud by night.
Moses went into the tabernacle to consult the Lord. It was placed in the
midst of the camp, and the Hebrews were ranged in order about it,
according to their several tribes. When the cloud arose from off the
tabernacle, they decamped; the priests carried those things which were
most sacred, and the Levites all the several parts of the tabernacle.
Part of the tribes went before, and the rest followed after, and the
baggage of the tabernacle marched in the centre. The tabernacle was
brought into the land of Canaan by Joshua, and set up at Gilgal. Here it
rested till the land was conquered. Then it was removed to Shiloh, and
afterward to Nob. Its next station was Gibeah, and here it continued
till the ark was removed to the temple.

The word also means a frail dwelling, Job xi, 14; and is put for our
bodies, 2 Cor. v, 1.

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF, a solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after
harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, Lev. xxiii, 34–44. It
was one of the three great solemnities, wherein all the males of the
Israelites were obliged to present themselves before the Lord; and it
was instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected them in
the wilderness, and made them dwell in tents or booths after they came
out of Egypt. (See _Feasts_.) This feast continued eight days, of which
the first and last days were the most solemn, Lev. xxiii, 34, &c. It was
not allowed to do any labour on this feast, and particular sacrifices
were offered, which, together with the other ceremonies used in
celebrating this festival, were as follows: The first day of the feast,
they cut down branches of the handsomest trees, with their fruit,
branches of palm trees, and such as were fullest of leaves, and boughs
of the willow trees that grew upon the sides of brooks, Neh. viii, 16.
These they brought together, and waved them toward the four quarters of
the world, singing certain songs. These branches were also called
hosanna, because when they carried them and waved them, they cried
Hosanna; not unlike what the Jews did at our Saviour’s entry into
Jerusalem, Matthew xxi, 8, 9. On the eighth day they performed this
ceremony oftener, and with greater solemnity, than upon the other days
of the feast. They called this day _hosanna rabba_, or “the great
hosanna.”

TABLES OF THE LAW. Those that were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai were
written by the finger of God, and contained the decalogue or ten
commandments of the law, as they are rehearsed in Exodus xx. Many
questions have been started about these tables; about their matter,
their form, their number, he that wrote them, and what they contained.
Some oriental authors make them amount to ten in number, others to
seven; but the Hebrews reckon but two. Some suppose them to have been of
wood, and others of precious stones. Moses observes, Exod. xxxii, 15,
that these tables were written on both sides. Many think they were
transparent, so that they might be read through; on one side toward the
right, and on the other side toward the left. Others will have it, that
the lawgiver only makes this observation, that the tables were written
on both sides, because generally in writing tables they only wrote on
one side. Others thus translate the Hebrew text: “They were written on
the two parts that were contiguous to each other;” because, being shut
upon one another, the two faces that were written upon touched one
another, so that no writing was seen on the outside. Some think that the
same ten commandments were written on each of the two tables, others
that the ten were divided, and only five on one table, and five on the
other. The words which intimate that the tables were written by the
finger of God, some understand simply and literally; others, of the
ministry of an angel; and others explain them merely to signify an order
of God to Moses to write them. The expression, however, in Scripture
always signifies immediate divine agency. See DECALOGUE.

TABOR, a mountain not far from Kadesh, in the tribe of Zebulun, and in
the confines of Issachar and Naphtali. It has its name from its
eminence, because it rises up in the midst of a wide champaign country,
called the Valley of Jezreel, or the great plain. Maundrell tells us
that the area at the top of this mountain is enclosed with trees, except
to the south, from whence there is the most agreeable prospect in the
world. Many have believed that our Lord’s transfiguration took place on
this mountain. This place is mentioned, 1 Sam. x, 3. It is minutely
described by both Pococke and Maundrell. The road from Nazareth lies for
two hours between low hills; it then opens into the plain of Esdraelon.
At about two or three furlongs within the plain, and six miles from
Nazareth, rises this singular mount, which is almost entirely insulated,
its figure representing a half sphere. “It is,” says Pococke, “one of
the finest hills I ever beheld, being a rich soil that produces
excellent herbage, and is most beautifully adorned with groves and
clumps of trees. The ascent is so easy, that we rode up the north side
by a winding road. Some authors mention it as near four miles high,
others as about two: the former may be true, as to the winding ascent up
the hill. The top of it, about half a mile long, and near a quarter of a
mile broad, is encompassed with a wall, which Josephus says was built in
forty days: there was also a wall along the middle of it, which divided
the south part, on which the city stood, from the north part, which is
lower, and is called the _meidan_, or place, being probably used for
exercises when there was a city here, which Josephus mentions by the
name of Ataburion. Within the outer wall on the north side are several
deep fosses, out of which, it is probable, the stones were dug to build
the walls; and these fosses seem to have answered the end of cisterns,
to preserve the rain water, and were also some defence to the city.
There are likewise a great number of cisterns under ground for
preserving the rain water. To the south, where the ascent was most easy,
there are fosses cut on the outside, to render the access to the walls
more difficult. Some of the gates, also, of the old city remain, as
_Bab-el-houah_, ‘the gate of the winds,’ to the west; and
_Bab-el-kubbe_, ‘the arched gate,’ a small one to the south. Antiochus,
king of Syria, took the fortress on the top of this hill. Vespasian,
also, got possession of it; and, after that, Josephus fortified it with
strong walls. But what has made it more famous than any thing else is
the common opinion, from the time of St. Jerom, that the transfiguration
of our Saviour was on this mountain.” Van Egmont and Heyman give the
following account: “This mountain, though somewhat rugged and difficult,
we ascended on horseback, making several circuits round it, which took
us up about three quarters of an hour. It is one of the highest in the
whole country, being thirty stadia, or about four English miles, a
circumstance that rendered it more famous. And it is the most beautiful
I ever saw, with regard to verdure, being every where decorated with
small oak trees, and the ground universally enamelled with a variety of
plants and flowers, except on the south side, where it is not so fully
covered with verdure. On this mountain are great numbers of red
partridges, and some wild boars; and we were so fortunate as to see the
Arabs hunting them. We left, but not without reluctancy, this delightful
place, and found at the bottom of it a mean village, called Deboura, or
Tabour, a name said to be derived from the celebrated Deborah mentioned
in Judges.”

Pococke notices this village, which stands on a rising ground at the
foot of Mount Tabor westward; and the learned traveller thinks, that it
may be the same as the Daberath, or Daberah mentioned in the book of
Joshua, as on the borders of Zabulon and Issachar. “Any one,” he adds,
“who examines the fourth chapter of Judges, may see that this is
probably the spot where Barak and Deborah met at Mount Tabor with their
forces, and went to pursue Sisera; and on this account, it might have
its name from that great prophetess, who then judged and governed
Israel; for Josephus relates, that Deborah and Barak gathered the army
together at this mountain.”

“From the top of Tabor,” says Maundrell, “you have a prospect which, if
nothing else, will reward the labour of ascending it. It is impossible
for man’s eyes to behold a higher gratification of this nature. On the
northwest you discern at a distance the Mediterranean, and all round you
have the spacious and beautiful plains of Esdraelon and Galilee. Turning
a little southward, you have in view the high mountains of Gilboa, fatal
to Saul and his sons. Due east you discover the sea of Tiberias, distant
about one day’s journey. A few points to the north appears that which
they call the mount of Beatitudes. Not far from this little hill is the
city Saphet: it stands upon a very eminent and conspicuous mountain, and
is seen far and near.” Beyond this is seen a much higher mountain,
capped with snow, a part of the chain of Antilibanus. To the south-west
is Carmel, and on the south the hills of Samaria.

TADMOR, a city built by Solomon, 1 Kings ix, 18, afterward called
Palmyra; situated in a wilderness of Syria, upon the borders of Arabia
Deserta, inclining toward the Euphrates. Josephus places it two days’
journey from the Euphrates, and six days’ journey from Babylon. He says
there is no water any where else in the wilderness, but in this place.
At the present day there are to be seen vast ruins of this city. There
was nothing more magnificent in the whole east. There are still found a
great number of inscriptions, the most of which are Greek, and the other
in the Palmyrenian character. Nothing relating to the Jews is seen in
the Greek inscriptions; and the Palmyrenian inscriptions are entirely
unknown, as well as the language and the character of that country. The
city of Tadmor preserved this name to the time of the conquest by
Alexander the Great: then it had the name of Palmyra given to it, which
it preserved for several ages. About the middle of the third century, it
became famous, because Odenatus and Zenobia, his queen, made it the seat
of their empire. When the Saracens became masters of the east, they
restored its ancient name of Tadmor to it again, which it has always
preserved since. It is surrounded by sandy deserts on all sides. It is
not known when, nor by whom, it was reduced to the ruinous condition in
which it is now found. It may be said to consist at present of a forest
of Corinthian pillars, erect and fallen. So numerous are these,
consisting of many thousands, that the spectator is at a loss to connect
or arrange them in any order or symmetry, or to conceive what purpose or
design they could have answered. “In the space covered by these ruins,”
says Volney, “we sometimes find a palace of which nothing remains but
the court and walls; sometimes a temple, whose peristyle is half thrown
down; and now a portico, a gallery, or triumphal arch. Here stand groups
of columns, whose symmetry is destroyed by the fall of many of them;
there we see them ranged in rows of such length, that, similar to rows
of trees, they deceive the sight, and assume the appearance of continued
walls. If from this striking scene we cast our eyes upon the ground,
another almost as varied presents itself On all sides we behold nothing
but subverted shafts, some whole, others shattered to pieces or
dislocated in their joints; and on which side soever we look, the earth
is strewed with vast stones half buried, with broken entablatures,
mutilated friezes, disfigured reliefs, effaced sculptures, violated
tombs, and altars defiled by dust.”

It is probable, says Mansford, that, although Tadmor is said to have
been built by Solomon, or, in other words, to have been erected by him
into a city, it was a watering station between Syria and Mesopotamia
before; with perhaps accommodations suited to the mode of travelling in
those times, as we read of palm-trees being found there, which are not
trees that come by chance in these desert regions. The mere circumstance
of wholesome water being afforded by any spot in such a country was
sufficient to give it importance, and to draw toward it the stream of
communication, for whatever purpose. This was probably the condition of
Tadmor long before it received its name and its honours from Solomon.
But, after all, what motive could there be to induce a peaceable king,
like Solomon, to undertake a work so distant, difficult, and dangerous?
There is but one which at all accords with his character, or the history
of the times,--commercial enterprise. Solomon was at great pains to
secure himself in the possession of the ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber
on the Red Sea, and to establish a navy for his Indian commerce, or
trade to Ophir,--in all ages the great source of wealth. The riches of
India, thus brought into Judea, were from thence disseminated over those
countries of the north and west at that time inhabited or known; while
the same country, Judea, became, for a season, like Tyre, the point of
return and exchange of the money and the commodities of those countries,
the centre of communication between the east and the west.

TALENT, a measure of weight among the ancients, equivalent to sixty
maneh, or one hundred and thirteen pounds ten ounces one pennyweight and
ten grains. The value of a talent of silver was three hundred and
forty-two pounds three shillings and nine-pence, and a talent of gold
was equal to five thousand four hundred and seventy-five pounds
sterling. In the writings of the evangelists, the term is employed to
denote the various gifts or opportunities for usefulness which the Lord
of heaven confers upon his servants, and for which he will call them to
give in their account at the last day, Matt. xxv, 15; Luke xix, 12.

TALITHA-CUMI, the words that Jesus Christ made use of when he raised up
the daughter of Jairus, chief of the synagogue of Capernaum. They are
not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, and signify, “My daughter, arise,” Mark v,
41.

TALMUD. See JEWS.

TARE, Matt. xiii, 25–27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40. It is not easy to determine
what plant or weed is here intended, as the word _zizania_ is neither
mentioned in any other part of Scripture, nor in any ancient Greek
writer. Some Greek and Latin fathers have made use of it, as have also
Suidas and Phavorinus: but it is probable that they have all derived it
from this text. As this Gospel was first written in Syriac, it is
probably a word belonging to that language. Buxtorf gives several
interpretations, but at last concludes with submitting it to the
decision of others. In a treatise in the Mishna, called “Kilayim,” which
treats expressly of different kinds of seeds, a bastard or degenerate
wheat is mentioned by the name of זונים, which the very sound, in
pronouncing, proves to be the same as the _zizanion_; and which may lead
to the true derivation of the word, that is, from the Chaldee זן, “a
kind,” or “species” of grain, namely, whence the corrupt Hebrew or
Syriac זניא, which in the ancient Syriac version answers to the Greek
ζιζονια, Matt. xiii, 25, &c. In Psalm cxliv, 13, the words מזן אל־זן,
are translated, “all manner of store;” but they properly signify “from
species to species.” Might not the Chaldee word זונין, and the Greek
word ζιζάνιον, come from the psalmist’s זנ־זן, which might have
signified a “mixture” of grain of any kind, and be here used to point
out the mixing bastard or degenerate wheat among the good seed-wheat?
Mintert says, that “it is a kind of plant, not unlike corn or wheat,
having at first the same sort of stalk, and the same viridity, but
bringing forth no fruit, at least none good:” and he adds, from John
Melchior, “ζιζάνιον does not signify every weed in general which grows
among corn, but a particular seed, known in Canaan, which was not unlike
wheat, but, being put into the ground, degenerated, and assumed another
nature and form.” Parkhurst, and Dr. Campbell, render it “the darnel,”
“_lolium temulentum_.” The same plant is called “_zizana_” by the
Spaniards; as it appears to be _zuvan_, by the Turks and Arabs. “It is
well known to the people at Aleppo,” says M. Forskal; “it grows among
corn. If the seeds remain mixed with the meal, they occasion dizziness
to those who eat of the bread. The reapers do not separate the plant;
but after the threshing, they reject the seeds by means of a van or
sieve.” Other travellers mention, that in some parts of Syria, the plant
is drawn up by the hand in the time of harvest, along with the wheat,
and is then gathered out, and bound up in separate bundles. In the
parable of the tares, our Lord states the very same circumstances. They
grew among the grain; they were not separated by the tillers, but
suffered to grow up together till the harvest; they were then gathered
from among the wheat with the hand, and bound up in bundles.

TARGUM. See JEWS.

TARSHISH, a country of this name, whither Solomon sent his fleets, 1
Kings x, 22; 2 Chron. ix, 11. There is a multitude of different opinions
concerning this country. Josephus, and the Chaldee and Arabic
paraphrasts, explain it of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; the Septuagint,
St. Jerom, and Theodoret, understand it of Carthage. The Arabian
geographer will have it to be Tunis in Africa. Bochart makes it to be
Tartessus, an island in the Straits of Gades. By Tarshish, M. Le Clerc
understands Thassus, an island and city in the Ægean sea. Grotius thinks
that the whole ocean was called Tarshish, because of the famous city of
Tartessus, now mentioned. Sanctius believes the sea in general to be
called Tarshish, and that the ships of Tarshish were those that are
employed in voyages at sea, in opposition to the small vessels that are
used only in most navigable rivers. The LXX. translate Tarshish
sometimes by “the sea;” and the Scripture gives the names of ships of
Tarshish to those that were fitted out at Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea,
and which sailed upon the ocean, as well as to those that were fitted
out at Joppa, and in the ports of the Mediterranean. Therefore, when we
see ships fitted out upon the Red Sea, or at Ezion-Geber, in order to go
to Tarshish, we must conclude one of these two things, either that there
were two countries called Tarshish, one upon the ocean, and another upon
the Mediterranean, or that ships of Tarshish in general signifies
nothing else but ships able to bear a long voyage; large merchant ships,
in opposition to the small craft intended for a home trade in navigable
rivers.

TARSUS, the capital of Cilicia, and the native city of St. Paul, Acts
ix, 11; xxi, 39. Some think it obtained the privileges of a Roman colony
because of its firm adherence to Julius Cæsar; and this procured the
inhabitants the favour of being acknowledged citizens of Rome, which St.
Paul enjoyed by being born in it. Others maintain that Tarsus was only a
free city, but not a Roman colony, in the time of St. Paul, and that his
privilege as a Roman citizen was founded upon some other right, perhaps
gained by his ancestors.

TEARS. The prayer of David, “Put my tears into thy bottle,” is
unintelligible without an acquaintance with ancient customs. “This
passage,” says Burder, “seems to intimate that the custom of putting
tears into the ampullæ, or urnal lachrymales, so well known among the
Romans, was more anciently in use among the eastern nations, and
particularly the Hebrews. These urns were of different materials, some
of glass, some of earth; as may be seen in the work of Montfaucon, where
also may be seen the various forms or shapes of them. These urns were
placed on the sepulchres of the deceased, as a memorial of the distress
and affection of their surviving relations and friends. It will be
difficult to account for this expression of the psalmist, but upon this
supposition. If this be allowed, the meaning will be, ‘Let my distress,
and the tears I shed in consequence of it, be ever before thee, excite
thy kind remembrance of me, and plead with thee to grant the relief I
stand in need of.’”

TEMPLE, the house of God; properly the temple of Solomon. David first
conceived the design of building a house somewhat worthy of the divine
majesty, and opened his mind to the Prophet Nathan, 2 Sam. vii; 1 Chron.
xvii; xxii, 8, &c. God accepted of his good intentions, but refused him
the honour. Solomon laid the foundation of the temple, A. M. 2992,
completed it in 3000, and dedicated it in 3001, 1 Kings viii, 2; 2
Chron. v, vi, vii. According to the opinion of some writers, there were
three temples, namely, the first, erected by Solomon; the second, by
Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high priest; and the third, by Herod, a few
years before the birth of Christ. But this opinion is, very properly,
rejected by the Jews; who do not allow the third to be a new temple, but
only the second temple repaired and beautified: and this opinion
corresponds with the prophecy of Haggai, ii, 9, “that the glory of this
latter house,” the temple built by Zerubbabel, “should be greater than
that of the former;” which prediction was uttered with reference to the
Messiah’s honouring it with his presence and ministry. The first temple
is that which usually bears the name of Solomon; the materials for which
were provided by David before his death, though the edifice was raised
by his son. It stood on Mount Moriah, an eminence of the mountainous
ridge in the Scriptures termed Mount Zion, Psalm cxxxii, 13, 14, which
had been purchased by Araunah, or Ornan, the Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv, 23,
24; 1 Chron. xxi, 25. The plan, and the whole model of this superb
structure, were formed after that of the tabernacle, but of much larger
dimensions. It was surrounded, except at the front or east end, by three
stories of chambers, each five cubits square, which reached to half the
height of the temple; and the front was ornamented with a magnificent
portico, which rose to the height of one hundred and twenty cubits: so
that the form of the whole edifice was not unlike that of some ancient
churches, which have a lofty tower in the front, and a low aisle running
along each side of the building. The utensils for the sacred service
were the same; excepting that several of them, as the altar,
candlestick, &c, were larger, in proportion to the more spacious edifice
to which they belonged. Seven years and six months were occupied in the
erection of the superb and magnificent temple of Solomon, by whom it was
dedicated, A. M. 3001, B. C. 999, with peculiar solemnity, to the
worship of the Most High; who on this occasion vouchsafed to honour it
with the Shechinah, or visible manifestation of his presence. Various
attempts have been made to describe the proportions and several parts of
this structure; but as scarcely any two writers agree on this subject, a
minute description of it is designedly omitted. It retained its pristine
splendour only thirty-three or thirty-four years, when Shishak, king of
Egypt, took Jerusalem, and carried away the treasures of the temple; and
after undergoing subsequent profanations and pillages, this stupendous
building was finally plundered and burnt by the Chaldeans under
Nebuchadnezzar, A. M. 3416, or B. C. 584, 2 Kings xxv, 13–15; 2 Chron.
xxxvi, 17–20.

After the captivity, the temple emerged from its ruins being rebuilt by
Zerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished glory; as appears
from the tears of the aged men who had beheld the former structure in
all its grandeur, Ezra iii, 12. The second temple was profaned by order
of Antiochus Epiphanes, A. M. 3837, B. C. 163, who caused the daily
sacrifices to be discontinued, and erected the image of Jupiter Olympus
on the altar of burnt-offering. In this condition it continued three
years, 1 Mac. iv, 42, when Judas Maccabæus purified and repaired it, and
restored the sacrifices and true worship of Jehovah. Some years before
the birth of our Saviour, the repairing and beautifying of this second
temple, which had become decayed in the lapse of five centuries, was
undertaken by Herod the Great, who for nine years employed eighty
thousand workmen upon it, and spared no expense to render it equal, if
not superior, in magnitude, splendour, and beauty, to any thing among
mankind. Josephus calls it a work the most admirable of any that had
ever been seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its
magnitude, and also for the vast wealth expended upon it, as well as for
the universal reputation of its sanctity. But though Herod accomplished
his original design in the time above specified, yet the Jews continued
to ornament and enlarge it, expending the sacred treasure in annexing
additional buildings to it; so that they might with great propriety
assert, that their temple had been forty and six years in building, John
ii, 20.

Before we proceed to describe this venerable edifice, it may be proper
to remark, that by the temple is to be understood not only the fabric or
house itself, which by way of eminence is called the temple, namely, the
holy of holies, the sanctuary, and the several courts both of the
priests and Israelites, but also all the numerous chambers and rooms
which this prodigious edifice comprehended; and each of which had its
respective degree of holiness, increasing in proportion to its
contiguity to the holy of holies. This remark it will be necessary to
bear in mind, lest the reader of Scripture should be led to suppose,
that whatever is there said to be transacted in the temple was actually
done in the interior of that sacred edifice. To this infinite number of
apartments, into which the temple was disposed, our Lord refers, John
xiv, 2; and by a very striking and magnificent simile, borrowed from
them, he represents those numerous seats and mansions of heavenly bliss
which his Father’s house contained, and which were prepared for the
everlasting abode of the righteous. The imagery is singularly beautiful
and happy, when considered as an allusion to the temple, which our Lord
not unfrequently called his Father’s house.

The second temple, originally built by Zerubbabel after the captivity,
and repaired by Herod, differed in several respects from that erected by
Solomon, although they agreed in others.

The temple erected by Solomon was more splendid and magnificent than the
second temple, which was deficient in five remarkable things that
constituted the chief glory of the first: these were, the ark and the
mercy seat; the shechinah, or manifestation of the divine presence, in
the holy of holies; the sacred fire on the altar, which had been first
kindled from heaven; the urim and thummim; and the spirit of prophecy.
But the second temple surpassed the first in glory; being honoured by
the frequent presence of our divine Saviour, agreeably to the prediction
of Haggai, ii, 9. Both, however, were erected upon the same site, a very
hard rock, encompassed by a very frightful precipice; and the foundation
was laid with incredible expense and labour. The superstructure was not
inferior to this great work: the height of the temple wall, especially
on the south side, was stupendous. In the lowest places it was three
hundred cubits, or four hundred and fifty feet, and in some places even
greater. This most magnificent pile was constructed with hard white
stones of prodigious magnitude. The temple itself, strictly so called,
which comprised the portico, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies
formed only a small part of the sacred edifice on Mount Moriah, being
surrounded by spacious courts, making a square of half a mile in
circumference. It was entered through nine gates, which were on every
side thickly coated with gold and silver; but there was one gate without
the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, the most precious metal
in ancient times, and which far surpassed the others in beauty. For
while these were of equal magnitude, the gate composed of Corinthian
brass was much larger; its height being fifty cubits, and its doors
forty cubits, and its ornaments both of gold and silver being far more
costly and massive. This is supposed to have been the “gate called
Beautiful” in Acts iii, 2, where Peter and John, in the name of Christ,
healed a man who had been lame from his birth. The first or outer court,
which encompassed the holy house and the other courts, was named the
court of the Gentiles; because the latter were allowed to enter into it,
but were prohibited from advancing farther. It was surrounded by a range
of porticoes, or cloisters, above which were galleries, or apartments,
supported by pillars of white marble, each consisting of a single piece,
and twenty-five cubits in height. One of these was called Solomon’s
porch, or piazza, because it stood on a vast terrace, which he had
originally raised from a valley beneath, four hundred cubits high, in
order to enlarge the area on the top of the mountain, and make it equal
to the plan of his intended building; and as this terrace was the only
work of Solomon that remained in the second temple, the piazza which
stood upon it retained the name of that prince. Here it was that our
Lord was walking at the feast of dedication, John x, 23; and that the
lame man, when healed by Peter and John, glorified God before all the
people, Acts iii, 11. This superb portico is termed the royal portico by
Josephus, who represents it as the noblest work beneath the sun, being
elevated to such a prodigious height, that no one could look down from
its flat roof to the valley below, without being seized with dizziness;
the sight not reaching to such an immeasurable depth. The south-east
corner of the roof of this portico, where the height was the greatest,
is supposed to have been the ϖτερύγιον, pinnacle, or extreme angle,
whence Satan tempted our Saviour to precipitate himself, Matt, iv, 5;
Luke iv, 9. This also was the spot where it was predicted that the
abomination of desolation, or the Roman ensigns, should stand, Daniel
ix, 27; Matt, xxiv, 15. Solomon’s portico was situated in the eastern
front of the temple, opposite to the mount of Olives, where our Saviour
is said to have sat when his disciples came to show him the grandeur of
its various buildings, of which, grand as they were, he said, the time
was approaching when one stone should not be left upon another, Matt,
xxiv, 1–3. This outer court being assigned to the Gentile proselytes,
the Jews, who did not worship in it themselves, conceived that it might
lawfully be put to profane uses: for here we find that the buyers and
sellers of animals for sacrifices, and also the moneychangers, had
stationed themselves; until Jesus Christ, awing them into submission by
the grandeur and dignity of his person and behaviour, expelled them;
telling them that it was the house of prayer for all nations, and was
not to be profaned, Matt. xxi, 12, 13; Mark xi, 15–17. Within the court
of the Gentiles stood the court of the Israelites, divided into two
parts, or courts; the outer one being appropriated to the women, and the
inner one to the men. The court of the women was separated from that of
the Gentiles by a low stone wall, or partition, of elegant construction,
on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions in Greek
and Latin, importing that no alien should enter into the holy place. To
this wall St. Paul most evidently alludes in Eph. ii, 13, 14: “But now
in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the
blood of Christ: for he is our peace, who hath made both one, (united
both Jews and Gentiles into one church,) and hath broken down the middle
wall of partition between us;” having abolished the law of ordinances,
by which, as by the wall of separation, both Jews and Gentiles were not
only kept asunder, but also at variance. In this court was the treasury,
over against which Christ sat, and beheld how the people threw their
voluntary offerings into it, for furnishing the victims and other things
necessary for the sacrifices, Mark xii, 41; John viii, 20. From the
court of the women, which was on higher ground than that of the
Gentiles, there was an ascent of fifteen steps into the inner or men’s
court: and so called because it was appropriated to the worship of the
male Israelites. In these two courts, collectively termed the court of
the Israelites, were the people praying, each apart by himself, for the
pardon of his sins, while Zacharias was offering incense within the
sanctuary, Luke i, 10. Within the court of the Israelites was that of
the priests, which was separated from it by a low wall, one cubit in
height. This enclosure surrounded the altar of burnt-offerings, and to
it the people brought their oblations and sacrifices; but the priests
alone were permitted to enter it. From this court twelve steps ascended
to the temple, strictly so called; which was divided into three parts,
the portico, the outer sanctuary, and the holy place. In the portico was
suspended the splendid votive offerings made by the piety of various
individuals. Among other treasures, there was a golden table given by
Pompey, and several golden vines of exquisite workmanship, as well as of
immense size; for Josephus relates, that there were clusters as tall as
a man. And he adds, that all around were fixed up and displayed the
spoils and trophies taken by Herod from the barbarians and Arabians.
These votive offerings, it should seem, were visible at a distance; for
when Jesus Christ was sitting on the mount of Olives, and his disciples
called his attention to the temple, they pointed out to him the gifts
with which it was adorned, Luke xxi, 5. This porch had a very large
portal or gate, which, instead of folding doors, was furnished with a
costly Babylonian veil, of many colours, that mystically denoted the
universe. From this the sanctuary, or holy place, was separated from the
holy of holies by a double veil, which is supposed to have been the veil
that was rent in twain at our Saviour’s crucifixion; thus emblematically
pointing out that the separation between Jews and Gentiles was
abolished; and that the privilege of the high priest was communicated to
all mankind, who might henceforth have access to the throne of grace
through the one great Mediator, Jesus Christ, Heb. x, 19–22. The holy of
holies was twenty cubits square: into it no person was admitted but the
high priest, who entered it once a year on the great day of atonement,
Exod. xxx, 10; Lev. xvi, 2, 15, 34; Heb. ix, 2–7.

Magnificent as the rest of the sacred edifice was, it was infinitely
surpassed in splendour by the inner temple, or sanctuary. Its
appearance, according to Josephus, had every thing that could strike the
mind, or astonish the sight: for it was covered on every side with
plates of gold; so that when the sun rose upon it, it reflected so
strong and dazzling an effulgence, that the eye of the spectator was
obliged to turn away, being no more able to sustain its radiance than
the splendour of the sun. To strangers who were approaching, it appeared
at a distance like a mountain covered with snow; for where it was not
decorated with plates of gold, it was extremely white and glistering. On
the top it had sharp-pointed spikes of gold, to prevent any bird from
resting upon it, and polluting it. There were, continues the Jewish
historian, in that building, several stones which were forty-five cubits
in length, five in height, and six in breadth. “When all these things
are considered,” says Harwood, “how natural is the exclamation of the
disciples, when viewing this immense building at a distance: ‘Master,
see what manner of stones’ (ϖοταποὶ λίθοι, ‘what very large ones’) ‘and
what buildings are here!’ Mark xiii, 1: and how wonderful is the
declaration of our Lord upon this, how unlikely to be accomplished
before the race of men who were then living should cease to exist!
‘Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone
upon another that shall not be thrown down.’ Improbable as this
prediction must have appeared to the disciples at that time, in the
short space of about thirty years after it was exactly accomplished; and
this most magnificent temple, which the Jews had literally turned into a
den of thieves, through the righteous judgment of God upon that wicked
and abandoned nation, was utterly destroyed by the Romans A. D. 70, or
73 of the vulgar era, on the same month, and on the same day of the
month, when Solomon’s temple had been razed to the ground by the
Babylonians!”

Both the first and second temples were contemplated by the Jews with the
highest reverence. Of their affectionate regard for the first temple,
and for Jerusalem, within whose walls it was built, we have several
instances in those Psalms which were composed during the Babylonish
captivity; and of their profound veneration for the second temple we
have repeated examples in the New Testament. They could not bear any
disrespectful or dishonourable thing to be said of it. The least
injurious slight of it, real or apprehended, instantly awakened all the
choler of a Jew, and was an affront never to be forgiven. Our Saviour,
in the course of his public instructions, having said, “Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” John ii, 19, it was
construed into a contemptuous disrespect, designedly thrown out against
the temple; his words instantly descended into the heart of the Jews,
and kept rankling there for some years; for, upon his trial, this
declaration, which it was impossible for a Jew ever to forget or to
forgive, was immediately alleged against him, as big with the most
atrocious guilt and impiety: they told the court they had heard him
publicly assert, “I am able to destroy this temple,” Matt. xxvi, 61. The
rancour and virulence they had conceived against him for this speech,
was not softened by all the affecting circumstances of that wretched
death they saw him die; even as he hung upon the cross, with triumph,
scorn, and exultation, they upbraided him with it, contemptuously
shaking their heads, and saying, “Thou that destroyest the temple, and
buildest it in three days, save thyself! If thou be the Son of God, come
down from the cross!” Matt. xxvii, 40. It only remains to add, that it
appears, from several passages of Scripture, that the Jews had a body of
soldiers who guarded the temple, to prevent any disturbances during the
ministration of such an immense number of priests and Levites. To this
guard Pilate referred, when he said to the chief priests and Pharisees
who waited upon him to desire he would make the sepulchre secure, “Ye
have a watch, go your way, and make it as secure as ye can,” Matt.
xxvii, 65. Over these guards one person had the supreme command, who in
several places is called the captain of the temple, or officer of the
temple guard. “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the
captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,” Acts iv, 1; v,
25, 26; John xviii, 12. Josephus mentions such an officer.

TENT MAKER. St. Paul, according to the practice of the Jews, who,
however opulent, always taught their children some trade, appears to
have been a tent maker. This, however, is understood by some moderns to
mean a maker of tent cloth, St. Paul being a Cilician, a country which
produced a species of rough-haired goats, from which the Cilicians
manufactured a thick and coarse cloth, much used for tents. The fathers,
however, say that he made military tents, the material of which was
skins.

TERAPHIM. It is said, Gen. xxxi, 19, that Rachel had stolen the images
(_teraphim_) of her father. What then were these _teraphim_? The
Septuagint translate this word by “oracle,” and sometimes by “vain
figures.” Aquila generally translates it by “figures.” It appears,
indeed, from all the passages in which this word is used, that they were
idols or superstitious figures. Some Jewish writers tell us the
_teraphim_ were human heads placed in niches, and consulted by way of
oracles. Others think they were talismans or figures of metal cast and
engraven under certain aspects of the planets, to which they ascribed
extraordinary effects. All the eastern people are much addicted to this
superstition, and the Persians still call them _telefin_, a name nearly
approaching to teraphim. M. Jurieu supposes them to have been a sort of
_dii penates_, or household gods; and this appears to be, perhaps, the
most probable opinion.

TESTAMENT. The property or estate of the father fell, after his decease,
into the possession of his sons, who divided it among themselves
equally, with this exception, that the eldest son had two portions. The
father expressed his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses,
and probably in the presence of the heirs, 2 Kings xx, 1. At a more
recent period the will was made out in writing. The portion that was
given to the sons of concubines depended altogether upon the feelings of
the father. Abraham gave presents to what amount is not known, both to
Ishmael and to the sons whom he had by Keturah, and sent them away
before his death. It does not appear that they had any other portion in
the estate. But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs
as well as the others, Gen. xxi, 8–21; xxv, 1–6; xlix, 1–27. Moses laid
no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we
should infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an
equal share with the other sons, from the fact, that Jephtha, the son of
a concubine, complained that he was excluded without any portion from
his father’s house, Judg. xi, 1–7. The daughters not only had no portion
in the estate, but, if they were unmarried, were considered as making a
part of it, and were sold by their brothers into matrimony. If they had
no brothers, or if they had died, the daughters then took the estate,
Num. xxvii, 1–8. If any one died intestate, and without offspring, the
property was disposed of according to Num. xxvii, 8–11. The servants or
the slaves in a family could not claim any share in the estate as a
right; but the person who made a will, might, if he chose, make them his
heirs, Gen. xv, 3. Indeed, in some instances, those who had heirs,
recognized as such by law, did not deem it unbecoming to bestow the
whole or a portion of their estates on faithful and deserving servants,
Prov. xvii, 2. The widow of the deceased, like his daughters, had no
legal right to a share in the estate. The sons, however, or other
relations, were bound to afford her an adequate maintenance, unless it
had been otherwise arranged in the will. She sometimes returned back
again to her father’s house, particularly if the support which the heirs
gave her was not such as had been promised, or was not sufficient, Gen.
xxxviii, 11. See also the story of Ruth. The prophets very frequently,
and undoubtedly not without cause, exclaim against the neglect and
injustice shown to widows, Isa. i, 17; x, 2; Jer. vii, 6; xxii, 3; Ezek.
xxii, 7; Exod. xxii, 22–24; Deut. x, 18; xxiv, 17.

TESTIMONY, a witnessing, evidence, or proof, Acts xiv, 3. The whole
Scripture or word of God, which declares what is to be believed,
practised, and expected by us, is called God’s “testimony,” and
sometimes in the plural “testimonies,” Psalm xix, 7. The two tables of
stone on which the law or ten commandments were written, which were
witnesses of that covenant made between God and his people, and
testified what it was that God had required of them, have the same
title, Exod. xxv, 16, 21; xxxi, 18.

TETRARCH, a sovereign prince that has the fourth part of a state,
province, or kingdom under his dominion, without wearing the diadem, or
bearing the title of king, Matt, xiv, 1; Luke iii, 1, 19; ix, 7; Acts
xiii, 1.

THEOPHILUS, one to whom St. Luke addresses the books of his Gospel and
Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, Acts i, 1; Luke i, 3. It is
doubted whether the name Theophilus be here the proper name of a man, or
an appellative or common name, which, according to its etymology, may
stand for any good man, or a lover of God. Some think this name is
generic, and that St. Luke’s design here is to address his work to those
that love God; but it is much more probable that this Theophilus was a
Christian to whom the evangelist has dedicated those two works; and the
epithet of “most excellent,” which is given to him, shows him to have
been a man of great quality. Œcumenius concludes from thence that he
was governor or intendant of some province, because such a personage had
generally the title of “most excellent” given to him. Grotius
conjectures he might be a magistrate of Achaia, converted by St. Luke.

THERAPEUTÆ. One particular phenomenon which resulted from the
theosophico-ascetic spirit among the Alexandrian Jews, was the sect of
the Therapeutæ. Their head quarters were at no great distance from
Alexandria, in a quiet pleasant spot on the shores of the Lake Mœris,
where they lived, like the anchorites in later periods, shut up in
separate cells, and employed themselves in nothing but prayer, and the
contemplation of divine things. An allegorical interpretation of
Scripture was the foundation of their speculations; and they had old
theosophical writings which gave them this turn. They lived only on
bread and water, and accustomed themselves to fasting. They only ate in
the evening, and many fasted for several days together. They met
together every Sabbath day, and every seven weeks they held a still more
solemn assembly, because the number seven was peculiarly holy in their
estimation. They then celebrated a simple love-feast, consisting of
bread with salt and hyssop; theosophical discussions were held, and the
hymns which they had from their old traditions were sung; and mystical
dances, bearing reference to the wonderful works of God with the fathers
of their people, were continued, amidst choral songs, to a late hour in
the night. Many men of distinguished learning have considered this sect
as nothing but a scion of the Essenes, trained up under the peculiar
influence of the Egyptian spirit.

THESSALONIANS, Christians of Thessalonica, to whom St. Paul sent two
epistles. It is recorded in the Acts, that St. Paul, in his first
journey upon the continent of Europe, preached the Gospel at
Thessalonica, at that time the capital of Macedonia, with considerable
success; but that after a short stay he was driven thence by the malice
and violence of the unbelieving Jews. From Thessalonica St. Paul went to
Berea, and thence to Athens, at both which places he remained but a
short time. From Athens he sent Timothy to Thessalonica, to confirm the
new converts in their faith, and to inquire into their conduct. Timothy,
upon his return, found St. Paul at Corinth. Thence, probably in A. D.
52, St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Thessalonians; and it is to
be supposed that the subjects of which it treats, were suggested by the
account which he received from Timothy. It is now generally believed
that this was written the first of all St. Paul’s epistles, but it is
not known by whom it was sent to Thessalonica. The church there
consisted chiefly of Gentile converts, 1 Thess. i, 9. St. Paul, after
saluting the Thessalonian Christians in the name of himself, Silas, and
Timothy, assures them that he constantly returned thanks to God on their
account, and mentioned them in his prayers; he acknowledges the
readiness and sincerity with which they embraced the Gospel, and the
great reputation which they had acquired by turning from idols to serve
the living God, 1 Thess. i; he reminds them of the bold and
disinterested manner in which he had preached among them; comforts them
under the persecutions which they, like other Christians, had
experienced from their unbelieving countrymen, and informs them of two
ineffectual attempts which he had made to visit them again, 1 Thess. ii;
and that, being thus disappointed, he had sent Timothy to confirm their
faith, and inquire into their conduct; he tells them that Timothy’s
account of them had given him the greatest consolation and joy in the
midst of his affliction and distress, and that he continually prayed to
God for an opportunity of seeing them again, and for their perfect
establishment in the Gospel, 1 Thess. iii; he exhorts to purity,
justice, love, and quietness, and dissuades them against excessive grief
for their deceased friends, 1 Thess. iv; hence he takes occasion to
recommend preparation for the last judgment, the time of which is always
uncertain; and adds a variety of practical precepts. He concludes with
his usual benediction. This epistle is written in terms of high
commendation, earnestness, and affection.

It is generally believed that the messenger who carried the former
epistle into Macedonia, upon his return to Corinth, informed St. Paul
that the Thessalonians had inferred, from some expressions in it, that
the coming of Christ and the final judgment were near at hand, and would
happen in the time of many who were then alive, 1 Thess. iv, 15, 17; v,
6. The principal design of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was
to correct that error, and prevent the mischief which it would naturally
occasion. It was written from Corinth, probably at the end of A. D. 52.
St. Paul begins with the same salutation as in the former epistle, and
then expresses his devout acknowledgments to God for the increasing
faith and mutual love of the Thessalonians in the midst of persecution;
he represents to them the rewards which will be bestowed upon the
faithful, and the punishment which will be inflicted upon the
disobedient, at the coming of Christ, 2 Thess. i; he earnestly entreats
them not to suppose, as upon authority from him, or upon any other
ground, that the last day is at hand; he assures them, that before that
awful period a great apostasy will take place, and reminds them of some
information which he had given them upon that subject when he was at
Thessalonica; he exhorts them to steadfastness in their faith, and prays
to God to comfort their hearts, and establish them in every good word
and work, 2 Thess. ii; he desires their prayers for the success of his
ministry, and expresses his confidence in their sincerity; he cautions
them against associating with idle and disorderly persons, and
recommends diligence and quietness. He adds a salutation in his own
hand, and concludes with his usual benediction.

THESSALONICA, a celebrated city in Macedonia, and capital of that
kingdom, standing upon the Thesmaic Sea. Stephen of Byzantium says that
it was improved and beautified by Philip, king of Macedon, and called
Thessalonica in memory of the victory that he obtained over the
Thessalians. Its old name was Thesma. The Jews had a synagogue here, and
their number was considerable, Acts xvii.

THIEF. Among the Hebrews theft was not punished with death: “Men do not
despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry. But
if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the
substance of his house,” Prov. vi, 30, 31. The law allowed the killing
of a night-robber, because it was supposed his intention was to murder
as well as to rob, Exod. xxii, 2. It condemned a common thief to make
double restitution, Exod. xxii, 4. If he stole an ox he was to restore
it fivefold; if a sheep, only fourfold, Exod. xxii, 1; 2 Sam. xii, 6.
But if the animal that was stolen was found alive in his house he only
rendered the double of it. If he did not make restitution, they seized
what was in his house, put it up to sale, and even sold the person
himself if he had not wherewithal to make satisfaction, Exod. xxii, 3.

THOMAS, the Apostle, otherwise called Didymus, which in Greek signifies
_a twin_, Matt. x, 3; Luke vi, 15. We know no particulars of his life
till A. D. 33, John xi, 16; xiv, 5, 6; xx, 24–29; xxi, 1–13. Ancient
tradition says, that in the distribution which the Apostles made of the
several parts of the world, wherein they were to preach the Gospel, the
country of the Parthians fell to the share of St. Thomas. It is added,
that he preached to the Medes, Persians, Carmanians, Hircanians,
Bactrians, &c. Several of the fathers inform us that he also preached in
the East Indies, &c.

THORN. A general name for several kinds of prickly plants. 1. In the
curse denounced against the earth, Gen. iii, 18, its produce is
threatened to be “thorns and thistles,” קוץ ודרדר, in the Septuagint
ἀκάνθας καὶ τριϐόλους. St. Paul uses the same words, Heb. vi, 8, where
the last is rendered “briers;” they are also found Hos. x, 8. The word
_kutz_ is put for “thorns,” in other places, as Exod. xxii, 6; Judges
viii, 7; Ezek. ii, 6; xxviii, 24; but we are uncertain whether it means
a specific kind of thorn, or may be a generic name for all plants of a
thorny kind. In the present instance it seems to be general for all
those obnoxious plants, shrubs, &c, by which the labours of the
husbandman are impeded, and which are only fit for burning. If the word
denotes a particular plant, it maybe the “rest-harrow,” a pernicious
prickly weed, which grows promiscuously with the large thistles in the
uncultivated grounds, and covers entire fields and plains, in Egypt and
Palestine. From the resemblance of the Hebrew _dardar_, to the Arabic
word _dardargi_, Scheuchzer supposes the _cnicus_ to be intended. 2.
תות, from its etymology, must be a kind of thorn, with incurvated
spines, like fish hooks, similar to those of the North American “witch
hazel.” Celsius says that the same word, and of the same original in
Arabic, is the “black thorn,” or “sloe tree,” the _prunus spinosa_ of
Linnæus. 3. סירים. It is impossible to determine what plants are
intended by this word. Meninski says that _serbin_, in the Persic
language, is the name of a tree bearing thorns. In Eccles. vii, 6, and
Nahum i, 10, they are mentioned as fuel which quickly burns up; and in
Hosea ii, 6, as obstructions or hedges; it may be the _lycium Afrum_. 4.
סלון, mentioned Josh. xxiii, 13; Ezek. ii, 6, xxviii, 24. From the
vexatious character ascribed to this thorn in the places just referred
to, compared with Num. xxxiii, 55; Judges ii, 3; it is probably the
_kantuffa_, as described by Bruce. 5. By שבים, Num. xxxiii, 55, may be
intended goads, or sharp-pointed sticks, like those with which cattle
were driven. 6. The שית, Isa. v, 6; x, 17, must mean some noxious plant
that overruns waste grounds. 7. The word צנים, Num. xxxiii, 55; Josh.
xxiii, 13; Isa. v, 5. It seems, from its application, to describe a bad
kind of thorn. Hiller supposes it to be the _vepris_. Perhaps it is the
_rhamnus paliurus_, a deciduous plant or tree, a native of Palestine,
Spain, and Italy. It will grow nearly to the height of fourteen feet,
and is armed with sharp thorns, two of which are at the insertion of
each branch, one of them straight and upright, the other bent backward.
8. כרקנים, translated “briers,” Judges viii, 16. “There is no doubt but
this word means a sharp, jagged kind of plant: the difficulty is to fix
on one, where so many offer themselves. The Septuagint preserves the
original word. We should hardly think Gideon went far to seek these
plants. The thorns are expressly said to be from the wilderness, or
common hard by; probably the _barkanim_ were from the same place. In our
country this would lead us to the blackberry bushes on our commons; but
it might not be so around Succoth. There is a plant mentioned by
Hasselquist, whose name and properties somewhat resemble those which are
required in the _barkanim_ of this passage: “_Nabka paliurus Athenæi_,
is the _nabka_ of the Arabs. There is every appearance that this is the
tree which furnished the crown of thorns which was put on the head of
our Lord. It is common in the east. A plant more proper for this purpose
could not be selected; for it is armed with thorns, its branches are
pliant, and its leaf of a deep green like that of ivy. Perhaps the
enemies of Christ chose this plant, in order to add insult to injury by
employing a wreath approaching in appearance that which was used to
crown emperors and generals.” In the New Testament, the Greek word
translated “thorn,” is ἄκανθα; Matt. vii, 16, xiii, 7, xxvii, 29, John
xix, 2. The note of Bishop Pearce on Matt. xxvii, 29, is this: “The word
ἀκανθῶν may as well be the plural genitive case of the word ἄκανθος, as
of ἄκανθα; if of the latter, it is rightly translated ‘of thorns,’ but
the former would signify what we call ‘bear’s foot,’ and the French
_branche ursine_. This is not of the thorny kind of plants, but is soft
and smooth. Virgil calls it _mollis acanthus_. So does Pliny: and Pliny
the elder says that it is _lævis_, “smooth;” and that it is one of those
plants that are cultivated in gardens. I have somewhere read, but cannot
at present recollect where, that this soft and smooth herb was very
common in and about Jerusalem. I find nothing in the New Testament
concerning this crown which Pilate’s soldiers put on the head of Jesus,
to incline one to think that it was of thorns, and intended, as is
usually supposed, to put him to pain. The reed put into his hand, and
the scarlet robe on his back, were meant only as marks of mockery and
contempt. One may also reasonably judge by the soldiers being said to
plat this crown, that it was not composed of such twigs and leaves as
were of a thorny nature. I do not find that it is mentioned by any of
the primitive Christian writers as an instance of the cruelty used
toward our Saviour before he was led to crucifixion, till the time of
Tertullian, who lived after Jesus’ death at the distance of above one
hundred and sixty years. He indeed seems to have understood ἀκανθῶν in
the sense of thorns, and says, ‘_Quale oro te, Jesus Christus sertum pro
utrogue sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis._’ [What kind of a
crown, I beseech you, did Jesus Christ sustain? One made of thorns and
thistles, I think.] The total silence of Polycarp, Barnabas, Clemens
Romanus, and all the other Christian writers whose works are now extant,
and who wrote before Tertullian, in particular, will give some weight to
incline one to think that this crown was not platted with thorns. But as
this is a point on which we have not sufficient evidence, I leave it
almost in the same state of uncertainty in which I found it.” See
GARDEN.

THRESHING FLOORS, among the ancient Jews, were only, as they are to this
day in the east, round level plats of ground in the open air, where the
corn was trodden out by oxen, the _libycæ areæ_ of Horace. Thus,
Gideon’s floor, Judges vi, 37, appears to have been in the open air; as
was likewise that of Araunah the Jebusite; else it would not have been a
proper place for erecting an altar and offering sacrifice. In Hosea
xiii, 3, we read of the chaff which is driven by the whirlwind from the
floor. This circumstance of the threshing floor’s being exposed to the
agitation of the wind seems to be the principal reason of its Hebrew
name; which may be farther illustrated by the direction which Hesiod
gives his husbandman to thresh his corn in a place well exposed to the
wind. From the above account it appears that a threshing floor (rendered
in our textual translation “a void place”) might well be near the
entrance of the gate of Samaria, and that it might afford no improper
place in which the kings of Israel and Judah could hear the prophets, 1
Kings xxii, 10; 2 Chron. xviii, 9; Psalm i, 4.

THRONE is used for that magnificent seat on which sovereign princes
usually sit to receive the homage of their subjects, or to give audience
to ambassadors; where they appear with pomp and ceremony, and from
whence they dispense justice; in a word, the throne, the sceptre, the
crown, are the ordinary symbols of royalty and regal authority. The
Scripture commonly represents the Lord as sitting upon a throne;
sometimes it is said that the heaven is his throne, and the earth his
footstool, Isaiah lxvi, 1. The Son of God is also represented as sitting
upon a throne, at the right hand of his Father, Psalm cx, 1; Heb. i, 8;
Rev. iii, 21. And Jesus Christ assures his Apostles that they should sit
upon twelve thrones, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Luke xxii,
30. Though a throne and royal dignity seem to be correlatives, or terms
that stand in reciprocal relation to each other, yet the privilege of
sitting on a throne has been sometimes granted to those that were not
kings, particularly to some governors of important provinces. We read of
the throne of the governor of this side the river; the throne, in other
words, of the governor for the king of Persia of the provinces belonging
to that empire on the west of the Euphrates. So D’Herbelot tells us that
a Persian monarch of aftertimes gave the governor of one of his
provinces permission to seat himself in a gilded chair, when he
administered justice; which distinction was granted him on account of
the importance of that post, to which the guarding a pass of great
consequence was committed. This province, he tells us, is now called
Shirvan, but was formerly named Serir-aldhahab, which signifies, in
Arabic, “the throne of gold.” To which he adds, that this privilege was
granted to the governor of this province, as being the place through
which the northern nations used to make their way into Persia; on which
account, also, a mighty rampart or wall was raised there.

In the Revelation of St. John, we find the twenty-four elders sitting
upon as many thrones in the presence of the Lord; “and they fall down
before him that sat on the throne, &c, and cast their crowns before the
throne.” Many of the travellers in eastern countries have given
descriptions highly illustrative of this mode of adoration. Thus Bruce,
in his Travels, says, “The next remarkable ceremony in which these two
nations (of Persia and Abyssinia) agreed is that of adoration,
inviolably observed in Abyssinia to this day, as often as you enter the
sovereign’s presence. This is not only kneeling, but absolute
prostration; you first fall upon your knees, then upon the palms of your
hands, then incline your head and body till your forehead touches the
ground; and, in case you have an answer to expect, you lie in that
posture till the king, or somebody from him, desires you to rise.” And
Stewart observes, “We marched toward the emperor with our music playing,
till we came within about eighty yards of him, when the old monarch,
alighting from his horse, prostrated himself on the earth to pray, and
continued some minutes with his face so close to the earth, that, when
we came up to him, the dust remained upon his nose.”

The circumstance of “casting their crowns before the throne” may be
illustrated by several cases which occur in history. That of Herod, in
the presence of Augustus, has been already mentioned. (See _Herod_.)
Tiridates, in this manner, did homage to Nero, laying the ensigns of his
royalty at the statue of Cæsar, to receive them again from his hand.
Tigranes, king of Armenia, did the same to Pompey. In the inauguration
of the Byzantine Cæsars, when the emperor comes to receive the
sacrament, he puts off his crown. “This short expedition,” says Malcolm,
“was brought to a close by the personal submission of Abool Fyze Khan,
who, attended by all his court, proceeded to the tents of Nadir Shah,
and laid his crown, and other ensigns of royalty, at the feet of the
conqueror, who assigned him an honourable place in his assembly, and in
a few days afterward restored him to his throne.”

THYATIRA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and the seat of one of the
seven churches in Asia. It was situated nearly midway between Pergamos
and Sardis, and is still a tolerable town, considering that it is in the
hands of the Turks, and enjoys some trade, chiefly in cottons. It is
called by that people Ak-hisar, or White Castle.

TIBERIAS, a city situated in a small plain, surrounded by mountains, on
the western coast of the sea of Galilee, which, from this city, was also
called the sea of Tiberias. Tiberias was erected by Herod Antipas, and
so called in honour of Tiberius Cæsar. He is supposed to have chosen,
for the erection of his new city, a spot where before stood a more
obscure place called Chenereth or Cinnereth, which also gave its name to
the adjoining lake or sea.

TIMBRELS. See MUSIC.

TIMOTHEUS, commonly called Timothy, a disciple of St. Paul. He was a
native of Lystra in Lycaonia. His father was a Gentile; but his mother,
whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, Acts xvi, 1, and educated her son
with great care in her own religion, 2 Tim. i, 5; iii, 15. To this young
disciple St. Paul addressed two epistles; in the first of which he calls
him his “own son in the faith,” 1 Tim. i, 2; from which expression it is
inferred that St. Paul was the person who converted him to the belief of
the Gospel; and as, upon St. Paul’s second arrival at Lystra, Timothy is
mentioned as being then a disciple, and as having distinguished himself
among the Christians of that neighbourhood, his conversion, as well as
that of Eunice his mother, and Lois his grandmother, must have taken
place when St. Paul first preached at Lystra, A. D. 46. Upon St. Paul’s
leaving Lystra, in the course of his second apostolical journey, he was
induced to take Timothy with him, on account of his excellent character,
and the zeal which, young as he was, he had already shown in the cause
of Christianity; but before they set out, St. Paul caused him to be
circumcised, not as a thing necessary to his salvation, but to avoid
giving offence to the Jews, as he was a Jew by the mother’s side, and it
was an established rule among the Jews that _partus sequitur ventrem_.
Timothy was regularly appointed to the ministerial office by the laying
on of hands, not only by St. Paul himself, but also by the presbytery, 1
Tim. iv, 14; 2 Tim. i, 6. From this time Timothy acted as a minister of
the Gospel; he generally attended St. Paul, but was sometimes employed
by him in other places; he was very diligent and useful, and is always
mentioned with great esteem and affection by St. Paul, who joins his
name with his own in the inscription of six of his epistles. He is
sometimes called bishop of Ephesus, and it has been said that he
suffered martyrdom in that city, some years after the death of St. Paul.

The principal design of St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy was to give
him instructions concerning the management of the church of Ephesus; and
it was probably intended that it should be read publicly to the
Ephesians, that they might know upon what authority Timothy acted. After
saluting him in an affectionate manner, and reminding him of the reason
for which he was left at Ephesus, the Apostle takes occasion, from the
frivolous disputes which some Judaizing teachers had introduced among
the Ephesians, to assert the practical nature of the Gospel, and to show
its superiority over the law; he returns thanks to God for his own
appointment to the apostleship, and recommends to Timothy fidelity in
the discharge of his sacred office; he exhorts that prayers should be
made for all men, and especially for magistrates; he gives directions
for the conduct of women, and forbids their teaching in public; he
describes the qualifications necessary for bishops and deacons, and
speaks of the mysterious nature of the Gospel dispensation; he foretels
that there will be apostates from the truth, and false teachers in the
latter times, and recommends to Timothy purity of manners and
improvement of his spiritual gifts; he gives him particular directions
for his behaviour toward persons in different situations in life, and
instructs him in several points of Christian discipline; he cautions him
against false teachers, gives him several precepts, and solemnly charges
him to be faithful to his trust.

That the Second Epistle to Timothy was written while St. Paul was under
confinement at Rome, appears from the two following passages: “Be not
thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his
prisoner,” 2 Timothy i, 8. “The Lord give mercy unto the house of
Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain;
but when he was at Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found
me,” 2 Tim. i, 16, 17. The epistle itself will furnish us with several
arguments to prove that it could not have been written during St. Paul’s
first imprisonment. 1. It is universally agreed that St. Paul wrote his
epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and to Philemon,
while he was confined the first time at Rome. In no one of these
epistles does he express any apprehension for his life; and in the two
last mentioned we have seen that, on the contrary, he expresses a
confident hope of being soon liberated; but in this epistle he holds a
very different language: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of
my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give
me at that day,” 2 Tim. iv, 6, &c. The danger in which St. Paul now was,
is evident from the conduct of his friends, when he made his defence:
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me,” 2
Tim. iv, 16. This expectation of death, and this imminent danger, cannot
be reconciled either with the general tenor of his epistles written
during his first confinement at Rome, with the nature of the charge laid
against him when he was carried thither from Jerusalem, or with St.
Luke’s account of his confinement there; for we must remember that in A.
D. 63, Nero had not begun to persecute the Christians; that none of the
Roman magistrates and officers who heard the accusations against St.
Paul at Jerusalem thought that he had committed any offence against the
Roman government; that at Rome St. Paul was completely out of the power
of the Jews; and, so little was he there considered as having been
guilty of any capital crime, that he was suffered to dwell “two whole
years,” that is, the whole time of his confinement, “in his own hired
house, and to receive all that came in unto him, preaching the word of
God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with
all confidence, no man forbidding him,” Acts xxviii, 30, 31. 2. From the
inscriptions of the epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and
Philemon, it is certain that Timothy was with St. Paul in his first
imprisonment at Rome; but this epistle implies that Timothy was absent.
3. St. Paul tells the Colossians that Mark salutes them, and therefore
he was at Rome with St. Paul in his first imprisonment; but he was not
at Rome when this epistle was written, for Timothy is directed to bring
him with him, 2 Tim. iv, 11. 4. Demas, also, was with St. Paul when he
wrote to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet
you,” Col. iv, 14. In this epistle he says, “Demas has forsaken me,
having loved this present world, and is departed into Thessalonica,” 2
Tim. iv, 10. It may be said that this epistle might have been written
before the others, and that in the intermediate time Timothy and Mark
might have come to Rome, more especially as St. Paul desires Timothy to
come shortly, and bring Mark with him. But this hypothesis is not
consistent with what is said of Demas, who was with St. Paul when he
wrote to the Colossians, and had left him when he wrote this second
epistle to Timothy; consequently the epistle to Timothy must be
posterior to that addressed to the Colossians. The case of Demas seems
to have been, that he continued faithful to St. Paul during his first
imprisonment, which was attended with little or no danger; but deserted
him in the second, when Nero was persecuting the Christians, and St.
Paul evidently considered himself in great danger. 5. St. Paul tells
Timothy, “Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum
sick,” 2 Tim. iv, 20. These were plainly two circumstances which had
happened in some journey which St. Paul had taken not long before he
wrote this epistle, and since he and Timothy had seen each other; but
the last time St. Paul was at Corinth and Miletum, prior to his first
imprisonment at Rome, Timothy was with him at both places; and Trophimus
could not have been then left at Miletum, for we find him at Jerusalem
immediately after St. Paul’s arrival in that city; “for they had seen
before with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they supposed
that Paul had brought into the temple,” Acts xxi, 29. These two facts
must therefore refer to some journey subsequent to the first
imprisonment; and, consequently, this epistle was written during St.
Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome, and probably in A. D. 65, not long
before his death. It is by no means certain where Timothy was when this
epistle was written to him. It seems most probable that he was somewhere
in Asia Minor, since St. Paul desires him to bring the cloak with him
which he had left at Troas, 2 Tim. iv, 13; and also at the end of the
first chapter, he speaks of several persons whose residence was in Asia.
Many have thought that he was at Ephesus; but others have rejected that
opinion, because Troas does not lie in the way from Ephesus to Rome,
whither he was directed to go as quickly as he could. St. Paul, after
his usual salutation, assures Timothy of his most affectionate
remembrance; he speaks of his own apostleship and of his sufferings;
exhorts Timothy to be steadfast in the true faith, to be constant and
diligent in the discharge of his ministerial office, to avoid foolish
and unlearned questions, and to practise and inculcate the great duties
of the Gospel; he describes the apostasy and general wickedness of the
last days, and highly commends the Holy Scriptures; he again solemnly
exhorts Timothy to diligence; speaks of his own danger, and of his hope
of future reward; and concludes with several private directions, and
with salutations.

TIN, בדיל, Num. xxxi, 22; Isa. i, 25; Ezek. xxii, 18, 20; xxvii, 12; a
well-known coarse metal, harder than lead. Mr. Parkhurst observes, that
Moses, in Num. xxxi, 22, enumerates all the six species of metals. The
Lord, by the Prophet Isaiah, having compared the Jewish people to
silver, declares, “I will turn my hand upon thee, and purge away thy
dross, and remove all בדיליך, _thy particles of tin_:” where Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion have κασσίτερον σου, and the Vulgate _stannum
tuum_, “thy tin;” but the LXX. ἀνόμους, _wicked ones_. This
denunciation, by a comparison of the preceding and following context,
appears to signify that God would, by a process of judgment, purify
those among the Jews who were capable of purification, as well as
destroy the reprobate and incorrigible, Jer. vi, 29, 30; ix, 7; Mal.
iii, 3; Ezek. xii, 18, 20. In Ezek. xxvii, 12, Tarshish is mentioned as
furnishing כדיל; and Bochart proves from the testimonies of Diodorus,
Pliny, and Stephanus, that Tartessus in Spain, which he supposes the
ancient Tarshish, anciently furnished tin. As Cornwall in very ancient
times was resorted to for this metal, and probably first by the
Phenicians, some have thought that peninsula to be the Tarshish of the
Scriptures; a subject which, however, from the vague use of the word, is
involved in much uncertainty. See TARSHISH.

TITHES. We have nothing more ancient concerning tithes, than what we
find in Gen. xiv, 20, that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, king of
Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer, and the
four kings in confederacy with him. Abraham gave him tithe of all the
booty he had taken from the enemy. Jacob imitated this piety of his
grandfather, when he vowed to the Lord the tithe of all the substance he
might acquire in Mesopotamia, Gen. xxviii, 22. Under the law, Moses
ordained, “All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,
or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord.
And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add
thereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or
of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall
be wholly unto the Lord,” Lev. xxvii, 30–32. The Pharisees, in the time
of Jesus Christ, to distinguish themselves by a more scrupulous
observance of the law, did not content themselves with paying the tithe
of the grain and fruits growing in the fields; but they also paid tithe
of the pulse and herbs growing in their gardens, which was more than the
law required of them. The tithes were taken from what remained, after
the offerings and first fruits were paid. They brought the tithes to the
Levites in the city of Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus and Tobit, i,
6. The Levites set apart the tenth part of their tithes for the priest;
because the priests did not receive them immediately from the people,
and the Levites were not to meddle with the tithes they had received,
before they had given the priests such a part as the law assigned them.
Of those nine parts that remained to the proprietors, after the tithe
was paid to the Levites, they took still another tenth part, which was
either sent to Jerusalem in kind, or, if it was too far, they sent the
value in money; adding to it a fifth from the whole as the rabbins
inform us. This tenth part was applied toward celebrating the festivals
in the temple, which bore a near resemblance to the _agapæ_, or love
feasts of the first Christians. Thus are those words of Deuteronomy
understood by the rabbins: “Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of
thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat
before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his
name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil, and of
the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks: that thou mayest learn to
fear the Lord thy God always,” Deut. xiv, 22, 23. Tobit i, 6, says, that
every three years he punctually paid his tithe to strangers and
proselytes. This was probably because there were neither priests nor
Levites in the city where he dwelt. Moses speaks of this last kind of
tithe: “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe
of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates.
And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and
the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy
gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God
may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest,” Deut.
xiv, 28; xxvi, 12. It is thought that this tithe was not different from
the second kind before noticed, except that in the third year it was not
brought to the temple, but was used upon the spot by every one in the
city of his habitation. So, properly speaking, there were only two sorts
of tithes, that which was given to the Levites and priests, and that
which was applied to making feasts of charity, either in the temple of
Jerusalem, or in other cities. Samuel tells the children of Israel, that
the king they had a mind to have over them would “take the tenth of
their seed, and of their vineyards, and give to his officers, and his
servants. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his
servants,” 1 Sam. viii, 15, 17. Yet it does not clearly appear from the
history of the Jews, that they regularly paid any tithe to their
princes. But the manner in which Samuel expresses himself, seems to
insinuate that it was looked upon as a common right among the kings of
the cast. At this day, the Jews no longer pay any tithe; at least they
do not think themselves obliged to do it, except it be those who are
settled in the territory of Jerusalem, and the ancient Judea. For there
are few Jews now that have any lands of their own, or any flocks. They
only give something for the redemption of the first-born, to those who
have any proofs of their being descended from the race of the priests or
Levites. However, we are assured, that such among the Jews as would be
thought to be very strict and religious give the tenth part of their
whole income to the poor.

TITUS. It is remarkable that Titus is not mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles. The few particulars which are known of him, are collected from
the epistles of St. Paul. We learn from them that he was a Greek, Gal.
ii, 3; but it is not recorded to what city or country he belonged. From
St. Paul’s calling him “his own son according to the common faith,”
Titus i, 4, it is concluded that he was converted by him; but we have no
account of the time or place of his conversion. He is first mentioned as
going from Antioch to the council at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, Gal. ii, 1,
&c; and upon that occasion St. Paul says that he would not allow him to
be circumcised, because he was born of Gentile parents. He probably
accompanied St. Paul in his second apostolical journey, and from that
time he seems to have been constantly employed by him in the propagation
of the Gospel; he calls him his partner and fellow-helper, 2 Cor. viii,
23. St. Paul sent him from Ephesus with his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and with a commission to inquire into the state of the
church at Corinth; and he sent him thither again from Macedonia with his
Second Epistle, and to forward the collections for the saints in Judea.
From this time we hear nothing of Titus till he was left by St. Paul in
Crete, after his first imprisonment at Rome, to “set in order the things
that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city,” Titus i, 5. It
is probable that he went thence to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, Titus
iii, 12; that they went together to Crete to visit the churches there,
and thence to Rome. During St. Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome Titus
went into Dalmatia, 2 Tim. iv, 10; and after the apostle’s death, he is
said to have returned into Crete, and to have died there in the
ninety-fourth year of his age: he is often called bishop of Crete by
ecclesiastical writers. St. Paul always speaks of Titus in terms of high
regard, and intrusted him, as we have seen, with commissions of great
importance. It is by no means certain from what place St. Paul wrote
this epistle; but as he desires Titus to come to him at Nicopolis, and
declares his intention of passing the winter there, some have supposed
that, when he wrote it he was in the neighbourhood of that city, either
in Greece or Macedonia; others have imagined that he wrote it from
Colosse, but it is difficult to say upon what ground. As it appears that
St. Paul, not long before he wrote this epistle, had left Titus in Crete
for the purpose of regulating the affairs of the church, and at the time
he wrote it had determined to pass the approaching winter at Nicopolis,
and as the Acts of the Apostles do not give any account of St. Paul’s
preaching in that island, or of visiting that city, it is concluded that
this epistle was written after his first imprisonment at Rome, and
probably in A. D. 64. It may be considered as some confirmation of that
opinion, that there is a great similarity between the sentiments and
expressions of this epistle and of the First Epistle to Timothy, which
was written in that year. It is not known at what time a Christian
church was first planted in Crete; but as some Cretans were present at
the first effusion of the Holy Ghost at Jerusalem, Acts ii, 11, it is
not improbable that, upon their return home, they might be the means of
introducing the Gospel among their countrymen. Crete is said to have
abounded with Jews; and from the latter part of the first chapter of
this epistle it appears that many of them were persons of very
profligate lives, even after they had embraced the Gospel. The principal
design of this epistle was to give instructions to Titus concerning the
management of the churches in the different cities of the island of
Crete, and it was probably intended to be read publicly to the Cretans,
that they might know upon what authority Titus acted. St. Paul, after
his usual salutation, intimates that he was appointed an apostle by the
express command of God, and reminds Titus of the reason of his being
left in Crete; he describes the qualifications necessary for bishops,
and cautions him against persons of bad principles, especially Judaizing
teachers, whom he directs Titus to reprove with severity; he informs him
what instructions he should give to people in different situations of
life, and exhorts him to be exemplary in his own conduct; he points out
the pure and practical nature of the Gospel, and enumerates some
particular virtues which he was to inculcate, avoiding foolish questions
and frivolous disputes; he instructs him how he is to behave toward
heretics and concludes with salutations.

TIZRI, or TISRI, the first Hebrew month of the civil year, and the
seventh of the sacred year, answering to the moon of September. On the
first day of this month was kept the feast of trumpets, because the
beginning of the civil year was proclaimed with the sound of trumpets.

TOB, a country of Palestine, lying beyond Jordan, in the northern part
of the portion of Manasseh. To this district Jephthah retired, when he
was driven away by his brethren, Judges xi, 3, 5. It is also called
Tobie, or Tubin, 1 Mac. v, 13; and the inhabitants of this canton were
called Tubieni. It is supposed to be the same as Ishtob, one of the
small principalities of Syria, which appears, like the other little
kingdoms in its neighbourhood, to have been swallowed up in the kingdom
of Damascus. This principality furnished twelve thousand men to the
confederacy formed by the Syrians and Ammonites against David, 2 Sam. x.

TOBIAH, an Ammonite, an enemy to the Jews. He was one of those who
strenuously opposed the rebuilding of the temple, after the return from
the captivity of Babylon, Neh. ii, 10; iv, 3; v, 1, 12, 14. This Tobiah
is called “the servant,” or “slave,” in some parts of Nehemiah; probably
because he was of a servile condition. However, he was of great
consideration in the land of the Samaritans, of which he was governor
with Sanballat. This Tobiah married the daughter of Shechaniah, one of
the principal Jews of Jerusalem, Neh. vi, 18, and had a powerful party
in Jerusalem itself, who were opposed to that of Nehemiah. He maintained
a correspondence by letter with this party against the interest of
Nehemiah, vi, 17–19; but that prudent governor, by his wisdom and
moderation, defeated all their machinations. After some time, Nehemiah
was obliged to return to Babylon, subsequent to having repaired the
walls of Jerusalem. Tobiah took this opportunity to come and dwell at
Jerusalem; and even obtained of Eliashib, who had the care of the house
of the Lord, to have an apartment in the temple. But at Nehemiah’s
return from Babylon, some years after, he drove Tobiah out of the courts
of the temple, and threw his goods out of the holy place, Neh. xiii,
4–8. From this time the Scripture makes no farther mention of Tobiah. It
is probable he retired to Sanballat at Samaria.

TOGARMAH, the third son of Gomer, Gen. x, 4. The learned are divided as
to what country he peopled. Josephus and St. Jerom were of opinion, that
Togarmah was the father of the Phrygians: Eusebius, Theodoret, and
Isidorus of Seville, that he peopled Armenia: the Chaldee and the
Talmudists are for Germany. Several moderns believe that the children of
Togarmah peopled Turcomania in Tartary and Scythia. Bochart is for
Cappadocia: he builds upon what is said in Ezekiel xxvii, 14, “They of
the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs,” that is, at Tyre, “with
horses and horsemen and mules.” He proves that Cappadocia was famous for
its excellent horses and its asses. He observes also, that certain
Gauls, under the conduct of Trocmus, made a settlement at Cappadocia,
and were called Trocmi, or Throgmi. The opinion, says Calmet, which
places Togarmah in Scythia and Turcomania, seems to stand upon the best
foundation.

TOKENS, TESSERÆ, or TICKETS, were written testimonials to character,
much in use in the primitive church. By means of letters, and of
brethren who travelled about, even the most remote churches of the Roman
empire were connected together. When a Christian arrived in a strange
town, he first inquired for the church; and he was here received as a
brother, and provided with every thing needful for his spiritual or
corporeal sustenance. But since deceivers, spies with evil intentions,
and false teachers abused the confidence and the kindness of Christians,
some measure of precaution became necessary, in order to avert the many
injuries which might result from this conduct. An arrangement was
therefore introduced, that only such travelling Christians should be
received as brethren into churches where they were strangers, as could
produce a testimonial from the bishop of the church from which they
came. They called these church letters, which were a kind of _tesseræ
hospitales_, [tickets of hospitality,] by which the Christians of all
quarters of the world were brought into connection, _epistolæ_, or
_literæ_ _formatæ_, [formal letters,] γράμματα τετυπώμενα, because, in
order to avoid forgery, they were made after a certain _schema_, (τυπὸς,
_forma_,) or else, _epistolæ communicatoriæ_, [epistles of fellowship,]
γράμματα κοινωνικά, because they contained a proof that those who
brought them were in the communion of the church, as well as that the
bishops, who mutually sent and received such letters, were in connection
together by the communion of the church; and afterward these church
letters, _epistolæ clericæ_, were divided into different classes,
according to the difference of their purposes.

TONGUE. This word is taken in three different senses. 1. For the
material tongue, or organ of speech, James iii, 5. 2. For the tongue or
language that is spoken in any country, Deut. xxviii, 49. (See
_Language_.) 3. For good or bad discourses, Prov. xii, 18; xvii, 20.
Tongue of the sea signifies a gulf. To gnaw the tongue, Rev. xvi, 10, is
a token of fury, despair, and torment. The gift of tongues was that
which God granted to the apostles and disciples assembled at Jerusalem
on the day of pentecost, Acts ii. The tongue of angels, a kind of
hyperbole made use of by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiii, 1.

TOOTH. It was ordered by the law of retaliation, that they should give
tooth for tooth, Exod. xxi, 24. The opinion that it is every man’s right
and duty to do himself justice, and to revenge his own injuries, is by
no means eradicated from among the Afghans, a people of India, to the
southward of Cashmere, and according to a paper in the Asiatic
Researches, supposed to be descended from the Jews; and the right of
society, even to restrain the reasonable passions of individuals, and to
take the redress of wrongs and the punishment of crimes into its own
hands, is still very imperfectly understood; or, if it is understood, is
seldom present to the thoughts of the people; for although, in most
parts of their country, justice might now be obtained by other means,
and though private revenge is every where preached against by the
_mollahs_, priests, and forbidden by the government, yet it is still
lawful, and even honourable in the eyes of the people, to seek that mode
of redress. The injured party is considered to be entitled to strict
retaliation on the aggressor. If the offender be out of his power, he
may wreak his vengeance on a relation, and, in some cases, on any man in
the tribe. If no opportunity of exercising this right occurs, he may
defer his revenge for years; but it is disgraceful to neglect or abandon
it entirely; and it is incumbent on his relations, and sometimes on his
tribe, to assist him in his retaliation. To gnash the teeth is a token
of sorrow, rage, despair, Psalm xxxv, 16, &c. God breaks the teeth of
the wicked, Psalm iii, 7. Cleanness of teeth denotes famine, Amos iv, 6.
The wicked complain, that the “fathers have eaten sour grapes, and their
children’s teeth are set on edge,” Ezek. xviii, 2, to signify, that the
children have suffered for their transgressions.

TOPAZ, הטדה, Exod. xxviii, 17; xxxix, 10; Job xxviii, 19; Ezek. xxviii,
13; τοπάζιον, Rev. xxi, 20; a precious stone of a pale dead green, with
a mixture of yellow; and sometimes of fine yellow, like gold. It is very
hard, and takes a fine polish. We have the authority of the Septuagint
and Josephus for ascertaining this stone. The oriental topazes are most
esteemed. Those of Ethiopia were celebrated for their wonderful lustre,
Job xxviii, 19.

TOPHET. It is thought that Tophet was the butchery, or place of
slaughter, at Jerusalem, lying to the south of the city, in the valley
of the children of Hinnom. It is also said, that a large fire was
constantly kept there for burning carcasses, garbage, and other filth
brought thither from the city. It was the place where they burned the
remains of images and false gods, &c, Isa. xxx, 33. Others think the
name Tophet was given to the valley of Hinnom, from the beating of
drums, (the word toph signifying a drum,) which accompanied the
sacrifices of infants that were offered there to the god Moloch. For the
manner of performing those sacrifices in Tophet, see MOLOCH.

TOWER. “The tower of the flock,” or the tower of Ader, Micah iv, 8. It
is said this tower was in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, Gen. xxxv, 21,
and that the shepherds, to whom the angel revealed the birth of our
Saviour, were near to this tower, Luke ii, 8, 15. Many interpreters
assert, that the passage of Micah, in which mention is made of the tower
of the flock: “And thou tower of the flock, the strong hold of the
daughter of Zion,” is to be understood of the city of Bethlehem, out of
which our Saviour was to come. Others maintain, that the prophet speaks
of the city of Jerusalem, in which there was a tower of this name,
through which the flocks of sheep were driven to the sheep-market. “From
the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city,” 2 Kings xvii, 9. This
form of speaking expresses in general all the places of the country,
from the least to the greatest. The towers of the watchmen, or of the
shepherds, stood alone in the midst of the plain, in which the shepherds
and herdsmen who looked after the flocks, or watchmen, might lodge. King
Uzziah caused several towers to be built for the shepherds in the
desert, and made many cisterns there, because he had a great number of
flocks, 2 Chronicles xxvi, 10. The tower of the flock, and that which
Isaiah, v, 2, notices, which was built in the midst of a vineyard, were
of the same kind.

TOWER OF BABEL. See BABEL.

TOWER OF SHECHEM was a citadel, or fortress, standing upon a higher
ground than the rest of the city, and capacious enough to contain above
a thousand persons. This tower, filled with the inhabitants of Shechem,
was burned by Abimelech down to the very ground, together with those who
had taken refuge in it.

TRACHONITIS, Luke iii, 1. This province had Arabia Deserta to the east,
Batanea to the west, Iturea to the south, and the country of Damascus to
the north. It belonged rather to Arabia than Palestine; was a rocky
province, and served as a shelter for thieves and depredators.

TRADITION. See CABBALA.

TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST. This event relates to a very remarkable
occurrence in the history of our Lord’s life, which is recorded by three
of the evangelists, Matthew xvii; Mark ix; Luke ix. The substance of
what we learn from their accounts is, that upon a certain occasion Jesus
took Peter, James, and John, into a high mountain apart from all other
society, and that he was there transfigured before them; his face
shining as the sun, and his raiment white as the light; that moreover
there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, conversing with him; and that
while they spake together on the subject of his death, which was soon
afterward to take place at Jerusalem, a bright cloud overshadowed them,
and a voice out of the cloud proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased.” The Apostle Peter, adverting to this memorable
occurrence, says, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when
we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the
excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And
this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the
holy mount,” 2 Peter i, 16–18. This event is to be considered: 1. As a
solemn confirmation of the prophetic office of Christ. 2. As designed to
support the faith of the disciples, which was to be deeply tried by his
approaching humiliations; and to afford consolation to the human nature
of our Lord himself, by giving him a foretaste of “the joy set before
him.” 3. As an emblem of humanity glorified at the resurrection. 4. As
declaring Christ to be superior to Moses and Elias, the giver and the
restorer of the law. 5. As an evidence to the disciples of the existence
of a separate state, in which good men consciously enjoy the felicity of
heaven. 6. As a proof that the bodies of good men shall be so refined
and changed, as, like Elias, to live in a state of immortality, and in
the presence of God. 7. As exhibiting the sympathy which exists between
the church in heaven and the church on earth, and the instruction which
the former receives from the events which take place in the
latter:--Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord on his approaching
death, doubtless to receive, not to convey information. 8. As
maintaining the grand distinction, the infinite difference, between
Christ and all other prophets: he is “THE SON.” “_This is my beloved
Son, hear him._” It has been observed, with much truth, that the
condition in which Jesus Christ appeared among men, humble, weak, poor,
and despised, was a true and continual transfiguration; whereas, the
transfiguration itself, in which he showed himself in the real splendour
of his glory, was his true and natural condition.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The Lord’s Supper being observed in commemoration of
the death of Christ, which was the sacrifice offered for the sins of
men, the idea of a sacrifice was early conjoined with it; and finally,
it came to be regarded not merely as the symbol of a sacrifice, but in
some sense a sacrifice itself. There was also another cause which
contributed to this belief. It was the anxious wish of some of the
fathers to give to their religion a degree of splendour, which might
make a powerful impression upon the senses. Under the Jewish economy,
the numerous sacrifices that were offered, in a remarkable degree
riveted the attention; and, with reference to this, it became customary
to hold forth the Lord’s Supper as the great sacrifice in the Christian
church. This mode of speaking quickly gained ground; it is often used by
Cyprian, although he plainly understood it in a mystical sense; and the
ordinance of the supper was not unfrequently styled the eucharistical
sacrifice. It was very early the practice to hold up the elements,
previous to their being distributed, to the view of the people, probably
to excite in them more effectually devout and reverential feelings; and
this laid the foundation for that adoration of them which was, at a
subsequent period, as we shall soon find, extensively introduced.

For several ages, says Dr. Cook, the state of opinion respecting the
sacramental elements was, that they were memorials of Christ’s death,
but that, agreeably to his own declaration, his body and blood were, in
some sense, present with them. The questions, however, what was the
nature of that presence? and what were the physical consequences as to
the bread and the wine? however much we may conceive these points to
have been involved in the opinion actually held, or the language
actually used, seem not to have been for a long period much agitated,
or, at all events, not authoritatively decided, although the Roman
Catholic writers gladly and triumphantly bring forward the expressions
that were so often used from the earliest age, in support of the tenet
which their church at length espoused. But it was not to be supposed
that the curiosity of man would be permanently arrested at the threshold
of this most mysterious inquiry; and accordingly a definite theory, with
respect to it, was, in the ninth century, avowed, and zealously
defended. Pascasius Radbert, a monk, and afterward abbot of Corbey in
Picardy, published a treatise concerning the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, in which he did not hesitate to maintain the following
most extraordinary positions: “That after the consecration of the bread
and wine in the Lord’s Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the
outward form or figure under which the body and blood of Christ were
really and locally present; and that this body so present was the
identical body that had been born of the Virgin Mary, had suffered on
the cross, and had been raised from the dead.” The publication of
notions so decidedly at war with all which human beings must credit,
excited, as might have been expected, astonishment and indignation; and,
accordingly, many writers exerted their talents against it. Among these
was the celebrated Johannes Scotus, who laid the axe to the root of the
tree, and, shaking off all that figurative language which had been so
sadly abused, distinctly and powerfully stated, that the bread and wine
used in the eucharist were the signs or symbols of the absent body and
blood of Christ. The light of reason and truth was, however, too feeble
to penetrate through the darkness which during this age was spread over
the minds and understandings of men. No public declaration, indeed, as
to the nature of the sacramental elements was made; and even the popes
did not interpose their high and revered authority with regard to it;
but there seems little doubt that the opinion of Pascasius was adopted
by the greater part of the western church, although it is not likely
that much deference was paid to his explanations of it. The question was
again agitated, and attracted more notice than it had ever before done,
in the course of the eleventh century. Several theologians,
distinguished for the period at which they lived, shocked with the
grossness and absurdity of the conversion which had been defended,
strenuously opposed it. Among these Berenger holds the most conspicuous
place, both on account of the zeal and ability which he displayed, and
the cruel and unchristian manner in which he was resisted. About the
commencement of the century, he began to inculcate that the bread and
wine of the eucharist were not truly and actually, but only
figuratively, and by similitude, the body and blood of Christ; and a
doctrine so rational obtained many adherents in France, Italy, and
England. He was, however, encountered by a host of opponents, numbers of
whom possessed the highest situations in the church; and the church
itself, either from having perceived that the doctrine which he laboured
to confute was grateful to the people, or, what is more likely, tended
to exalt the powers and to increase the influence and wealth of the
priesthood, declared against him, various councils having been
assembled, and having pronounced their solemn decrees in condemnation of
what he taught. The councils did not rest their hope of overcoming
Berenger upon the strength of the reasoning which they could urge
against him: they took a much more summary method, and threatened to put
him to death if he did not recant. At one synod held at Rome, under the
immediate eye of the pope, the fathers of whom it consisted so
successfully alarmed Berenger, that, not having sufficient vigour of
mind to stand firm against their cruelty, he confessed that he had been
in error, and subscribed the following declaration composed by one of
the cardinals: “The bread and wine which are placed on the altar are,
after consecration, not merely a sacrament, symbol, or figure, but even
the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is handled by
the hands of the priests, and broken and chewed by the teeth of the
faithful.” He had no sooner escaped from the violence which he had
dreaded, than he shrunk from the tenet to which he had been forced to
give his assent, and he again avowed his original sentiments; but he was
afterward turned aside from his integrity by the arts and the infamous
persecution of new councils, although he died adhering to the
spirituality of Christ’s presence in the eucharist. From this time the
strange opinion of Pascasius rapidly gained ground, being supported by
all the influence of popes and councils; but there had not yet been
devised a term which clearly expressed what was really implied in that
opinion. In the next century, the ingenuity of some theologian invented
what was wanting; the change that takes place on the elements after
consecration having been denominated by him transubstantiation. Still,
however, some latitude was afforded to those who interpreted the
epithet; but this in the thirteenth century was taken away, a celebrated
council of the Lateran, attended by no fewer than four hundred and
twelve bishops, and eight hundred abbots and priors, having, at the
instigation of Innocent the Third, one of the most arrogant and
presumptuous of the pontiffs, explicitly adopted transubstantiation as
an article of faith, in the monstrous form in which it is now held in
the popish church, and denounced anathemas against all who hesitated to
give their assent. The opposition which after this was made to a
doctrine so revolting to the senses and the reason, was very feeble,
insomuch that it may, in consequence of the decree of the Lateran
council, be considered as having become the established faith of the
western church. In the Greek church it was long resisted, and, indeed,
was not embraced till the seventeenth century, a time at which it might
have been thought that it could not have extended the range of its
influence.

After transubstantiation was thus sanctioned, a change necessarily took
place with respect to various parts of the service used in administering
the eucharist. That solemn service was now viewed as an actual sacrifice
or offering of the body of Christ for the sins of men, and the elevation
of the host was held forth as calling for the adoration and worship of
believers; so that an ordinance mercifully designed to preserve the pure
influence of the most spiritual and elevated religion, became the
instrument, in the hands of ignorant or corrupt men, of introducing the
most senseless and degrading idolatry. When the Reformation shook the
influence of the church, and brought into exercise the intellectual
faculties of man, the subject of the eucharist demanded and received the
closest and most anxious attention. It might have been naturally
supposed, that when Luther directed his vigorous mind to point out and
to condemn the abuses which had been sanctioned in the popish church, he
would not have spared a doctrine the most irrational and objectionable
which that church avows, and that he would have vindicated the holy
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper from the abomination with which it had
been associated. He did, indeed, object to transubstantiation, but he
did so with a degree of hesitation truly astonishing, although that
hesitation was displayed by many of the first reformers. He declared
that he saw no warrant for believing that the bread and wine were
actually changed into the body and blood of Christ; but he adhered to
the literal import of our Saviour’s words, teaching that his body and
blood were received, and that they were in some incomprehensible manner
conjoined or united with the bread and wine. It is quite evident, that
although this system got rid of one difficulty by leaving the testimony
of the senses as to the bread and wine unchallenged, yet it is just as
incomprehensible as the other, assumes as a fact what the senses cannot
discern, and involves in it difficulties equally repugnant to the
plainest dictates of reason. Powerful accordingly as most deservedly was
his ascendency, and great as was the veneration with which he was
contemplated, he was upon this point happily opposed; his colleague, the
celebrated Carlostadt, openly avowing, that when our Lord said of the
bread, “This is my body,” he pointed to his own person, and thus taught
that the bread was merely the sign or emblem of it. Luther warmly
resisted this opinion; Carlostadt was obliged, surely in little
consistency with the fundamental principle of Protestantism, in
consequence of having professed it, to leave Wirtemberg; and although it
procured some adherents, yet as it rested upon an assertion of which
there could be no proof, it was never extensively disseminated, and was
ultimately abandoned by Carlostadt himself. The discussion, however,
which he had commenced stimulated others to the consideration of the
subject, and led Zuinglius, who had previously often meditated upon it,
and Œcolampadius, two of the most distinguished reformers, to submit
to the public the doctrine, that the bread and wine are only symbols of
Christ’s body and blood, but that the body of our Lord was in heaven, to
which after his resurrection he had ascended. Luther composed several
works to confute the opinions of Zuinglius. At the commencement of the
controversy respecting the eucharist among the defenders of the
Protestant faith, there seem to have been only two opinions, that of
Luther, asserting that the body and blood of Christ were actually with
the bread and wine, and that of Zuinglius, Œcolampadius, and Bucer,
that the bread and wine were the emblems or signs of Christ’s body and
blood, no other advantage being derived from partaking of them than the
moral effect naturally resulting from the commemoration of an event so
awful and so deeply interesting as the crucifixion of our Redeemer.
Calvin soon published what may be regarded as a new view of the subject.
Admitting the justness of the interpretation of our Lord’s words given
by Zuinglius, he maintained that spiritual influence was conveyed to
worthy partakers of the Lord’s Supper, insomuch that Christ may be said
to be spiritually present with the outward elements. The sentiments of
this most eminent theologian made a deep impression upon the public
mind; and although the churches of Zurich and Berne long adhered to the
creed of Zuinglius, yet, through the perseverance and dexterity of
Calvin, the Swiss Protestant churches at length united with that of
Geneva in assenting to the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper. In other countries, too, he saw many adhering to
what he had taught, and carrying to as great length as it could be
carried what, under his system, must be termed the allegorical language
which he recommended. The French Protestants in their confession thus
express themselves: “We affirm that the holy supper of our Lord is a
witness to us of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, because that he
is not only once dead and raised up again from the dead for us, but also
he doth indeed feed and nourish us with his flesh and blood. And
although he be now in heaven, and shall remain there till he come to
judge the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and incomprehensible
virtue of his Spirit, he doth nourish and quicken us with the substance
of his body and blood. But we say that this is done in a spiritual
manner; nor do we hereby substitute in place of the effect and truth an
idle fancy and conceit of our own; but rather, because this mystery of
our union with Christ is so high a thing that it surmounteth all our
senses, yea and the whole order of nature, and in short, because it is
celestial, it cannot be comprehended but by faith.” Knox, who revered
Calvin, carried into Scotland the opinions of that reformer; and in the
original Scottish confessions, similar language, though somewhat more
guarded than that which has been just quoted, is used: “We assuredly
believe that in the supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with
us, that he becometh the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not
that we imagine any transubstantiation,--but this union and communion
which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use
of the sacrament, is wrought by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who by
true faith carrieth us above all things that are visible, carnal, and
earthly, and maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus.
We most assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion
of Christ’s body, and the cup which we bless is the communion of his
blood; so that we confess and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful in
the right use of the Lord’s table so do eat the body and drink the blood
of the Lord Jesus, that he remaineth in them and they in him; yea, that
they are so made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, that as the
eternal Godhead hath given to the flesh of Christ Jesus life and
immortality, so doth Christ Jesus’s flesh and blood, eaten and drunken
by us, give to us the same prerogatives.” The church of Scotland, which
did not long use this first confession, seems to have seen, in the
course of the following century, the propriety, if not of relinquishing,
yet of more cautiously employing the phraseology now brought into view;
for in the Westminster confession, which is still the standard of faith
in that church, there is unquestionably a great improvement in the style
which has been adopted in treating of this subject. In it the compilers
declare, that “the outward elements in the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation
to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are
sometimes called by the name of the things they represent; namely the
body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still
remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.” Then after
most powerfully exposing the absurdity of transubstantiation,
representing it as repugnant not to Scripture alone, but to reason and
common sense, they proceed: “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of
the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith,
really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually,
receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:
the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in,
with, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present
to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves
are to their outward senses.” The church of England was in its first
reformation from popery inclined to adhere to the Lutherans; but in the
time of Edward the Sixth, a more correct and Scriptural view seems to
have been taken. In the thirty-nine articles, the present creed of the
English church, it is said of this ordinance: “The supper of the Lord is
not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among
themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our
redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly,
worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a
partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup is a partaking of
the blood of Christ.” This strong language is, however, in the same
article, so modified, as to show that all which was intended by it was
to represent the spiritual influence conveyed through the Lord’s Supper;
for it is taught, “that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in
the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” The idea of
Zuinglius, that the Lord’s Supper is merely a commemoration of Christ’s
death, naturally producing a moral effect upon the serious and
considerate mind, has been held by members of both the established
churches in Great Britain. It was vigorously defended, about the
beginning of last century, by Bishop Hoadly, in a work which he
entitled, “A plain Account of the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper;” and it has more recently been supported by Dr. Bell,
in a treatise denominated “An Attempt to ascertain the Authority,
Nature, and Design of the Lord’s Supper.” The ingenuity of particular
individuals has been exerted in giving other peculiar illustrations of
the subject. Cudworth and Bishop Warburton, for example, represented the
sacrament of the supper under the view of a feast upon a sacrifice; but
such speculations have not influenced the faith of any large
denomination of Christians.

TRAVELLING. The mode in which the patriarchs performed their pastoral
migrations will be illustrated, with several differences in
circumstances, by the following extract from Parsons’ Travels: “It was
entertaining enough to see the horde of Arabs decamp, as nothing could
be more regular. First went the sheep and goat herds, each with their
flocks in divisions, according as the chief of each family directed;
then followed the camels and asses, loaded with the tents, furniture,
and kitchen utensils; these were followed by the old men, women, boys,
and girls, on foot. The children that cannot walk are carried on the
backs of the young women, or the boys and girls; and the smallest of the
lambs and kids are carried under the arms of the children. To each tent
belong many dogs, among which are some greyhounds; some tents have from
ten to fourteen dogs, and from twenty to thirty men, women, and
children, belonging to it. The procession is closed by the chief of the
tribe, whom they call emir and father, (emir means prince,) mounted on
the very best horse, and surrounded by the heads of each family, all on
horses, with many servants on foot. Between each family is a division or
space of one hundred yards, or more, when they migrate; and such great
regularity is observed, that neither camels, asses, sheep, nor dogs,
mix, but each keeps to the division to which it belongs, without the
least trouble. They had been here eight days, and were going four hours’
journey to the north-west, to another spring of water. This tribe
consisted of about eight hundred and fifty men, women, and children.
Their flocks of sheep and goats were about five thousand, beside a great
number of camels, horses, and asses. Horses and greyhounds they breed
and train up for sale: they neither kill nor sell their ewe lambs. At
set times a chapter in the Koran is read by the chief of each family,
either in or near each tent, the whole family being gathered round, and
very attentive.” Instead of the Koran of modern times, let us conceive
of Abraham, and other patriarchal emirs, collecting their numerous
dependents and teaching them the true religion, and we then see with
what truth they are called the Lord’s “prophets.”

TREASURE. The Hebrew word signifies any thing collected together,
provisions, or magazines. So they say, a treasure of corn, of wine, of
oil, of honey, Jer. xli, 8; treasures of gold, silver, brass, Ezek.
xxviii, 4; Dan. xi, 43. Snow, winds, hail, rain, waters, are in the
treasuries of God, Psalm cxxxv, 7; Jer. li, 16. The wise men opened
their treasures, Matt. ii, 11, that is, their packets, or bundles, to
offer presents to our Saviour. Joseph acquainted his brethren, when they
found their money returned in their sacks, that God had given them
treasures, Genesis xliii, 23. The treasures of the house of God, whether
in silver, corn, wine, or oil, were under the care of the Levites. The
kings of Judah had also keepers of the treasures both in city and
country, 1 Chron. xxvii, 25; and the places where these magazines were
laid up were called treasure cities. Pharaoh compelled the Hebrews to
build him treasure cities, or magazines.

TREE is the first and largest of the vegetable kind, consisting of a
single trunk, out of which spring forth branches and leaves. Heat is so
essential to the growth of trees, that we see them grow larger and
smaller in a sort of gradation as the climates in which they stand are
more or less hot. The hottest countries yield, in general, the largest
and tallest trees, and those, also, in much greater beauty and variety
than the colder do; and even those plants which are common to both
arrive at a much greater bulk in the southern than in the northern
climates; nay, there are some regions so bleak and chill, that they
raise no vegetables at all to any considerable height. Greenland,
Iceland, and similar places, afford no trees at all; and the shrubs
which grow in them are always little and low. In the warmer climates,
where trees grow to a moderate size, any accidental diminution of the
common heat is found very greatly to impede vegetation; and even in
England the cold summers we sometimes have give us an evident proof of
this in the scarcity of produce from all our large fruit trees. Heat,
whatever be the producing cause, acts as well upon vegetation one way as
another. Thus the heat of manure, and the artificial heat of coal fires
in stoves, are found to supply the place of the sun. Great numbers of
the eastern trees, in their native soil, flower twice in a year, and
some flower and bear ripe fruit all the year round; and it is observed
of these last, that they are at once the most frequent and the most
useful to the inhabitants; their fruits, which always hang on them in
readiness, containing cool juices, which are good in fevers, and other
of the common diseases of hot countries. The umbrageous foliage, with
which the God of providence has generally furnished all trees in warm
climates, affords a most refreshing and grateful shade to those who seek
relief from the direct and hurtful rays of a tropical sun.

The Land of Promise cannot boast, like many other countries, of
extensive woods; but considerable thickets of trees and of reeds
sometimes arise to diversify and adorn the scene. Between the Lake
Samochonites and the sea of Tiberias, the river Jordan is almost
concealed by shady trees from the view of the traveller. When the waters
of the Jordan are low, the Lake Samochonites is only a marsh, for the
most part dry and overgrown with shrubs and reeds. In these thickets,
among other ferocious animals, the wild boar seeks a covert from the
burning rays of the sun. Large herds of them are sometimes to be seen on
the banks of the river, near the sea of Tiberias, lying among the reeds,
or feeding under the trees. Such moist and shady places are in all
countries the favourite haunts of these fierce and dangerous animals.
Those marshy coverts are styled woods in the sacred Scriptures; for the
wild boar of the wood is the name which that creature receives from the
royal psalmist: “The boar out of the wood doth waste it; and the wild
beast of the field doth devour it,” Psalm lxxx, 13. The wood of Ephraim,
where the battle was fought between the forces of Absalom and the
servants of David, was probably a place of the same kind; for the sacred
historian observes, that the wood devoured more people that day than the
sword, 2 Sam. xviii, 8. Some have supposed the meaning of this passage
to be, that the soldiers of Absalom were destroyed by the wild beasts of
the wood; but it can scarcely be supposed, that in the reign of David,
when the Holy Land was crowded with inhabitants, the wild beasts could
be so numerous in one of the woods as to cause such a destruction. But,
supposing the wood of Ephraim to have been a morass covered with trees
and bushes, like the haunts of the wild boar near the banks of Jordan,
the difficulty is easily removed. It is certain that such a place has
more than once proved fatal to contending armies, partly by suffocating
those who in the hurry of flight inadvertently venture over places
incapable of supporting them, and partly by retarding them till their
pursuers come up and cut them to pieces. In this manner a greater number
of men than fell in the heat of battle may be destroyed. It is probable,
however, that nothing more is intended by the sacred historian, than the
mention of a fact familiar to military men in all ages, and whatever
kind of weapons were then employed in warfare,--that forests, especially
such thick and impassable forests as are common in warm countries,
constitute the very worst ground along which a discomfited army can be
compelled to retreat. Their orderly ranks are broken; the direction
which each warrior for his own safety must take is uncertain; and while
one tumultuous mass is making a pass for itself through intervening
brushwood and closely matted jungle, and another is hurrying along a
different path and encountering similar or perhaps greater impediments,
the cool and deliberate pursuers, whether archers or sharp shooters,
enjoy an immense advantage in being able to choose their own points of
annoyance, and by flank or cross attacks to kill their retreating foes,
with scarcely any risk to themselves, but with immense carnage to the
routed army.

Several critics imagine that by עץ חדר, rendered “goodly trees,” Lev.
xxiii, 40, the citron tree is intended. עץ-עבת, rendered “thick trees”
in the same verse, and in Neh. viii, 15; Ezek. xx, 28, is the myrtle,
according to the rabbins, the Chaldee paraphrase, Syriac version, and
Deodatus. The word אשל, translated “grove” in Gen. xxi, 33, has been
variously translated. Parkhurst renders it an oak, and says, that from
this word may be derived the name of the famous asylum, opened by
Romulus between two groves of oak at Rome. On the other hand, Celsius,
Michaēlis, and Dr. Geddes render it the tamarisk, which is a lofty and
beautiful tree, and grows abundantly in Egypt and Arabia. The same word
in 1 Sam. xxii, 6; xxxi, 13, is rendered “a tree.” It must be noted too,
that in the first of these places, the common version is equally obscure
and contradictory, by making _ramah_ a proper name: it signifies hillock
or bank. Of the trees that produced precious balsams there was one in
particular that long flourished in Judea, having been supposed to have
been an object of great attention to Solomon, which was afterward
transplanted to Matarea, in Egypt, where it continued till about two
hundred and fifty years ago, according to Maillet, who gives a
description of it, drawn, it is supposed, from the Arabian authors, in
which he says, “This shrub had two very differently coloured barks, the
one red, the other perfectly green; that they tasted strongly like
incense and turpentine, and when bruised between the fingers they smelt
very nearly like cardamoms. This balsam, which was extremely precious
and celebrated, and was used by the Coptic church in their chrism, was
produced by a very low shrub; and it is said, that all those shrubs that
produced balsams are every where low, and do not exceed two or three
cubits in height.”

Descriptions of the principal trees and shrubs mentioned in Holy Writ
the reader will find noticed in distinct articles under their several
denominations.

TRIBE. Jacob having twelve sons, who were the heads of so many great
families, which altogether formed a great nation; every one of these
families was called a tribe. But Jacob on his death bed adopted Ephraim
and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, and would have them also to constitute
two tribes of Israel, Gen. xlviii, 5. Instead of twelve tribes, there
were now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in
the distribution of lands to each which Joshua made by the order of God,
they counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe
of Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the
Lord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities
in which to dwell, and the first fruits, tithes, and oblations of the
people, which was all their subsistence. The twelve tribes continued
united under one head, making but one state, one people, and one
monarchy, till after the death of Solomon. Then ten of the tribes of
Israel revolted from the house of David, and received for their king
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin
continued under the government of Rehoboam. This separation may be
looked upon as the chief cause of those great misfortunes that afterward
happened to those two kingdoms, and to the whole Hebrew nation. For,
first, it was the cause of the alteration and change of the old
religion, and of the ancient worship of their forefathers. Jeroboam the
son of Nebat substituted the worship of golden calves for the worship of
the true God; which was the occasion of the ten tribes forsaking the
temple of the Lord. Secondly, this schism caused an irreconcilable
hatred between the ten tribes, and those of Judah and Benjamin, and
created numerous wars and disputes between them. The Lord, being
provoked, delivered them up to their enemies. Tiglath-Pileser first took
away captive the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, which were beyond Jordan, and carried them beyond the
Euphrates, 2 Kings xv, 29; 1 Chron. v, 26; A. M. 3264. Some years after,
Shalmaneser king of Assyria took the city of Samaria, destroyed it, took
away the rest of the inhabitants of Israel, carried them beyond the
Euphrates, and sent other inhabitants into the country to cultivate and
possess it, 2 Kings xvii, 6; xviii, 10, 11. Thus ended the kingdom of
the ten tribes of Israel, A. M. 3283. As to the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin, who remained under the government of the kings of the family
of David, they continued a much longer time in their own country. But at
last, after they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, God
delivered them all into the hands of their enemies. Nebuchadnezzar took
the city of Jerusalem, entirely ruined it, and took away all the
inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and the other provinces of
his empire, A. M. 3416. The return from this captivity is stated in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah. See JEWS.

TRIBUTE. The Hebrews acknowledged none for sovereign over them but God
alone; whence Josephus calls their government a theocracy, or divine
government. They acknowledged the sovereign dominion of God by a
tribute, or capitation tax, of half a shekel a head, which every
Israelite paid yearly, Exod. xxx, 13. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, thus
reasons with St. Peter: “What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings
of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of
strangers?” Matt. xvii, 25, meaning, that as he was the Son of God, he
ought to be exempt from this capitation tax. We do not find that either
the kings or the judges of the Hebrews, when they were themselves Jews,
demanded any tribute of them. Solomon, at the beginning of his reign, 1
Kings xi, 22, 33; 2 Chron. viii, 9, compelled the Canaanites, who were
left in the country, to pay him tribute, and to perform the drudgery of
the public works he had undertaken. As to the children of Israel, he
would not suffer one of them to be employed upon them, but made them his
soldiers, ministers, and chief officers, to command his armies, his
chariots, and his horsemen. Yet, afterward, toward the end of his reign,
he imposed a tribute upon them, and made them work at the public
buildings, 1 Kings v, 13, 14; ix, 15; xi, 27; which much alienated their
minds from him, and sowed the seeds of that discontent which afterward
appeared in an open revolt, by the rebellion of Jeroboam, the son of
Nebat; who was at first indeed obliged to take shelter in Egypt. But
afterward the defection became general, by the total revolt of the ten
tribes. Hence it was, that the Israelites said to Rehoboam the son of
Solomon, “Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore, make thou
the grievous service of thy father, and the heavy yoke which he put upon
us, lighter, and we will serve thee,” 1 Kings xii, 4. It is needless to
observe, that the Israelites were frequently subdued by foreign princes,
who laid great taxes and tribute upon them, to which fear and necessity
compelled them to submit. Yet in the latter times, that is, after
Archelaus had been banished to Vienne in France, in the sixth year of
the vulgar era, and after Judea was reduced to a province, Augustus sent
Quirinius into this country to take a new poll of the people, and to
make a new estimate of their substance, that he might thereby regulate
the tribute that every one was to pay to the Romans. Then Judas,
surnamed the Galilean, formed a sedition, and made an insurrection, to
oppose the levying of this tribute. See in St. Matthew xxii, 16, 17, &c,
the answer that Jesus Christ returned to the Pharisee, who came with an
insidious design of tempting him, and asked him, whether or not it was
lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar? and in John viii, 33, where the Jews
boast of having never been slaves to any body, of being a free nation,
that acknowledged God only for master and sovereign.

TRINITY. That nearly all the Pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop
Tomline, in their various theological systems, acknowledged a kind of
Trinity, has been fully evinced by those learned men who have made the
Heathen mythology the subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost
universal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile kingdoms must be
considered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine
itself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is
so very unlikely to have been the invention of mere human reason, that
there is no way of accounting for the general adoption of so singular a
belief, but by supposing that it was revealed by God to the early
patriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their posterity. In
its progress, indeed, to remote countries, and to distant generations,
this belief became depraved and corrupted in the highest degree; and he
alone who brought “life and immortality to light,” could restore it to
its original simplicity and purity. The discovery of the existence of
this doctrine in the early ages, among the nations whose records have
been the best preserved, has been of great service to the cause of
Christianity, and completely refutes the assertion of infidels and
skeptics, that the sublime and mysterious doctrine of the Trinity owes
its origin to the philosophers of Greece. “If we extend,” says Mr.
Maurice, “our eye through the remote region of antiquity, we shall find
this very doctrine, which the primitive Christians are said to have
borrowed from the Platonic school, universally and immemorially
flourishing in all those countries where history and tradition have
united to fix those virtuous ancestors of the human race, who, for their
distinguished attainments in piety, were admitted to a familiar
intercourse with Jehovah and the angels, the divine heralds of his
commands.” The same learned author justly considers the first two verses
of the Old Testament as containing very strong, if not decisive,
evidence in support of the truth of this doctrine: Elohim, a noun
substantive of the plural number, by which the Creator is expressed,
appears as evidently to point toward a plurality of persons in the
divine nature, as the verb in the singular, with which it is joined,
does to the unity of that nature: “In the beginning God created;” with
strict attention to grammatical propriety, the passage should be
rendered, “In the beginning Gods created,” but our belief in the unity
of God forbids us thus to translate the word Elohim. Since, therefore,
Elohim is plural, and no plural can consist of less than two in number,
and since creation can alone be the work of Deity, we are to understand
by this term so particularly used in this place, God the Father, and the
eternal Logos, or Word of God; that Logos whom St. John, supplying us
with an excellent comment upon this passage, says, was in the beginning
with God, and who also was God. As the Father and the Son are expressly
pointed out in the first verse of this chapter, so is the Third Person
in the blessed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in Gen. i, 2:
“And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters:” “brooded
upon” the water, _incubavit_, as a hen broods over her eggs. Thus we see
the Spirit exerted upon this occasion an active effectual energy, by
that energy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it a powerful
vital principle.

Elohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead
is collectively distinguished in Scripture; and in the concise history
of the creation only, the expression, _bara Elohim_, “the Gods created,”
is used above thirty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb
in the singular would not appear so remarkable, if Moses had uniformly
adhered to that mode of expression; for then it would be evident that he
adopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of their false gods in
the plural number, but by joining with it a singular verb or adjective,
rectified a phrase that might appear to give a direct sanction to the
error of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverse is the fact; for in
Deut. xxxii, 15, 17, and other places, he uses the singular number of
this very noun to express the Deity, though not employed in the august
work of creation: “He forsook God,” _Eloah_; “they sacrificed to devils
not to God,” _Eloah_. But farther, Moses himself uses this very word
Elohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix
enumerates many other striking instances that might be brought from the
Pentateuch; and other inspired writers use it in the same manner in
various parts of the Old Testament, Job xxxv, 10; Joshua xxiv, 19; Psalm
cix, 1; Ecclesiastes xii, 3; 2 Samuel vii, 23. It must appear,
therefore, to every reader of reflection, exceedingly singular, that
when Moses was endeavouring to establish a theological system, of which
the unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it
differed from all other systems, he should make use of terms directly
implicative of a plurality in it; yet so deeply was the awful truth
under consideration impressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legislator,
that this is constantly done by him; and, indeed, as Allix has observed,
there is scarcely any method of speaking from which a plurality in Deity
may be inferred, that is not used either by himself in the Pentateuch,
or by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old Testament.
A plural is joined with a verb singular, as in the passage cited before
from Genesis i, 1; a plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Gen.
xxxv, 7, “And Jacob called the name of the place El-beth-el, because the
Gods there appeared to him;” a plural is joined with an adjective
plural, Joshua xxiv, 19, “You cannot serve the Lord; for he is the holy
Gods.” To these passages, if we add that remarkable one from
Ecclesiastes, “Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth,” and the
predominant use of the terms, Jehovah Elohim, or, the “Lord thy Gods,”
which occur a hundred times in the law, (the word Jehovah implying the
unity of the essence, and Elohim a plurality in that unity,) we must
allow that nothing can be more plainly marked than this doctrine in the
ancient Scriptures.

Though the august name of Jehovah in a more peculiar manner belongs to
God the Father, yet is that name, in various parts of Scripture, applied
to each person in the holy Trinity. The Hebrews considered that name in
so sacred a light, that they never pronounced it, and used the word
Adonai instead of it. It was, indeed, a name that ranked first among
their profoundest cabala; a mystery, sublime, ineffable, incommunicable.
It was called tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and these
letters are _jod_, _he_, _vau_, _he_, the proper pronunciation of which,
from long disuse, is said to be no longer known to the Jews themselves.
This awful name was first revealed by God to Moses from the centre of
the burning bush; and Josephus, who, as well as Scripture, relates this
circumstance, evinces his veneration for it, by calling it the name
which his religion did not permit him to mention. From this word the
Pagan title of Iao and Jove is, with the greatest probability, supposed
to have been originally formed; and in the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,
there is an oath still extant to this purpose, “By Him who has the four
letters.” As the name Jehovah, however, in some instances applied to the
Son and the Holy Spirit, was the proper name of God the Father, so is
Logos in as peculiar a manner the appropriated name of God the Son. The
Chaldee Paraphrasts translate the original Hebrew text by _Mimra da
Jehovah_, literally, “the Word of Jehovah,” a term totally different, as
Bishop Kidder has incontestably proved, in its signification, and in its
general application among the Jews, from the Hebrew _dabar_, which
simply means a discourse or decree, and is properly rendered by
_pithgam_. In the Septuagint translation of the Bible, a work supposed
by the Jews to have been undertaken by men immediately inspired from
above, the former term is universally rendered Λόγος, and it is so
rendered and so understood by Philo and all the more ancient rabbins.
The name of the third person in the ever blessed Trinity has descended
unaltered from the days of Moses to our own time; for, as well in the
sacred writings as by the Targumists, and by the modern doctors of the
Jewish church, he is styled Ruach Hakhodesh, the Holy Spirit. He is
sometimes, however, in the rabbinical books, denominated by Shechinah,
or glory of Jehovah; in some places he is called Sephirah, or Wisdom;
and in others the Binah, or Understanding. From the enumeration of these
circumstances, it must be sufficiently evident to the mind which unites
piety and reflection, that so far from being silent upon the subject,
the ancient Scriptures commence with an avowal of this doctrine, and
that, in fact, the creation was the result of the joint operations of
the Trinity.

If the argument above offered should still appear inconclusive, the
twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains so pointed
an attestation to the truth of it, that, when duly considered, it must
stagger the most hardened skeptic; for in that text not only the
plurality is unequivocally expressed, but the act which is the peculiar
prerogative of Deity is mentioned together with that plurality, the one
circumstance illustrating the other, and both being highly elucidatory
of this doctrine: “And God (Elohim) said, Let _us_ make man in our
image, after our likeness.” Why the Deity should speak of himself in the
plural number, unless that Deity consisted of more than one person, it
is difficult to conceive; for the answer given by the modern Jews, that
this is only a figurative mode of expression, implying the high dignity
of the speaker, and that it is usual for earthly sovereigns to use this
language by way of distinction, is futile, for two reasons. In the first
place it is highly degrading to the Supreme Majesty to suppose he would
take his model of speaking and thinking from man, though it is highly
consistent with the vanity of man to arrogate to himself, as doubtless
was the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages, the style and
imagined conceptions of Deity; and it will be remembered, that these
solemn words were spoken before the creation of any of those mortals,
whose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is thus
impiously supposed to adopt. In truth, there does not seem to be any
real dignity in an expression, which, when used by a human sovereign in
relation to himself, approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine
fact, however, appears to be this. When the tyrants of the east first
began to assume divine honours, they assumed likewise the majestic
language appropriated to, and highly becoming, the Deity, but totally
inapplicable to man. The error was propagated from age to age through a
long succession of despots, and at length Judaic apostasy arrived at
such a pitch of profane absurdity, as to affirm that very phraseology to
be borrowed from man which was the original and peculiar language of the
Divinity. It was, indeed, remarkably pertinent when applied to Deity;
for, in a succeeding chapter, we have more decisive authority for what
is thus asserted, where the Lord God himself says, “Behold, the man is
become as one of us;” a very singular expression, which some Jewish
commentators, with equal effrontery, contend was spoken by the Deity to
the council of angels, that, according to their assertions, attended him
at the creation. From the name of the Lord God being used in so
emphatical a manner, it evidently appears to be addressed to those
sacred persons to whom it was before said, “Let us make man;” for would
indeed the omnipotent Jehovah, presiding in a less dignified council,
use words that have such an evident tendency to place the Deity on a
level with created beings?

The first passage to be adduced from the New Testament in proof of this
important doctrine of the Trinity, is, the charge and commission which
our Saviour gave to his apostles, to “go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost,” Matt. xxviii, 19. The Gospel is every where in Scripture
represented as a covenant or conditional offer of eternal salvation from
God to man; and baptism was the appointed ordinance by which men were to
be admitted into that covenant, by which that offer was made and
accepted. This covenant being to be made with God himself, the ordinance
must of course be performed in his name; but Christ directed that it
should be performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost; and therefore we conclude that God is the same as the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since baptism is to be performed in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must be all
three persons; and since no superiority or difference whatever is
mentioned in this solemn form of baptism, we conclude that these three
persons are all of one substance, power, and eternity. Are we to be
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
and is it possible that the Father should be self-existent, eternal, the
Lord God Omnipotent; and that the Son, in whose name we are equally
baptized, should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to all the
frailties and imperfections of human nature? or, is it possible that the
Holy Ghost, in whose name also we are equally baptized, should be a bare
energy or operation, a quality or power, without even personal
existence? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt from the idea of
such disparity.

This argument will derive great strength from the practice of the early
ages, and from the observations which we meet with in several of the
ancient fathers relative to it. We learn from Ambrose, that persons at
the time of their baptism, declared their belief in the three persons of
the Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three times. In
his Treatise upon the Sacraments he says, “Thou wast asked at thy
baptism, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? and thou didst
reply, I believe, and thou wast dipped; and a second time thou wast
asked, Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ the Lord? thou didst answer
again, I believe, and thou wast dipped; a third time the question was
repeated, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? and the answer was, I
believe, then thou wast dipped a third time.” It is to be noticed, that
the belief, here expressed separately, in the three persons of the
Trinity, is precisely the same in all. Tertullian, Basil, and Jerom, all
mention this practice of trine immersion as ancient; and Jerom says, “We
are thrice dipped in the water, that the mystery of the Trinity may
appear to be but one. We are not baptized in the names of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is God’s; and, therefore, though
we be thrice put under water to represent the mystery of the Trinity,
yet it is reputed but one baptism.” Thus the mysterious union of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, was, in the opinion of
the purer ages of the Christian church, clearly expressed in this form
of baptism. By it the primitive Christians understood the Father’s
gracious acceptance of the atonement offered by the Messiah; the
peculiar protection of the Son, our great High Priest and Intercessor;
and the readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and to
comfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirmed by the visible
gift of tongues, of prophecy, and divers other gifts to the first
disciples. And as their great Master’s instructions evidently
distinguished these persons from each other, without any difference in
their authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispensing the
benefits of Christianity, as equally the objects of the faith required
in converts upon admission into the church, they clearly understood that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the
objects of their grateful worship: this fully appears from their
prayers, doxologies, hymns, and creeds, which are still extant.

The second passage to be produced in support of the doctrine now under
consideration, is, the doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul’s Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.” The
manner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are here mentioned, implies
that they are persons, for none but persons can confer grace or
fellowship; and these three great blessings of grace, love, and
fellowship, being respectively prayed for by the inspired apostle from
Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, without any intimation
of disparity, we conclude that these three persons are equal and Divine.
This solemn benediction may therefore be considered as another proof of
the Trinity, since it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus Christ and of
the Holy Ghost. The third passage is the following salutation or
benediction in the beginning of the Revelation of St. John: “Grace and
peace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from
the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ.”
Here the Father is described by a periphrasis taken from his attribute
of eternity; and “the seven spirits” is a mystical expression for the
Holy Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salutation is
addressed to seven churches, every one of which had partaken of the
Spirit, or because seven was a sacred number among the Jews, denoting
both variety and perfection, and in this case alluding to the various
gifts, administrations, and operations of the Holy Ghost. Since grace
and peace are prayed for from these three persons jointly and without
discrimination, we infer an equality in their power to dispense those
blessings; and we farther conclude that these three persons together
constitute the Supreme Being, who is alone the object of prayer, and is
alone the Giver of every good and of every perfect gift. It might be
right to remark, that the seven spirits cannot mean angels, since
prayers are never in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings
ever pronounced in their name. It is unnecessary to quote any of the
numerous passages in which the Father is singly called God, as some of
them must be recollected by every one, and the divinity of the Father is
not called in question by any sect of Christians; and those passages
which prove the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost separately,
will be more properly considered under those heads. In the mean time we
may observe, that if it shall appear from Scripture, that Christ is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God, it will follow, since we are assured that
there is but one God, that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, by a mysterious union, constitute the one God, or, as it
is expressed in the first article of the church of England: “There is a
Trinity in Unity; and in the unity of this Godhead there be three
Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.”

The word Trinity does not occur in Scripture, nor do we find it in any
of the early confessions of faith; but this is no argument against the
doctrine itself, since we learn from the fathers of the first three
centuries, that the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost was, from
the days of the Apostles, acknowledged by the catholic church, and that
those who maintained a contrary opinion were considered as heretics; and
as every one knows that neither the divinity of the Father, nor the
unity of the Godhead, was ever called in question at any period, it
follows that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity has been in substance,
in all its constituent parts, always known among Christians. In the
fourth century it became the subject of eager and general controversy;
and it was not till then that this doctrine was particularly discussed.
While there was no denial or dispute, proof and defence were
unnecessary: _Nunquid enim perfecté de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam
oblatrarent Ariani?_ But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being
admitted among catholic Christians, by writers who lived long before
that age of controversy. Justin Martyr, in refuting the charge of
atheism urged against Christians, because they did not believe in the
gods of the Heathen, expressly says, “We worship and adore the Father,
and the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the
prophetic Spirit;” and soon after, in the same apology, he undertakes to
show the reasonableness of the honour paid by Christians to the Father
in the first place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost in
the third; and says, that their assigning the second place to a
crucified man, was, by unbelievers, denominated madness, because they
were ignorant of the mystery, which he then proceeds to explain.
Athenagoras, in replying to the same charge of atheism urged against
Christians, because they refused to worship the false gods of the
Heathen, says, “Who would not wonder, when he knows that we, who call
upon God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing
their power in the unity, and their distinction in order, should be
called atheists?” Clement of Alexandria not only mentions three divine
persons, but invokes them as one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius, and other
Unitarians, accused the orthodox Christians of tritheism, which is of
itself a clear proof that the orthodox worshipped the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost; and though in reality they considered these three
persons as constituting the one true God, it is obvious that their
enemies might easily represent that worship as an acknowledgment of
three Gods. Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, maintains, that a
Trinity rationally conceived is consistent with truth, and that unity
irrationally conceived forms heresy. He had before said, in speaking of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that “there are three of one substance,
and of one condition, and of one power, because there is one God:” and
he afterward adds, “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the
Son in the Comforter, makes three united together, the one with the
other; which three are one thing, not one person; as it is said, I and
the Father are one thing, with regard to the unity of substance, not to
the singularity of number:” and he also expressly says, “The Father is
God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God;” and again, “The
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute
one God.” And in another part of his works he says, “There is a Trinity
of one Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” And
Tertullian not only maintains these doctrines, but asserts that they
were prior to any heresy, and had, indeed, been the faith of Christians
from the first promulgation of the Gospel. To these writers of the
second century, we may add Origen and Cyprian in the third; the former
of whom mentions baptism (alluding to its appointed form) as “the source
and fountain of graces to him who dedicates himself to the divinity of
the adorable Trinity.” And the latter, after reciting the same form of
baptism, says that “by it Christ delivered the doctrine of the Trinity,
unto which mystery or sacrament the nations were to be baptized.” It
would be easy to multiply quotations upon this subject; but these are
amply sufficient to show the opinions of the early fathers, and to
refute the assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention
of the fourth century. To these positive testimonies may be subjoined a
negative argument: those who acknowledged the divinity of Christ and of
the Holy Ghost, are never called heretics by any writer of the first
three centuries; and this circumstance is surely a strong proof that the
doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the primitive church; more
especially, since the names of those who first denied the divinity of
Christ and of the Holy Ghost, are transmitted to us as of persons who
dissented from the common faith of Christians.

But while we contend that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is
founded in Scripture, and supported by the authority of the early
Christians, we must acknowledge that it is not given to man to
understand in what manner the three persons are united, or how,
separately and jointly, they are God. It would, perhaps, have been well,
if divines, in treating this awful and mysterious subject, had confined
themselves to the expressions of Scripture; for the moment we begin to
explain it beyond the written word of God, we plunge ourselves into
inextricable difficulties. And how can it be otherwise? Is it to be
expected that our finite understandings should be competent to the full
comprehension of the nature and properties of an infinite Being? “Can we
find out the Almighty to perfection,” Job xi, 7; or penetrate into the
essence of the Most High? “God is a Spirit,” John iv, 24, and our gross
conceptions are but ill-adapted to the contemplation of a pure and
spiritual Being. We know not the essence of our own mind, nor the
precise distinction of its several faculties; and why then should we
hope to comprehend the personal characters which exist in the Godhead?
“If I tell you earthly things, and you understand them not, how shall ye
understand if I tell you heavenly things?” When we attempt to
investigate the nature of the Deity, whose existence is commensurate
with eternity, by whose power the universe was created, and by whose
wisdom it is governed; whose presence fills all space, and whose
knowledge extends to the thoughts of every man in every age, and to the
events of all places, past, present, and to come, the mind is quickly
lost in the vastness of these ideas, and, unable to find any sure guide
to direct its progress, it becomes, at every step, more bewildered and
entangled in the endless mazes of metaphysical abstraction. “God is a
God that hideth himself.” “We cannot by searching find out God.”
“Behold, God is great, and we know him not,” Job xxiii, 9; xi, 7; xxxvi,
26. “Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for us; it is high;
we cannot attain unto it,” Psalm cxxxix, 6. It is for us, simply and in
that docile spirit which becomes us, to receive the testimony of God as
to himself, and to fix ourselves upon that firmest of all foundations,
and most rational of all evidence, “Thus saith the Lord.”

TRIUMPHS, MILITARY. The Hebrews, under the direction of inspired
prophets, celebrated their victories by triumphal processions, the women
and children dancing, and playing upon musical instruments, and singing
hymns and songs of triumph to the living and true God. The song of Moses
at the Red Sea, which was sung by Miriam and the women of Israel to the
dulcet beat of the timbrel, is a majestic example of the triumphal hymns
of the ancient Hebrews. The song of Deborah and Barak, after the
decisive battle in which Sisera lost his life, and Jabin his dominion
over the tribes of Israel, is a production of the same sort, in which
the spirit of genuine heroism and of true religion are admirably
combined. But the song which the women of Israel chanted when they went
out to meet Saul and his victorious army, after the death of Goliath,
and the discomfiture of the Philistines, possesses somewhat of a
different character, turning chiefly on the valorous exploits of Saul
and the youthful champion of Israel: “And it came to pass, as they came,
when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the
women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet
King Saul with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music: and the
women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his
thousands, and David his ten thousands,” 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7. But the
most remarkable festivity, perhaps, on the records of history, was
celebrated by Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, in a succeeding age. When
that religious prince led forth his army to battle against a powerful
confederacy of his neighbours, he appointed a band of sacred music to
march in front, praising the beauty of holiness as they went before the
army, “and to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever.”
After the discomfiture of their enemies, he assembled his army in the
valley of Beracha, near the scene of victory, where they resumed the
anthem of religious praise: “Then they returned, every man of Judah and
Jerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in the fore front of them, to go again to
Jerusalem with joy; for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their
enemies. And they came to Jerusalem with psalteries, and harps, and
trumpets, unto the house of the Lord,” 2 Chron. xx, 21, 27. Instead of
celebrating his own heroism, or the valour of his troops, on this
memorable occasion, that excellent prince sung with his whole army the
praises of the Lord of hosts, who disposes of the victory according to
his pleasure. This conduct was becoming the descendant and successor of
David, the man according to God’s own heart, and a religious people, the
peculiar inheritance of Jehovah.

The Roman conquerors used to carry branches of palm in their hands when
they went in triumph to the capitol; and sometimes wore the _toga
palmata_, a garment with the figures of palm trees upon it, which were
interwoven in the fabric. In the same triumphant attitude, the Apostle
John beheld in vision those who had overcome by the blood of the lamb,
standing “before the throne, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands,” Rev. vii, 9. The highest military honour which could be
obtained in the Roman state, was a triumph, or solemn procession, in
which a victorious general and his army advanced through the city to the
capitol. He set out from the Campus Martius, and proceeded along the Via
Triumphalis, and from thence through the most public places of the city.
The streets were strewed with flowers, and the altars smoked with
incense. First went a numerous band of music, singing and playing
triumphal songs; next were led the oxen to be sacrificed, having their
horns gilt, and their heads adorned with fillets and garlands; then, in
carriages, were brought the spoils taken from the enemy; also golden
crowns sent by the allied and tributary states. The titles of the
vanquished nations were inscribed on wooden frames; and images or
representations of the conquered countries and cities were exhibited.
The captive leaders followed in chains, with their children and
attendants; after the captives came the lictors, having their faces
wreathed with laurel, followed by a great company of musicians and
dancers, dressed like satyrs, and wearing crowns of gold; in the midst
of whom was a pantomime, clothed in a female garb, whose business it
was, with his looks and gestures, to insult the vanquished; a long train
of persons followed, carrying perfumes; after them came the general,
dressed in purple, embroidered with gold, with a crown of laurel on his
head, a branch of laurel in his right hand, and in his left an ivory
sceptre, with an eagle on the top, his face painted with vermilion, and
a golden ball hanging from his neck on his breast; he stood upright in a
gilded chariot, adorned with ivory, and drawn by four white horses,
attended by his relations, and a great crowd of citizens, all in white.
His children rode in the chariot along with him; his lieutenants and
military tribunes, commonly by his side. After the general followed the
consuls and senators, on foot; and the whole procession was closed by
the victorious army drawn up in order, crowned with laurel, and
decorated with the gifts which they had received for their valour,
singing their own and their general’s praises. The triumphal procession
was not confined to the Romans; the Greeks had a similar custom; for the
conquerors used to make a procession through the middle of their city,
crowned with garlands, repeating hymns and songs, and brandishing their
spears; the captives followed in chains, and all their spoils were
exposed to public view.

The great Apostle of the Gentiles alludes to these splendid triumphal
scenes in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he mentions the glorious
ascension of his Redeemer into heaven: “When he ascended up on high, he
led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,” Eph. iv, 8. These words
are a quotation from the sixty-eighth Psalm, where David in spirit
describes the ascension of Messiah in very glowing colours: “The
chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord
is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on
high, thou hast led captivity captive,” or an immense number of
captives; “thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious
also; that the Lord God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who
daily loadeth us with his benefits, even the God of our salvation.
Selah,” Psalm lxviii, 17–19. Knowing the deep impression which such an
allusion is calculated to make on the mind of a people familiarly
acquainted with triumphal scenes, the Apostle returns to it in his
Epistle to the Colossians, which was written about the same time:
“Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly, triumphing over them in it,” Col. ii, 15. After obtaining a
complete victory over all his enemies, he ascended in splendour and
triumph into his Father’s presence on the clouds of heaven, the chariots
of the Most High, thousands of holy angels attending in his train; he
led the devil and all his angels, together with sin, the world, and
death, as his spoils of war, and captives in chains, and exposed them to
open contempt and shame, in the view of all his angelic attendants,
triumphing like a glorious conqueror over them, in virtue of his cross,
upon which he made complete satisfaction for sin, and by his own
strength, without the assistance of any creature, destroyed him that had
the power of death, that is, the devil. And as mighty princes were
accustomed to scatter largesses among the people, and reward their
companions in arms with a liberal hand, when, laden with the spoils of
vanquished nations, they returned in triumph to their capital; so the
Conqueror of death and hell, when he ascended far above all heavens, and
sat down in the midst of the throne, shed forth blessings of his grace
and Holy Spirit, upon people of every tongue and of every nation.

The officers and soldiers, also, were rewarded according to their merit.
Among the Romans, the noblest reward which a soldier could receive, was
the crown, made of leaves. Alluding to this high distinction, the
Apostle says to his son Timothy, “I have fought a good fight; henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, will give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto
all them also that love his appearing,” 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. And lest any
one should imagine that the Christian’s crown is perishable in its
nature, and soon fades away, like a crown of oak leaves, the Apostle
Peter assures the faithful soldier of Christ that his crown is
infinitely more valuable and lasting: “Ye shall receive a crown of glory
that fadeth not away,” 1 Peter v, 4. And this account is confirmed by
St. James: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is
tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised
to them that love him,” James i, 12. The military crowns were conferred
by the general in presence of his army; and such as received them, after
a public eulogium on their valour, were placed next his person. The
Christian also receives his unmerited reward from the hand of the
Captain of his salvation: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give
thee a crown of life,” Rev. ii, 10. And, like the brave veteran of
ancient times, he is promoted to a place near his Lord: “To him that
overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also
overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne,” Rev. iii, 21.

TROAS, a city of Phrygia, or of Mysia, upon the Hellespont, having the
old city of Troy to the north, and that of Assos to the south. Sometimes
the name of Troas is put for the province, wherein the city of Troy
stood. St. Paul was at Troas, when he had the vision of the Macedonian
inviting him to come and preach in that kingdom, Acts xvi, 8. Beside
this, the Apostle was several times at Troas; but we know nothing
particular of his transactions there, Acts xx, 5, 6; 2 Cor. ii, 14; 2
Tim. iv, 13.

TROPHIMUS, a disciple of St. Paul, and an Ephesian by birth. He came
from Ephesus to Corinth with the Apostle, and kept him company in his
whole journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, A. D. 58, Acts xx, 4. When St.
Paul was in the temple there, the Jews laid hold of him, crying out,
“Men of Israel, help; this is the man that teacheth all men every where
against the people, and the law, and this place; and farther, brought
Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place,” Acts
xxi, 28, 29. And this they said, because certain Jews of Ephesus having
seen Trophimus with St. Paul in the city, whom they looked upon as a
Gentile, imagined that St. Paul had introduced him into the temple. The
whole city was immediately in an uproar, and St. Paul was secured.
Trophimus afterward accompanied St. Paul; for that Apostle writes to
Timothy, that he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus, 2 Tim. iv, 20.

TRUMPET. The Lord commanded Moses to make two trumpets of beaten silver,
to be employed in calling the people together when they were to decamp,
Num. x, 2, 3, &c. They also chiefly made use of these trumpets, to
proclaim the beginning of the civil year, the beginning of the
Sabbatical year, and the beginning of the jubilee, Lev. xxv, 9, 10.
Josephus says, that these trumpets were near a cubit long; and had a
tube, or pipe, of the thickness of a common flute. Their mouths were
only wide enough to be blown into, and their ends were like those of a
modern trumpet. At first there were but two in the camp, but afterward a
greater number were made. Even in the time of Joshua there were seven of
them, Joshua vi, 4. At the dedication of the temple of Solomon six-score
priests sounded as many trumpets, 2 Chron. v, 12. Beside the sacred
trumpets of the temple, the use of which was restrained to the priests
only, in war there were others, which the generals sometimes employed
for gathering their troops together. For example, Ehud sounded the
trumpet, to assemble the Israelites against the Moabites, who oppressed
them, and whose king Eglon he had lately slain, Judg. vi, 27. Gideon
took a trumpet in his hand, and gave every one of his people one, when
he assaulted the Midianites, Judges vii, 2, 16. Joab sounded the
trumpet, to give the signal of retreat to his soldiers, in the battle
against those of Abner’s party, and in that against Absalom; and lastly,
in the pursuit of Sheba the son of Bichri, 2 Sam. ii, 28; xviii, 16; xx,
22. The feast of trumpets was kept on the first day of the seventh month
of the sacred year, the first of the civil year. See MUSIC.

TRUTH is used, 1. In opposition to falsehood, lies, or deceit, Prov.
xii, 17, &c. 2. It signifies fidelity, sincerity, and punctuality in
keeping promises; and to truth taken in this sense is generally joined
mercy or kindness, as in Gen. xxiv, 27, and other places of Scripture.
3. Truth is put for the true doctrine of the Gospel, Galatians iii, 1.
4. Truth is put for the substance of the types and ceremonies of the
law, John i, 17.

TUBAL, the fifth son of Japheth. The Scripture commonly joins together
Tubal and Meshech, which makes it thought that they peopled countries
bordering upon each other. The Chaldee interpreters, by Tubal and
Meshech understand Italy and Asia, or rather Ausonia. Josephus accounts
them to be Iberia and Cappadocia. St. Jerom affirms that Tubal
represents the Spaniards, heretofore called Iberians. Bochart is very
copious in proving, that by Meshech and Tubal are intended the
Muscovites and the Tibarenians.

TUBAL-CAIN, or THUBAL-CAIN, son of Lamech the bigamous, and of Zillah,
Gen. ix, 29. The Scriptures tell us, that he was the father and
inventor, or master, of the art of forging and managing iron, and of
making all kinds of iron-work. There is great reason to believe that
this was the Vulcan of the Heathens.

TURTLE, תזו, τρυγὼν, Gen. xv, 9; Lev. i, 14; v, 7, 11; xii, 6, 8; xiv,
22, 30; xv, 14, 29; Num. vi, 10; Psalm lxxiv, 19; Cant. ii, 12; Jer.
viii, 7; τρυγὼν, Luke ii, 24. We have the authority of the Septuagint,
the Targum, and of all the ancient interpreters, for understanding this
of the turtle. Indeed, it is one of those evident instances in which the
name of the bird is by _onomatopœia_ formed from its note or cry. The
turtle is mentioned among migratory birds by Jeremiah viii, 7, and in
this sense differs from the rest of its family, which are all
stationary. The fact to which the prophet alludes is attested by
Aristotle in these words: “The pigeon and the dove are always present,
but the turtle only in summer: that bird is not seen in winter.” And in
another part of his work, he asserts that the dove remains, while the
turtle migrates. Varro, and other ancient writers, make the like
statement. Thus Solomon, Cant. ii, 12, mentions the return of this bird
as one of the indications of spring: “The voice of the turtle is heard
in the land.” See DOVE.

TYCHICUS, a disciple of St. Paul, whom the Apostle often employed to
carry his letters to the several churches. He was of the province of
Asia, and accompanied St. Paul, when, in A. D. 58, he made his journey
from Corinth to Jerusalem, Acts xx, 4. It was he that carried the
epistle to the Colossians, that to the Ephesians, and the first to
Timothy. St. Paul did not send him merely to carry his letters, but also
to learn the state of the churches, and to bring him an account of them.
Wherefore he calls him his dear brother, a faithful minister of the
Lord, and his companion in the service of God, Eph. vi, 21, 22; Col. iv,
7, 8. He had thoughts also of sending him into Crete, to preside over
that church in the absence of Titus, iii, 12.

TYPE. This word is not frequently used in Scripture; but what it
signifies is supposed to be very frequently implied. We usually consider
a type as an example, pattern, or general similitude to a person, event,
or thing which is to come: and in this it differs from a representation,
memorial, or commemoration of an event, &c, which is past. The Spirit of
God has adopted a variety of means to indicate his perfect foreknowledge
of all events, and his power to control them. This is sometimes declared
by express verbal prophecy; sometimes by specific actions performed by
divine command; and sometimes by those peculiar events, in the lives of
individuals, and the history or religious observances of the Israelites,
which were caused to bear a designed reference to some parts of the
Gospel history. The main point, says Chevallier, in an inquiry into
these historical types, is to establish the fact of a preconcerted
connection between the two series of events. No similarity, in itself,
is sufficient to prove such a correspondence. Even those recorded in
Scripture are recorded under very different circumstances. If the first
event be declared to be typical, at the time when it occurs, and the
second correspond with the prediction so delivered, there can be no
doubt that the correspondence was designed. If, before the occurrence of
the second event, there be delivered a distinct prophecy, that it will
happen, and will correspond with some previous event; the fulfilment of
the prophecy furnishes an intrinsic proof, that the person who gave it
spake by divine inspiration. It may not, from this fact, follow, that
the two events were connected by a design formed before either of them
occurred: but it certainly does follow, that the second event, in some
measure, had respect to the first; and that whatever degree of
connection was, by such a prophet, assumed to exist, did really exist.
If, again, no specific declaration be made, respecting the typical
character of any event or person, until after the second event has
occurred, which is then declared to have been prefigured; the fact of
preconcerted connection will rest solely upon the authority of the
person who advances the assertion. But, if we know, from other sources,
that his words are the words of truth, our only inquiry will be, if he
either distinctly asserts, or plainly infers, the existence of a
designed correspondence. The fact, then, of a preconcerted connection
between two series of events, is capable of being established in three
ways: and the historical types may be accordingly arranged in three
principal divisions. Some of them afford intrinsic evidence, that the
Scriptures, which record them, are given by inspiration of God; the
others can be proved to exist only by assuming that fact: but all, when
once established, display the astonishing power and wisdom of God; and
the importance of that scheme of redemption, which was ushered into the
world with such magnificent preparations. In contemplating this
wonderful system, we discern one great intention interwoven, not only
into the verbal prophecies and extraordinary events of the history of
the Israelites, but into the ordinary transactions of the lives of
selected individuals, even from the creation of the world. Adam was “the
figure of him that was to come,” Romans v, 14. Melchisedec was “made
like unto the Son of God,” Heb. vii, 3. Abraham, in the course of events
in which he was engaged by the especial command of Heaven, was enabled
to see Christ’s day, John viii, 56; and Isaac was received from the dead
“in a figure,” Heb. xi, 19. At a later period, the paschal lamb was
ordained to be sacrificed, not only as a memorial of the immediate
deliverance, which it was instituted to procure and to commemorate, but
also as a continued memorial of that which was to be “fulfilled in the
kingdom of God,” Luke xxii, 16. Moses was raised up to deliver the
people of Israel; to be to them a lawgiver, a prophet, a priest; and to
possess the regal authority, if not the title of king. But, during the
early period of his life, he was himself taught, that one great prophet
should be raised up like unto him: before his death he delivered the
same prophecy to the people: and, after that event, the Israelites
continually looked for that faithful prophet, who should return answer
to their inquiries, 1 Macc. iv, 46; xiv, 41. Their prophets all pointed
to some greater lawgiver, who should introduce a new law into their
hearts, and inscribe them upon their minds, Jer. xxxi, 33. The whole
people of Israel were also made, in some instances, designedly
representative of Christ: and the events, which occurred in their
national history, distinctly referred to him. During their wanderings in
the wilderness, God left not himself without witness, which should bear
reference to the great scheme of the Gospel. They ate spiritual meat. It
was an emblem of the true bread of life, which came down from heaven,
John vi, 32. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Christ,” 1 Cor. x, 4. They were destroyed of serpents; and
a brazen serpent was lifted up on a pole, that whosoever looked might
live. It was a sensible figure of the Son of man, who was, in like
manner to be lifted up; “that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal life,” John iii, 15. Beside, their religious
ordinances were only “a figure for the time then present,” Heb. ix, 9.
Their tabernacle was made after the pattern of heavenly things, Heb.
viii, 5; Exod. xxv, 9, 40; and was intended to prefigure the “greater
and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,” Heb. ix, 11. The high
priest was a living representative of the great “High Priest of our
profession,” Heb. iii, 1: and the Levitical sacrifices plainly had
respect to the one great sacrifice for sins. Joshua the son of Nun
represented Jesus in name: and by his earthly conquests in some measure
prefigured the heavenly triumphs of his Lord. In a subsequent period,
David was no indistinct type of “the Messiah the Prince,” Dan. ix, 25,
for a long time humbled, and at length triumphant over his enemies. And
the peaceable dominion of Solomon prefigured that eternal rest and
peace, which remaineth to the people of God. In a still later age, the
miraculous preservation of the Prophet Jonah displayed a sign, which was
fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. And when the temple was
rebuilt, Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest, and his fellows,
were set forth as “men of sign,” representatives of the Branch, which
should, in the fulness of time, be raised up to the stem of Jesse, Zech.
iii, 8; Isa. xi, 1. The illustration, then, to be derived from the
historical types of the Old Testament, is found diffused over the whole
period, which extends from the creation of the world, to the time when
vision and prophecy were sealed. And all the light, which emanates from
so many various points, is concentrated in the person of Christ.

TYRANNUS. It is said in Acts xix, 9, that St. Paul being at Ephesus, and
seeing that the Jews to whom he preached, instead of being converted,
were rather more hardened and obstinate, he withdrew from their society,
nor went to preach in their synagogue, but taught every day in the
school of one Tyrannus. It is inquired, Who was this Tyrannus? Some
think him to have been a prince or great lord, who accommodated the
Apostle with his house, in which to receive and instruct his disciples.
But the generality conclude, that Tyrannus was a converted Gentile, a
friend of St. Paul, to whom he withdrew.

TYRE, or TYRUS, was a famous city of Phenicia. Its Hebrew name is צור or
צר, which signifies a rock. The city of Tyre was allotted to the tribe
of Asher, Joshua xix, 29, with the other maritime cities of the same
coast; but it does not appear that the Asherites ever drove out the
Canaanites. Isaiah, xxiii, 12, calls Tyre the daughter of Sidon, that
is, a colony from it. Homer never speaks of Tyre, but only of Sidon.
Josephus says, that Tyre was built not above two hundred and forty years
before the temple of Solomon; which would be in A. M. 2760, two hundred
years after Joshua. Tyre was twofold, insular and continental. Insular
Tyre was certainly the most ancient; for this it was which was noticed
by Joshua: the continental city, however, as being more commodiously
situated, first grew into consideration, and assumed the name of
Palætyrus, or Old Tyre. Want of sufficient attention to this
distinction, has embarrassed both the Tyrian chronology and geography.
Insular Tyre was confined to a small rocky island, eight hundred paces
long, and four hundred broad, and could never exceed two miles in
circumference. But Tyre, on the opposite coast, about half a mile from
the sea, was a city of vast extent, since many centuries after its
demolition by Nebuchadnezzar, the scattered rains measured nineteen
miles round, as we learn from Pliny and Strabo. Of these, the most
curious and surprising are, the cisterns of Roselayne, designed to
supply the city with water; of which there are three still entire; about
one or two furlongs from the sea, so well described by Maundrell, for
their curious construction and solid masonry. Old Tyre withstood the
mighty Assyrian power, having been besieged in vain, by Shalmaneser, for
five years; although he cut off their supplies of water from the
cisterns; which they remedied by digging wells within the city. It
afterward held out thirteen years against Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, and was at length taken; but not until the Tyrians had removed
their effects to the insular town, and left nothing but the bare walls
to the victor, which he demolished. What completed the destruction of
the city was, that Alexander afterward made use of these materials to
build a prodigious causeway, or isthmus, above half a mile long, to the
insular city, which revived, as the phœnix, from the ashes of the
old, and grew to great power and opulence, as a maritime state; and
which he stormed after a most obstinate siege of five months. Pococke
observes, that “there are no signs of the ancient city; and as it is a
sandy shore, the face of every thing is altered, and the great aqueduct
is in many parts almost buried in the sand.” Thus has been fulfilled the
prophecy of Ezekiel: “Thou shalt be built no more: though thou be sought
for, yet shalt thou never be found again,” Ezek. xxvi, 21. The fate of
insular Tyre has been no less remarkable. When Alexander stormed the
city, he set fire to it. This circumstance was foretold. “Tyre did build
herself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold
as the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he
will smite her power in the sea, and she shall be devoured with fire,”
Zech. ix, 3, 4. After this terrible calamity, Tyre again retrieved her
losses. Only eighteen years after, she had recovered such a share of her
ancient commerce and opulence, as enabled her to stand a siege of
fourteen months against Antigonus, before he could reduce the city; but
after this, Tyre fell alternately under the dominion of the kings of
Syria and Egypt, and then of the Romans, until it was taken by the
Saracens, about A. D. 639, retaken by the Crusaders, A. D. 1124; and at
length sacked and razed by the Mamelukes of Egypt, with Sidon, and other
strong towns, that they might no longer harbour the Christians, A. D.
1289.

The final desolation of Tyre was thus foretold: “I will scrape her dust
from her, and make her like the top of a rock: it shall be a place for
the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it,
saith the Lord God.” “I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou
shalt be a place to spread nets upon: thou shalt be built no more; for I
the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.” Nothing can be more
literally and astonishingly executed than this sentence. Huetius relates
of one Hadrianus Parvillerius, that “when he approached the ruins of
Tyre, and beheld the rocks stretched forth to the sea, and the great
stones scattered up and down on the shore, made clean and smooth by the
sun and waves and wind, and useful only for the drying of fishermen’s
nets, many of which happened at that time to be spread thereon, it
brought to his memory the prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Tyre, that such
should be its fate.” Maundrell, who visited the Holy Land, A. D. 1697,
describes it thus: “This city, standing in the sea upon a peninsula,
promises at a distance, something very magnificent; but when you come to
it, you find no similitude of that glory for which it was so renowned in
ancient times, and which the Prophet Ezekiel describes, xxvi, xxvii,
xxviii. On the north side it has an old Turkish ungarrisoned castle;
beside which, you see nothing here but a mere Babel of broken walls,
pillars, vaults, &c; there being not so much as one entire house left!
Its present inhabitants are only a few poor wretches harbouring
themselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly by fishing: who seem to
be preserved in this place by Divine Providence, as a visible argument
how God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, namely, that it should
be as the top of a rock; a place for fishers to dry their nets upon,
Ezek. xxvi, 14.” Hasselquist, who saw it since, in A. D. 1751, observes
as follows: “None of those cities which were formerly famous are so
totally ruined as Tyre, now called Zur; except Troy. Zur now scarcely
can be called a miserable village, though it was formerly Tyre, the
queen of the sea. Here are about ten inhabitants, Turks and Christians,
who live by fishing.” Bruce, who visited this country about eighty years
after Maundrell, says, that “passing by Tyre from curiosity, I came to
be a mournful witness of the truth of that prophecy, that Tyre, the
queen of nations, should be a rock for fishers to dry their nets on.”
Mr. Buckingham, who visited it in 1816, represents it as containing
about eight hundred substantial stone-built houses, and from five to
eight thousand inhabitants. But Mr. Jowett, on the authority of the
Greek archbishop, reduces this number to less than four thousand;
namely, one thousand two hundred Greek Catholics, one hundred Maronites,
one hundred Greeks, one thousand Montonalis, and one hundred Turks. Mr.
Jowett observed numerous and beautiful columns stretched along the
beach, or standing in fragments half buried in the sand, that has been
accumulating for ages: “the broken aqueduct, and the ruins which appear
in its neighbourhood, exist as an affecting monument of the fragile and
transitory nature of earthly grandeur.” Mr. Joliffe states, that there
now exist scarcely any traces of this once powerful city. “Some
miserable cabins, ranged in irregular lines, dignified with the name of
streets, and a few buildings of a rather better description, occupied by
the officers of government, compose nearly the whole of the town. It
still makes, indeed, some languishing efforts at commerce, and contrives
to export annually to Alexandria cargoes of silk and tobacco; but the
amount merits no consideration. The noble dust of Alexander, traced by
the imagination till found stopping a beer barrel, would scarcely afford
a stronger contrast of grandeur and debasement, than Tyre, at the period
of being besieged by that conqueror, and the modern town of Tsour
erected on its ashes.”

As commercial cities, says Mansford, ancient Alexandria and London may
be considered as approaching the nearest to Tyre. But Alexandria, during
the whole of her prosperous days, was subject to foreign rule; and
London, great as are her commerce and her wealth, and possessing as she
does almost a monopoly of what has in all ages been the most enviable
and most lucrative branch of trade, that with the east, does not centre
in herself, as Tyre did, without a rival and without competition, the
trade of all nations, and hold an absolute monopoly, not of one, but of
every branch of commerce. For the long period of a thousand years, not a
single production of the east passed to the west, or of the west to the
east, but by the merchants of Tyre. Nor for many ages were any ships
found but those of Tyre daring enough to pass the straits of the Red Sea
on one side, or of the Mediterranean on the other. While the vessels of
other countries were groping along their coasts, clinging to their
landmarks, and frightened at a breeze, the ships of Tyre were found from
Spain, if not from Britain, on the west, to the coast of Malabar and
Sofala on the east and south. No wonder that her merchants were princes,
and that they lived in a style of magnificence unknown in any other
country in the same age; or that she should be considered a desirable
prey by the conquerors of the times. But enterprise and wealth did not
alone complete the character of the Tyrians; they had an undoubted claim
to valour of no common order. Their city, which possessed scarcely any
territory beyond their own walls, maintained a siege of thirteen years
(the longest in history except that of Ashdod) against the whole power
of Babylon; and another of seven months against Alexander, whose
successes had afforded no instance of similar delay. And in neither case
had the captors much to boast of, as the Tyrians had shipped off their
most valuable property to Carthage; and in the former particularly, as
has been already related, they so effectually secured or sacrificed the
whole, that the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar found nothing to reward them
for their length of labour, during which, by excessive toil and heat,
“their heads were made bald, and their very shoulders peeled,” but
vacant streets, and houses already sacked. Carthage, Utica, and Cadiz,
are celebrated monuments of the power of Tyre on the Mediterranean, and
in the west. She extended her navigation even into the ocean, and
carried her commerce beyond England to the north, and the Canaries to
the south. Her connections with the east, though less known, were not
less considerable; the islands of Tyrus and Aradus, (the modern
Barhain,) in the Persian Gulf. The cities of Faran and Phœnicum
Oppidum, on the Red Sea, in ruins even in the time of the Greeks, prove
that the Tyrians had long frequented the coast of Arabia and the Indian
Sea. But, through the vicissitudes of time, Tyre, reduced to a miserable
village, has no other trade than the exportation of a few sacks of corn
and raw cotton, nor any merchant, says Volney, but a single Greek factor
in the service of the French Saide, (Sidon,) who scarcely makes
sufficient profit to maintain his family. In allusion to Tyre in her
better days, Forbes observes, when speaking of Surat, “The bazars,
filled with costly merchandise; picturesque and interesting groups of
natives on elephants, camels, horses, and mules; strangers from all
parts of the globe, in their respective costume; vessels building on the
stocks, others navigating the river; together with Turks, Persians, and
Armenians, on Arabian chargers; European ladies in splendid carriages,
the Asiatic females in hackeries drawn by oxen; and the motley
appearance of the English and nabob’s troops on the fortifications,
remind us of the following description of Tyre, “O thou that art situate
at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many
isles,” &c, Ezek. xxvii, 3. This is a true picture of oriental commerce
in ancient times; and a very exact description of the port and the
bazars of Surat, at the present day.”

Dr. Vincent has given the following able illustration of the trade of
Tyre as described in Ezek. xxvii, which must be considered as one of the
most ample and early accounts extant. The learned author has rendered
the Hebrew names into others better known in the geography of more
recent times:--Tyre produced from Hermon, and the mountains near it, fir
for planking; and from Libanus, cedars for masts. From Bashan, east of
the sea of Galilee, oaks for oars. From Greece, or the Grecian isles,
ivory to adorn the benches or the waists of the galleys. From Egypt,
linen, ornamented with different colours, for sails, or flags, or
ensigns. From Peloponnesus, blue and purple cloths for awnings. From
Sidon and Aradus, mariners; but Tyre itself furnished pilots and
commanders. From Gebal, or Biblos, on the coast between Tripolis and
Berytus, caulkers. From Persia and Africa, mercenary troops. From
Aradus, the troops that garrisoned Tyre with the Gamadim. From Tarshish,
or by distant voyages toward the west, and toward the east, great
wealth, iron, tin, lead, and silver. Tin implies Britain or Spain, or at
least a voyage beyond the Straits of Hercules. From Greece, and the
countries bordering on Pontus, slaves, and brass ware. From Armenia,
horses, horsemen, and mules. From the Gulf of Persia, and the isles
within that gulf, horns (tusks) of ivory, and ebony. The export to these
isles was the manufacture of Tyre. From Syria, emeralds, purple,
broidered work, fine linen, coral, and agate. The exports to Syria were
the manufactures of Tyre in great quantities. From Judah and Israel, the
finest wheat, honey, oil, and balsam. From Damascus, wine of Chalybon,
(the country bordering on the modern Aleppo,) and wool in the fleece.
The exports to Damascus were costly and various manufactures. From the
tribe of Dan, situated nearest to the Philistines, the produce of
Arabia, bright or wrought iron, cassia or cinnamon, and the calamus
aramaticus. In conducting the transport of these articles, Dan went to
and fro, that is, formed or conducted the caravans. By one
interpretation, they are said to come from Uzal; and Uzal is said to be
Sana, the capital of Yemen, or Arabia Felix. From the Gulf of Persia,
rich cloth for the decoration of chariots or horsemen. From Arabia
Petræa and Hedjaz, lambs, and rams, and goats. From Sabea and Oman, the
best of spices. From India, gold, and precious stones. From Mesopotamia,
from Carrhæ, and Babylonia, the Assyrians brought all sorts of exquisite
things; that is, fine manufacture, blue cloth, and broidered work, or
fabric of various colours, in chests of cedar bound with cords,
containing rich apparel. If these articles were obtained farther from
the east, may they not be the fabrics of India, first brought to Assyria
by the Gulf of Persia, or by caravans from Karmania and the Indus, and
then conveyed by the Assyrians, in other caravans, to Tyre and Syria? In
this view, the care of package, the chests of cedar, and the cording of
the chests, are all correspondent to the nature of such a transport.
From Tarshish the ships came that rejoiced in the markets of Tyre: they
replenished the city, and made it glorious in the midst of the sea,
Ezek. xxvii, 5–25. Dr. Vincent observes, that from the Tarshish last
mentioned the ships returned to the ports in the Red Sea; as from the
nineteenth to the twenty-fourth verse every particular relates to the
east, while that referred to in the twelfth implies the west--Spain, or
beyond. We have here some light thrown on the obscurity which surrounds
the situation of this distant and unknown place. There is, indeed, a
clear reference to two distinct places, or parts of the world,
denominated Tarshish; perhaps from those very circumstances, their
distance, and the little that was known respecting them. That one was
situated westward, and reached by a passage across the Mediterranean, is
certain from other parts of Scripture; that the other was eastward, or
southward, on the coast of Arabia, India, or Africa, is equally certain.
See TARSHISH, and OPHIR.


UNBELIEF or INFIDELITY is a want of credence in the word of God; or it
may be defined, a calling in question the divine veracity, in what God
hath either testified, promised, or threatened; and thus it is the
opposite of faith, which consists in crediting what God hath said, John
iii, 18, 33. It is said that the Jews could not enter into the promised
land, “because of their unbelief,” Heb. iii, 18, 19. And the Apostle,
teaching the believing Hebrews what instruction they should deduce from
that portion of the history of their forefathers, says, as the words
literally translated would run, “We are evangelized as well as they
were; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed
with faith in them that heard it,” Heb. iv, 2. The meaning is, We
Christians are favoured with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well
as Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of the earthly rest
in Canaan; but the word which they heard concerning that rest did not
profit them, because they did not believe it. Hence it appears that
faith and unbelief are not confined to the spiritual truths and promises
of the Gospel of Christ, but respect any truth which God may reveal, or
any promise which he may make even concerning temporal things. It is a
crediting or discrediting God in what he says, whatever be the subject.
Christ could not do many mighty works in his own country, because of
their unbelief, Matt. vi, 5, 6; their mean opinion of him, and contempt
of his miracles, rendered them unfit objects to have miracles wrought
upon or among them. The Apostles’ distrust of Christ’s promises, of
enabling them to cast out devils, rendered them incapable of casting one
out, Mark xvii, 16; and St. Peter’s distrust of his Master’s power
occasioned his sinking in the water, Matt. xiv, 30, 31. The unbelief for
which the Jews were broken off from their being a church was their
denial of Christ’s Messiahship, their contempt and refusal of him, and
their violent persecution of his cause and members, Rom. xi, 20.

Adverting to the infidelity which prevailed among the educated class of
Heathens when Christianity first appeared in the world, Dr. Neander
observes:--It was Christianity which first presented religion under the
form of objective truth, as a system of doctrines perfectly independent
of all individual conceptions of man’s imagination, and calculated to
meet the moral and religious wants of man’s nature, and in that nature
every where to find some point on which it might attach itself. The
religions of antiquity, on the contrary, consist of many elements of
various kinds, which, either by the skill of the first promulgator, or,
in the length of years, by the impress of national peculiarities, were
moulded together into one whole. By the transmission of tales, half
mythical, and half historical, by forms and statutes bearing the impress
of religious feelings or ideas, mingled with multifarious poems, which
showed a powerful imaginative spirit, rugged indeed, or, if animated by
the spirit of beauty, at least devoid of that of holiness,--all these
varied materials were interwoven so completely into all the characters,
customs, and relations of social life, that the religious matter could
no longer be separated from the mixed mass, nor be disentangled from the
individual nature of the life and political character of each people
with which it was interwoven. There was no religion generally adapted to
human nature, only religions fitted to each people. The Divinity
appeared here, not as free and elevated above nature; not as that which,
overruling nature, might form and illuminate the nature of man; but was
lowered to the level of nature, and made subservient to it. Through this
principle of deifying the powers of nature, by which every exertion of
bare power, even though immoral, might be received among the objects of
religious veneration, the idea of holiness which beams forth from man’s
conscience must continually have been thrown into the back ground and
overshadowed. The old lawgivers were well aware how closely the
maintenance of an individual state religion depends on the maintenance
of the individual character of the people, and their civil and domestic
virtues. They were well aware that when once this union is dissolved no
power can restore it again. Therefore we find, especially in Rome, where
politics were the ruling passion, a watchfulness after the most
punctilious observance of traditional religious ceremonies, and a
jealous aversion to any innovations in religion. The belief of a divine
origin of all existence is a first principle in man’s nature, and he is
irresistibly impelled to ascend from many to One. This very feeling
showed itself even in the polytheism of national religions, under the
idea of a highest God, or a father of the gods. Among those who gave
themselves up to the consideration of divine things, and to reflection
upon them, this idea of an original unity must have been more clearly
recognized, and must have formed the centre point of all their inward
religious life and thought. The imagination of the people was to be
engaged with the numerous powers and energies flowing forth from that
one highest Being, while to the contemplation of that unity, only a
small number of exalted spirits, the initiated leaders of the multitude,
could elevate themselves. The one God was the God of philosophers alone.
The ruling opinion of all the thinking men of antiquity, from which all
religious legislation proceeded, was, that pure religious truth could
not be proposed to the multitude, but only such a mixture of fiction,
poetry, and truth, as would serve to represent religious notions in such
a manner that they might make an impression on men, whose only guide was
their senses. The principle of a so called _fraus pia_ [pious fraud] was
prevalent in all the legislation of antiquity. But how miserable would
be the case of mankind, if the higher bond, connecting human affairs
with heaven, could only be united by means of lies; if lies were
necessary in order to restrain the greater portion of mankind from evil!
And what could their religion in such a case effect? It could not impart
holy dispositions to the inward heart of man; it could only restrain the
open outbreaking of evil that existed in the heart, by the power of
fear. Falsehood, which cannot be arbitrarily imposed on human nature,
would never have been able to obtain this influence, had not a truth,
which is sure to make itself felt by human nature, been working through
it,--had not the belief in an unseen God, on whom man universally feels
himself dependent, and to whom he feels himself attracted,--had not the
impulse toward an invisible world, which is implanted in the human
heart,--been able to work also through this covering of superstition.
The geographer Strabo thinks that, in the same manner that mythical
tales and fables are needful for children, so also they are necessary
for the uneducated and uninformed, who are in some sort children, and
also for those who are half educated; for even with them reason is not
sufficiently powerful, and they are not able to free themselves from the
habits they have acquired as children. This is, indeed, a sad condition
of humanity, when the seed of holiness, which can develope itself only
in the whole course of a life, cannot be strewn in the heart of the
child, and when mature reason must destroy that which was planted in the
early years of infancy! when holy truth cannot form the foundation of
the future developement of life from the earliest dawn of childish
consciousness! The thinking Roman statesmen also of the time at which
Christianity appeared, as Varro, for instance, distinguish between the
_theologia philosophica_ [philosophical theology] and the _theologia
civilis_, [civil theology,] which contradicts the principles of the
former, as Cotta in Cicero distinguished between the belief of Cotta,
and the belief of the Pontifex. The philosopher required in religion a
persuasion grounded on reasoning; the citizen, the statesman, followed
the tradition of his ancestors without inquiry. Suppose now this
_theologia civilis_, and this _theologia philosophica_ to proceed
together, without a man’s wishing to set the opposition between the two
in a very clear light to himself; that the citizen and the statesman,
the philosopher and the man, could be united in the same individual with
contradictory sentiments, (a division which in the same man is very
unnatural,) and then he would perhaps say, “Philosophical reason
conducts to a different result from that which is established by the
state religion; but the latter has in its favour the good fortune which
the state has enjoyed in the exercise of religion handed down from our
ancestors. Let us follow experience even where we do not thoroughly
understand.” Thus speaks Cotta, and thus also many Romans of education
in his time, either more or less explicitly. Or perhaps we may suppose,
that men openly expressed this contradiction, and did not scruple to
assign the pure truth to the _theologia philosophica_, and to declare
the _theologia civilis_ only a matter of politics. In the east, which is
less subject to commotions, where tranquil habits of life were more
common, and where a mystical spirit of contemplation, accompanying and
spiritualizing the symbolical religion of the people, was more prevalent
than an intellectual cultivation opposed to it, and developing itself
independently, it was possible that this kind of esoteric and exoteric
religion should proceed hand in hand without change for many centuries.
But it was otherwise with the more stirring spirits and habits of the
west. Here this independently proceeding developement of the intellect
must have been at open war with the religion of the people; and as
intellectual culture spread itself more widely, so also must a disbelief
of the popular religion have been more extensively diffused; and, in
consequence of the intercourse between the people and the educated
classes, this disbelief must also have found its way at last among the
people themselves; more especially since, as this perception of the
nothingness of the popular religion spread itself more widely, there
would naturally be many who would not, with the precaution of the men of
old, hide their new illumination from the multitude, but would think
themselves bound to procure for it new adherents, without any regard to
the injury of which they might be laying the foundations, without
inquiring of themselves, whether they had any thing to offer to the
people in the room of that of which they robbed them; in the room of
their then source of tranquillity under the storms of life; instead of
that which taught them moderation under affliction; and, lastly, in the
place of their then counterpoise against the power of wild desires and
passions. Men saw, in the religious systems of different nations which
then came into contact with each other in the enormous empire of Rome,
nothing but utter contradiction and opposition. The philosophical
systems also exhibited nothing but opposition of sentiments, and left
those who could see in the moral consciousness no criterion of truth to
doubt whether there were any such thing or not. In this sense, as
representing the opinions of many eminent and cultivated Romans, with a
sneer at all desire for truth, Pilate made the sarcastic inquiry, “What
is truth?” Many contented themselves with a shallow lifeless deism,
which usually takes its rise where the thirst after a living union with
heaven is wanting; a system which, although it denies not the existence
of a God, yet drives it as far into the back ground as possible; a
listless God! who suffers every thing to take its own course, so that
all belief in any inward connection between this Divinity and man, any
communication of this Divinity to man, would seem to this system fancy
and enthusiasm! The world and human nature remain at least free from
God. This belief in God, if we can call it a belief, remains dead and
fruitless, exercising no influence over the life of man. The belief in
God here produced neither the desire after that ideal perfection of
holiness, the contemplation of which shows at the same time to man the
corruption of his own nature, so opposite to that holiness; nor that
consciousness of guilt by which man, contemplating the holiness of God
within him, feels himself estranged from God; nor does this belief
impart any lively power of sanctification. Man is not struck by the
inquiry, “How shall I, unclean as I am, approach the holy God, and stand
before him, when he judges me according to the holy law which he has
himself engraven on my conscience? What shall I do to become free from
the guilt which oppresses me, and again to attain to communion with
him?” To make inquiries such as these, this spirit of deism considers as
fanaticism; and it casts away from itself all notions of God’s anger,
judgments, or punishments, as representations arising only from the
limited nature of the human understanding. More lively and penetrating
spirits, who felt in the world an infinite Spirit which animated all
things, fell into an error of quite an opposite nature to this deism,
which removed God too far from the world; namely into a pantheism, which
confused God and the world, which was just as little calculated to
bestow tranquillity and consolation. They conceived God only as the
infinite Being elevated above frail man, and not as being connected with
him, attracting him to himself, and lowering himself down to him. It was
only the greatness, not the holiness nor the love, of God which filled
their souls. Yet the history of all ages proves that man cannot for any
length of time disown the desire for religion implanted in his nature.
Whenever man, entirely devoted to the world, has for a long time wholly
overwhelmed the perception of the Divinity which exists in his nature,
and has long entirely estranged himself from divine things, these at
last prevail over humanity with greater force. Man feels that something
is wanting to his heart, which can be replaced to him by nothing else;
he feels a hollowness within him which can never be satisfied by earthly
things, and can find satisfaction and blessing suited to his condition
in the Divinity alone, and an irresistible desire impels him to seek
again his lost connection with Heaven. The times of the dominion of
superstition also, as history teaches us, are always times of earthly
calamity; for the moral corruption which accompanies superstition
necessarily, also, destroys all the foundations of earthly prosperity.
Thus the times in which superstition extended itself among the Romans
were those of the downfall of civil freedom, and of public suffering
under cruel despots. But, however, the consequences of these evils
conducted man, also to their remedy; for by distress from without man is
brought to the consciousness of his own weakness, and his dependence on
a higher than earthly power; and when he is forsaken by human help, he
is compelled to seek it here. Man becomes induced to look upon his
misfortunes as the punishments of a higher Being, and to seek for means
by which he may secure again for himself the favour of that Being. The
need of a connection with Heaven, from which man felt himself estranged,
and dissatisfaction with the cold and joyless present, obtained a more
ready belief for the picture which mythology presented, of a golden age,
when gods and men lived together in intimate union; and warm
imaginations looked back on such a state with longing and desire. This
belief and this desire, it must be owned, were founded on a great truth
which man could rightly apprehend only through Christianity; and this
desire was a kind of intimation which pointed to Christianity. From the
nature of the case, however, it is clear that a fanatical zeal, where
the heat of passion concealed from man the hollowness and falsehood of
his faith, might be created for a religion, to which man only betook
himself as a refuge in his misery, and in his dread of the abyss of
unbelief; a religion which no longer served for the developement of
man’s nature, and into which, nevertheless, he felt himself driven back
from the want of any other; and that men must use every kind of power
and art to uphold that which was in danger of falling from its own
internal weakness, and to defend that which was unable to defend itself
by its own power. Fanaticism was therefore obliged to avail itself of
every kind of power in the struggle with Christianity, in order to
uphold Heathenism, which was fast sinking by its own weakness. Although
the Romans had from the oldest times been noted for their repugnance to
all foreign sorts of religious worship, yet this trait of the old Roman
character had with many altogether disappeared. Because the old national
temples of the Romans had lost their respect, in many dispositions man
was inclined to bring in to their assistance foreign modes of worship.
Those which obtained the readiest admission were such as consisted of
mysterious, symbolical customs, and striking, sounding forms. As is
always the case, men looked for some special and higher power in what is
dark and mysterious. The very simplicity of Christianity became
therefore a ground of hatred to it.

UNICORN, ראם, Num. xxiii, 22; xxiv, 8; Deut. xxxiii, 17; Job xxxix, 9,
10; Psalm xxii, 21; xxix, 6; xcii, 10; Isa. xxxiv, 7. In each of these
places it is rendered in the Septuagint μονόκερως, except in Isaiah,
where it is ἁδροὶ, _the great or mighty ones_. Barrow, in his “Travels
in Southern Africa,” has given a drawing of the head of the unicorn, “a
beast with a single horn projecting from the forehead;” accompanied with
such details as, he thinks, offer strong arguments for the existence of
such animals in the country of the Bosjesmans. He observes that this
creature is represented as a “solid-ungulous animal resembling a horse,
with an elegantly shaped body, marked from the shoulders to the flanks
with longitudinal stripes or bands.” Still he acknowledges that the
animal to which the writer of the book of Job, who was no mean natural
historian, makes a poetical allusion, has been supposed, with great
plausibility, to be the one-horned rhinoceros; and that Moses also very
probably meant the rhinoceros, when he mentions the unicorn as having
the strength of God.

“There are two animals,” says Bruce, “named frequently in Scripture,
without naturalists being agreed what they are. The one is the
_behemoth_, the other the _reem_; both mentioned as types of strength,
courage, and independence on man; and, as such, exempted from the
ordinary lot of beasts, to be subdued by him, or reduced under his
dominion. The behemoth, then, I take to be the elephant; his history is
well known, and my only business is with the reem, which I suppose to be
the rhinoceros. The derivation of this word, both in the Hebrew and
Ethiopic, seems to be from erectness, or standing straight. This is
certainly no particular quality in the animal itself, which is not more,
nor even so much erect as many other quadrupeds, for its knees are
rather crooked; but it is from the circumstance and manner in which his
horn is placed. The horns of all other animals are inclined to some
degree of parallelism with the nose, or _os frontis_, [front bone.] The
horn of the rhinoceros alone is erect and perpendicular to this bone, on
which it stands at right angles; thereby possessing a greater purchase
or power, as a lever, than any horn could possibly have in any other
position. This situation of the horn is very happily alluded to in the
sacred writings: ‘My horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a reem,’
Psalm xcii, 10. And the horn here alluded to is not wholly figurative,
but was really an ornament worn by great men in the days of victory,
preferment, or rejoicing, when they were anointed with new, sweet, or
fresh oil; a circumstance which David joins with that of erecting the
horn. Balaam, a priest of Midian, and so in the neighbourhood of the
haunts of the rhinoceros, and intimately connected with Ethiopia, for
they themselves were shepherds of that country, in a transport, from
contemplating the strength of Israel, whom he was brought to curse,
says, that they had as it were the strength of the reem, Num. xxiii, 22.
Job, xxxix, 9, 10, makes frequent allusion to his great strength,
ferocity, and indocility. Isaiah, xxxiv, 7, who of all the prophets
seems to have known Egypt and Ethiopia the best, when prophesying about
the destruction of Idumea, says, that the reem shall come down with the
fat cattle: a proof that he knew his habitation was in the
neighbourhood. In the same manner as when foretelling the desolation of
Egypt, he mentions, as one manner of effecting it, the bringing down the
fly from Ethiopia, Isa. vii, 18, 19, to meet the cattle in the desert
and among the bushes, and destroy them there, where that insect did not
ordinarily come but on command, Exodus viii, 22, and where the cattle
fled every year, to save themselves from that insect.

“The rhinoceros in Geez is called _arwé harish_, and in the Amharic
_auraris_, both which names signify the large wild beast with the horn.
This would seem as if applied to the species that had but one horn. The
Ethiopic text renders the word reem, _arwe harish_, and this the
Septuagint translates μονόκερως, or unicorn. If the Abyssinian
rhinoceros had invariably two horns, it seems to me improbable the
Septuagint would call him μονόκερως, especially as they must have seen
an animal of this kind exposed at Alexandria in their time, when first
mentioned in history, at an exhibition given to Ptolemy Philadelphus, at
his accession to the crown, before the death of his father. The
principal reason for translating the word _reem_ unicorn, and not
rhinoceros, is from a prejudice that he must have but one horn. But this
is by no means so well founded, as to be admitted as the only argument
for establishing the existence of an animal, which never has appeared
after the search of so many ages. Scripture speaks of the horns of the
unicorn, Deut. xxxiii, 17; Psalm xxii, 21; so that even from this
circumstance the reem may be the rhinoceros as the rhinoceros may be the
unicorn.”

In the book of Job, xxxix, 9, 10, the reem is represented as an
unmanageable animal, which, although possessed of sufficient strength to
labour, sternly and pertinaciously refused to bend his neck to the yoke.

        Will the reem submit to serve thee?
        Will he, indeed, abide at thy crib?
        Canst thou make his harness bind the reem to the furrow?
        Will he, forsooth, plough up the valleys for thee?
        Wilt thou rely on him for his great strength,
        And commit thy labour unto him?
        Wilt thou trust him that he may bring home thy grain,
        And gather in thy harvest?

The rhinoceros, in size, is only exceeded by the elephant; and in
strength and power is inferior to no other creature. He is at least
twelve feet in length, from the extremity of the snout to the insertion
of the tail; six or seven feet in height, and the circumference of the
body is nearly equal to its length. He is particularly distinguished
from the elephant and all other animals by the remarkable and offensive
weapon he carries upon his nose. This is a very hard horn, solid
throughout, directed forward, and has been seen four feet in length. Mr.
Browne, in his Travels, says, that the Arabians call the rhinoceros
_abu-kurn_, “father of the one horn.” The rhinoceros is very hurtful, by
the prodigious devastation which he makes in the fields. This
circumstance peculiarly illustrates the passage from Job. Instead of
trusting him to bring home the grain, the husbandman will endeavour to
prevent his entry into the fields, and hinder his destructive ravages.
In a note upon this passage, Mr. Good says, “The original reem, by all
the older translators rendered rhinoceros, or unicorn, is by some modern
writers supposed to be the bubalus, bison, or wild ox. There can be no
doubt that rhinoceros is the proper term; for this animal is universally
known in Arabia, by the name of reem, to the present day.” The
rhinoceros, though next in size, yet in docility and ingenuity greatly
inferior, to the elephant, has never yet been tamed, so as to assist the
labours of mankind, or to appear in the ranks of war. The rhinoceros is
perfectly indocile and untractable, though neither ferocious nor
carnivorous. He is among large animals what the hog is among smaller
ones, brutal and insensible; fond of wallowing in the mire, and
delighting in moist and marshy situations near the banks of rivers. He
is, however, of a pacific disposition; and, as he feeds on vegetables,
has few occasions for conflict. He neither disturbs the less, nor fears
the greater, beasts of the forest, but lives amicably with all. He
subsists principally on large succulent plants, prickly shrubs, and the
branches of trees; and lives to the age of seventy or eighty years.

UNITARIANS, a comprehensive term, including all who believe the Deity to
subsist in one person only. The chief article in the religious system of
the Unitarians is, that Christ was a mere man. But they consider him as
the great instrument in the hands of God of reversing all the effects of
the fall; as the object of all the prophecies from Moses to his own
time; as the great bond of union to virtuous and good men, who, as
Christians, make one body in a peculiar sense. The Socinian creed was
reduced to what Dr. Priestley calls Humanitarianism, by denying the
miraculous conception, the infallibility, and the impeccability of the
Saviour; and, consequently, his right to any divine honours or religious
worship. As to those texts which declare that Jesus Christ “knew no
sin,” &c, his followers explain them in the sense in which it is said of
believers, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” 1 John iii,
9. Or, if this be not satisfactory, Dr. Priestley refers us to the
“Theological Repository,” “in which,” he says, “I think I have shown
that the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively; and, therefore, that
he wrote as any other person of his turn of mind or thinking, and in his
situation, would have written, without any particular inspiration.
Facts, such as I think I have there alleged, are stubborn things, and
all hypotheses must be accommodated to them.” Nor is this sentiment
peculiar to Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham says, “The Unitarian doctrine is,
that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other
men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices,
and frailties; descended from the family of David, the son of Joseph and
Mary, though some indeed still adhere to the popular opinion of the
miraculous conception; that he was born in low circumstances, having no
peculiar advantages of education or learning, but that he was a man of
exemplary character; and that, in conformity to ancient prophecy, he was
chosen and appointed by God to introduce a new moral dispensation into
the world, the design of which was to abolish the Jewish economy, and to
place believing Gentiles upon an equal ground of privilege and favour
with the posterity of Abraham; in other words, he was authorized to
reveal to all mankind, without distinction, the great doctrine of a
future life, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works.”
Mr. Belsham goes on to state the Unitarian opinion to be, that Jesus was
not conscious of his high character till after his baptism; that he
afterward spent some time in the wilderness, where he was invested with
miraculous powers, and favoured with heavenly visions, like St. Paul, 2
Cor. xii, in which he supposed himself taken up into heaven, and in
consequence of which he speaks of his descent from heaven; that he
exercised his ministry on earth for the space of a year or more, and
then suffered death upon the cross, not to exhibit the evil of sin, or
in any sense to make atonement for it, but as a martyr to the truth, and
as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection, which they consider as a
pledge of the resurrection of mankind. Many also believe that Jesus
maintained some personal and sensible connection with the church during
the apostolic age, and the continuance of miraculous powers in the
church. They farther believe that he is appointed to revisit the earth,
and to judge the world,--a difficult task one would suppose, if “he be
constituted,” as said above, “in all respects like other men, subject to
the same ignorance, prejudices frailties,” &c! So this blasphemous
system contains, in this respect, and in almost every other, its own
refutation. See SOCINIANS.

The creed which the celebrated council of Nice established, says Grier,
in his “Epitome of General Councils,” is that which Christians now
profess; the errors and impieties which it condemned are those which,
according to the refinements of Socinus, his followers of the present
day have moulded into their antichristian system. Arius, a presbyter in
the church of Alexandria, a man of consummate talent and address, but of
a cold and speculative mind, impiously maintained that there had been a
time when the Son of God was not; that he was capable of virtue and
vice; and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are! It is
true that Arius held a qualified preëxistence, when he said that God
created the Son from nothing before he created the world; in other
words, that the Son was the first of created beings; but such
preëxistence does not imply coëxistence or coëternity with the Father.
After this manner did he deny the divinity of the Son, and his
coëternity with the Father. Seduced by the pride of reasoning, no less
than by his fondness for novelty, did he likewise reject the ὁμοούσιαν,
as it is called, or the tenet of the Son being of the same substance
with the Father. The blasphemies of Arius consisted in the denial of
Christ’s being either co-eternal or consubstantial with God. After a
lapse of twelve centuries, Socinus lowered him another step by declaring
his inferiority to the Father; for that he, as well as all other things,
was subject to the supreme Creator of the universe; and although he held
his mere humanity, yet, inconsistently enough, he would offer him divine
worship! Inconsistently it may be said, because the Socinian, on his own
principles, thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry as much as the Roman
Catholic who worships the Virgin Mary, a mere created being. The
Unitarian, or Humanitarian, sinks the character of the Saviour still
lower, by withholding all worship from him; and while he considers him
as a mere man, and therefore as not possessing the attributes of the
Deity, with an inconsistency as singular as that of Socinus, he
acknowledges his divinity so as to call him God; as if the terms Deity
and Divinity bore different significations, or as if the principle which
constituted the essence of the Godhead were separable from the Godhead
itself! It should be observed, that the lowest denomination of
unbelievers in the descending scale, namely, the modern Unitarian,
combines with his own peculiar errors and impieties all the errors and
impieties of both Arius and Socinus, together with an absolute denial of
the Holy Ghost being a divine Person. Having touched on the shades of
difference which exist between the followers of Arius and Socinus, a
more minute detail of the division and subdivision of the classes into
which they may be ranged may not be unacceptable to the reader: Arians
and Semi-Arians constituted the original distinction; that of a
subsequent day was high and low Arians. The high Arians entertain the
highest views of the mediatorial influence of Christ, and believe in the
entire Scriptures; the low Arians run into the opposite extreme, yet
neither high nor low Arians consider Christ to be truly God. The old
Socinians admitted the miraculous conception, and the worship of the
Son; the modern Socinians do not; a circumstance that identifies the
modern Socinian with the Unitarian. Some high Arians, such as Dr. Samuel
Clarke, &c, thought that Christ might be worshipped; others of them
affect to have no distinct notion of what the Holy Ghost meant, and to
believe that worship is not to be addressed to Christ, but through
Christ! These variations in the Unitarian creed have been deduced from
the evidence of Unitarians themselves, given before the Commissioners of
Education Inquiry in Ireland in 1826, as detailed in their Report to
Parliament; a circumstance that renders them the more valuable, as it
imparts to them a living, speaking authority. It must, however, be
observed, that motley as they are, they all terminate in one point, the
rejection of Christ’s divinity; and that, diversified as the
distinctions appear to be, they all will be ultimately found to be
without a shadow of difference. In short, Arians, Socinians, Unitarians,
&c, not only agree with each other in their antichristian scheme; but
can scarcely be said to differ from the infidel Musselmans, who are
taught by their Koran to regard Christ as a great prophet, and the
forerunner of their own. With Deism doubtless Unitarianism has an
intimate alliance. For Deists reject all the doctrines of the Christian
revelation, while Unitarians reject all its peculiar doctrines: 1. The
Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. 2. The divinity of Christ. 3. The
personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The miraculous birth of Christ. 5.
The atonement of Christ. 6. The sanctification of the Spirit. 7. The
existence of angels and spirits; 8. And, therefore, of the devil and his
angels. “In what, then,” says the learned Dr. Burgess, bishop of
Salisbury, after this enumeration of the peculiar doctrines of
Christianity, “does Unitarianism differ from Deism? Deists deny the
essential doctrines of Christianity by rejecting the whole of the
Christian revelation; Unitarians reject the Christian revelation by
denying all its peculiar and essential doctrines.”

UNIVERSALISTS. Those who believe that Christ so died for all, that,
before he shall have delivered up his mediatorial kingdom, all fallen
creatures shall be brought to a participation of the benefits of his
death, in their restoration to holiness and happiness. They are called
also Universal Restorationists, and their doctrine, the doctrine of
universal restoration. Some of its friends have maintained it, also,
under the name of universal salvation; but perhaps the former name is
that by which it should be distinguished; for the Universalists do not
hold any universal exemption from future punishment, but merely the
recovery of all those that shall have been exposed to it.[A] They have
likewise a just claim to this title on other grounds; for their
doctrine, which includes the restoration, or “restitution of all the
intelligent offspring of God,” or of all

[Footnote A: This may be true in respect to the Universalists in Europe;
but in America there are those who deny any future punishment whatever.
In this country also they have formed themselves into separate and
distinct societies. AM. ED.] “lapsed intelligences,” seems to embrace
even the fallen angels. They admit the reality and equity of future
punishment; but they contend that it will be corrective in its nature,
and limited in its duration. They teach the doctrine of election, but
not in the exclusive Calvinistic sense of it. They suppose that God has
chosen some for the good of all; and that his final purpose toward all
is intimated by his calling his elect the first-born and the
first-fruits of his creatures, which, say they, implies other branches
of his family, and a future ingathering of the harvest of mankind. They
teach, also, that the righteous shall have part in the first
resurrection, shall be blessed and happy, and be made priests and kings
to God and to Christ in the millennial kingdom, and that over them the
second death shall have no power; that the wicked will receive a
punishment apportioned to their crimes; that punishment itself is a
mediatorial work, and founded upon mercy, and, consequently, that it is
a means of humbling, subduing, and finally reconciling the sinner to
God. They add, that the words rendered “eternal,” “everlasting,” “for
ever,” and “for ever and ever,” in the Scriptures, are frequently used
to express the duration of things that have ended or must end; and if it
is contended that these words are sometimes used to express proper
eternity, they answer, that then the subject with which the words are
connected must determine the sense of them; and as there is nothing in
the nature of future punishment which can be offered as a reason why it
should be endless, they infer that the above words ought always to be
taken in a limited sense when connected with the infliction of misery.

Those who deny the eternity of future punishments have not formed
themselves into any separate body or distinct society; but are to be
found in most Christian countries, and among several denominations.
Their doctrines form part of the creed of some Arians, as of Mr.
Whiston; of many Deists, as of Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Tindal, &c; and of most
Socinians. Nor need we be surprised that libertines and atheists hold
it, and that they strive to bring others over to their opinion. “The
tyranny of priests,” said Dupont the atheist, in the national
convention, December, 1792, “extends their opinion to another life, of
which they have no other idea than that of eternal punishment; a
doctrine which some men have hitherto had the good nature to believe.
But these prejudices must now fall: we must destroy them, or they will
destroy us.” The Mennonites in Holland have long held the doctrine of
the Universalists; the people called Dunkers, or Tunkers, in America,
descended from the German Baptists, hold it; and also the Shakers.
Excellent refutations of this specious system have been published by the
Rev. S. Jerram, and the Rev. Daniel Isaac.

The Arminians are sometimes called “Universalists,” on account of their
holding the tenet of general redemption; in opposition to the
Calvinists, who, from their specifically restricting the saving grace of
God to certain fore ordained individuals, receive the denomination of
“Particularists.” By the epithet “Hypothetical Universalists,” are
designated on the continent those who have adopted the theological
system of Amyraut and Cameron, but who are better KNOWN in this country
as “Baxterians.” See AMYRAUT, BAXTERIANISM, and CAMERON.

UPPER ROOM. The principal rooms anciently in Judea were those above, as
they are to this day at Aleppo; the ground floor being chiefly made use
of for their horses and servants. “The house in which I am at present
living,” says, Jowett, “gives what seems to be a correct idea of the
scene of Eutychus’ falling from the upper loft while St. Paul was
preaching, Acts xx, 6–12. According to our idea of houses, the scene is
very far from intelligible; and, beside this, the circumstance of
preaching generally leaves on the mind of cursory readers the notion of
a church. To describe this house, which is not many miles distant from
the Troad, and perhaps, from the unchanging character of oriental
customs, nearly resembles the houses then built, will fully illustrate
the narrative. On entering my host’s door, we find the first floor
entirely used as a store: it is filled with large barrels of oil, the
produce of the rich country for many miles round: this space, so far
from being habitable, is sometimes so dirty with the dripping of the
oil, that it is difficult to pick out a clean footing from the door to
the first step of the staircase. On ascending, we find the first floor,
consisting of an humble suit of rooms, not very high; these are occupied
by the family for their daily use. It is on the next story that all
their expense is lavished: here my courteous host has appointed my
lodging: beautiful curtains and mats, and cushions to the divan, display
the respect with which they mean to receive their guest. Here, likewise,
their splendour, being at the top of the house, is enjoyed by the poor
Greeks with more retirement, and less chance of molestation from the
intrusion of Turks: here, when the professors of the college waited upon
me to pay their respects, they were received in ceremony, and sat at the
window. The room is both higher and also larger than those below; it has
two projecting windows; and the whole floor is so much extended in front
beyond the lower part of the building, that the projecting windows
considerably overhang the street. In such an upper room, secluded,
spacious, and commodious, St. Paul was invited to preach his parting
discourse. The divan, or raised seat, with mats or cushions, encircles
the interior of each projecting window; and I have remarked that when
the company is numerous, they sometimes place large cushions behind the
company seated on the divan; so that a second tier of company, with
their feet upon the seat of the divan, are sitting behind, higher than
the front row. Eutychus, thus sitting, would be on a level with the open
window; and, being overcome with sleep, he would easily fall out from
the third loft of the house into the street, and be almost certain, from
such a height, to lose his life. Thither St. Paul went down, and
comforted the alarmed company by bringing up Eutychus alive. It is noted
that ‘there were many lights in the upper chamber.’ The very great
plenty of oil in this neighbourhood would enable them to afford many
lamps; the heat of these and so much company would cause the drowsiness
of Eutychus, at that late hour, and be the occasion, likewise, of the
windows being open.”

URIM AND THUMMIM. The high priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted
God in the most important affairs of their commonwealth, and received
answers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the
critics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by
the stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it
was favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others suppose, that the
Urim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the
breastplate; this some will have to be the tetragrammaton, or the word
יהוה _Jehovah_. Christophorus de Castro, and after him Dr. Spencer,
maintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the
breastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate
voice. Accordingly, they derive them from the Egyptians, who consulted
their _lares_, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth.
This opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr.
Pococke and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians
concerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux
espouses, is, that when the high priest appeared before the veil,
clothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of God, the
answer was given with an audible voice from the mercy seat, within the
veil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means
agree with the history of David’s consulting the oracle by Abiathar, 1
Sam. xxiii, 9, 11; xxx, 7, 8; because the ark, on which was the mercy
seat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at
Ziklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger
have adopted another opinion: they suppose, that, when Moses is
commanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying
_lights_ and _perfections_ in the plural number, it was meant that he
should make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so
polished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the
use of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels,
was only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and
perfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be
worn by the high priest in the exercise of his sacred function,
especially in consulting the oracle.

Michaëlis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in
cases of disputes relative to _meum_ [mine] and _tuum_, [thine,]
recourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision,
will naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and
that, in after times, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of
justice, we see from Prov. xvi, 33; xviii, 18; where we are expressly
taught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and
that therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as
the will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner,
that the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this
account the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this
sacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. “But was
this sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials?” Yes, says Michaëlis,
only to discover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two
instances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible,
namely, in Joshua vii, 14–18, 1 Sam. xiv, 37–45, we find the confessions
of the two delinquents, Achan and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to
have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the
whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not
in the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not
to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot.

The inner sanctuary, within the veil of the tabernacle, observes Dr.
Hales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1 Kings vi, 16,
because there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him
instructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exod.
xxv, 22; Num. vii, 89; ix, 8; Exod. xxxiii, 11; a high privilege granted
to none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was
appointed for consulting the oracle by the high priest, who put on “the
breastplate of judgment,” a principal part of the pontifical dress, on
which were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematical of divine
illumination; as the inscription on his mitre, “Holiness to the Lord,”
was of sanctification, Exod. xxviii, 30–37; Lev. viii, 8. Thus prepared,
he presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters,
not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on
the great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face
toward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some
distance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who
wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible
voice from within the veil, Num. xxvii, 21, as in the case of Joshua,
vi, 6–15; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Judges
xx, 27, 28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself,
1 Sam. x, 22–24; of David, 1 Sam. xxii, 10; xxiii, 2–12; xxx, 8; 2 Sam.
v, 23, 24; of Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii, 6. This mode of consultation
subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and
until the building of Solomon’s temple; after which we find no instances
of it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the
prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1 Kings xi, 29; by Shemaiah to
Rehoboam, 1 Kings xii, 22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1 Kings xvii, 1; xxi,
17–29; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii, 7; by Elisha
to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii, 11–14; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2
Kings xix, 6–34; xx, 1–11; by Huldah to Josiah, 2 Kings xxii, 13–20; by
Jeremiah to Zedekiah, Jer. xxxii, 3–5, &c. After the Babylonish
captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezra, ii, 63, and
accomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and
new covenants, Gen. xv, 1; John i, 1. See BREASTPLATE.

USURY, profit or gain from lending money or goods. Moses enacted a law
to the effect that interest should not be taken from a poor person,
neither for borrowed money, nor for articles of consumption, for
instance, grain, which was borrowed with the expectation of being
returned, Exod. xxii, 25; Lev. xxv, 35–37. A difficulty arose in
determining who was to be considered a poor person in a case of this
kind; and the law was accordingly altered in Deut. xxiii, 20, 21, and
extended in its operation to all the Hebrews, whether they had more or
less property; so that interest could be lawfully taken only of
foreigners. As the system of the Jews went to secure every man’s
paternal inheritance to his own family, they could not exact it from
their brethren, but only from strangers. As the law of nature does not
forbid the receipt of moderate interest in the shape of rent, for the
use of lands or houses, neither does it prohibit it for the loan of
money or goods. When one man trades with the capital of another, and
obtains a profit from it, he is bound in justice to return a part of it
to his benefactor, who, in the hands of God, has been a second cause of
“giving him power to get wealth.” But should Divine Providence not
favour the endeavours of some who have borrowed money, the duty of the
lenders is to deal gently with them, and to be content with sharing in
their losses, as they have been sharers in their gains. The Hebrews were
therefore exhorted to lend money, &c, as a deed of mercy and brotherly
kindness, Deut. xv, 7–11; xxiv, 13. And hence it happens that we find
encomiums every where bestowed upon those who were willing to lend
without insisting upon interest for the use of the thing lent, Psalm xv,
15; xxxvii, 21, 26; cxii, 5; Prov. xix, 17; Ezek. xviii, 8. This
regulation in regard to taking interest was very well suited to the
condition of a state that had been recently founded, and which had but
very little mercantile dealings; and its principle, though not capable
of being generally introduced into communities that are much engaged in
commerce, may still be exercised toward those who stand toward us in the
relation of brethren.

UZ, LAND OF, the country of Job. As there were three persons of this
name, namely, the son of Aram, the son of Nahor, and the grandson of
Seir the Horite, commentators are divided in their opinion as to the
situation of the country meant by the land of Uz. Bochart, Spanheim,
Calmet, Wells, and others, place it in Arabia Deserta. Michaëlis places
it in the valley of Damascus; which city was, in fact, built by Uz, the
grandson of Shem. Archbishop Magee, Bishop Lowth, Dr. Hales, Dr. Good,
and others, with more reason, fix the scene of the history of Job in
Idumea. This is also the opinion of Mr. Horne, who refers for a
confirmation of it to Lam. iv, 21, where Uz is expressly said to be in
Edom; and to Jer. xlix, 7, 8, 20; Ezek. xxv, 13; Amos i, 11, 12; Obad.
8, 9, where both Teman and Dedan are described as inhabitants of Edom.
In effect, says Mr. Horne, nothing is clearer than that the history of
an inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem which bears the name
of Job, and that all the persons introduced into it were Idumeans,
dwelling in Idumea; in other words, Edomite Arabs.


VEIL. Women were wont to cover their faces with veils in token of
modesty, of reverence, and subjection to their husbands, Gen. xxiv, 65;
1 Cor. xi, 3, &c. In modern times, the women of Syria never appear in
the streets without their veils. These are of two kinds, the furragi and
the common Aleppo veil; the former being worn by some of the Turkish
women only, the latter indiscriminately by all. The first is in the form
of a large cloak, with long straight sleeves, and a square hood hanging
flat on the back; it is sometimes made of linen, sometimes of a shawl or
cloth. This veil, reaching to the heels, conceals the whole of the
dress, from the neck downward; while the head and face are covered by a
large white handkerchief over the head dress and forehead, and a smaller
one tied transversely over the lower part of the face, hanging down on
the neck. Many of the Turkish women, instead of the smaller
handkerchief, use a long piece of black crape stiffened, which, sloping
a little from the forehead, leaves room to breathe more freely. In this
last way, the ladies are completely disguised; in the former, the eyes
and nose remaining visible, they are easily known by their
acquaintances. The _radid_ is a species of veil, which Calmet supposes
is worn by married women, as a token of their submission and dependence,
and descends low down on the person. To lift up the veil of a virgin is
reckoned a gross insult; but to take away the veil of a married woman is
one of the greatest indignities that she can receive, because it
deprives her of the badge which distinguishes and dignifies her in that
character, and betokens her alliance to her husband, and her interest in
his affections. This is the reason why the spouse so feelingly
complains: “They took away my veil, רדד, from me,” Cant. v, 7. When it
is forcibly taken away by the husband, it is equivalent to divorce, and
justly reckoned a most severe calamity; therefore, God threatened to
take away the ornamental dresses of the daughters of Zion, including the
_radidim_, the low descending veils: “In that day the Lord will take
away the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the fine
linen, and the hoods, and the veils,” Isaiah iii, 18, &c.

The ordinary Aleppo veil is a linen sheet, large enough to cover the
whole habit from head to foot, and is brought over the face in a manner
to conceal all but one eye. This is perhaps alluded to by the bridegroom
in these words: “Thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes,”
Cant. iv, 9. In Barbary, when the ladies appear in public, they always
fold themselves up so closely in their hykes, that, even without their
veils, one can discover very little of their faces. But, in the summer
months, when they retire to their country seats, they walk abroad with
less caution; though, even then, on the approach of a stranger, they
always drop their veils, as Rebekah did on the approach of Isaac. But,
although they are so closely wrapped up, that those who look at them
cannot see even their hands, still less their face, yet it is reckoned
indecent in a man to fix his eyes upon them; he must let them pass
without seeming at all to observe them. When a lady of distinction, says
Hanway, travels on horseback, she is not only veiled, but has generally
a servant, who runs or rides before her to clear the way; and on such
occasions the men, even in the market places, always turn their backs
till the women are past, it being thought the highest ill manners to
look at them. A lady in the east considers herself degraded when she is
exposed to the gaze of the other sex, which accounts for the conduct of
Vashti in refusing to obey the command of the king. Their ideas of
decency, on the other hand, forbid a virtuous woman to lay aside or even
to lift up her veil in the presence of the other sex. She who ventures
to disregard this prohibition inevitably ruins her character. From that
moment she is noted as a woman of easy virtue, and her act is regarded
as a signal for intrigue. Pitts informs us that in Barbary the courtezan
appears in public without her veil; and, in Prov. vii, 13, 14, the
harlot exposes herself in the same indecent manner: “So she caught him,
and kissed him, and with an impudent face,” a face uncovered and
shameless, “said unto him, I have peace-offerings with me, this day have
I paid my vows.” But it must nevertheless be remarked, that, at
different times, and in different parts of the east, the use, or partial
use of the veil has greatly varied.

VINE, גפן, Gen. xl, 9; ἄμπελος, Matt. xxvi, 29; Mark xiv, 25; Luke xxii,
18; John xv, 4, 5; James iii, 12; Rev. xiv, 19; a noble plant of the
creeping kind, famous for its fruit, or grapes, and the liquor they
afford. The vine is a common name or genus, including several species
under it; and Moses, to distinguish the true vine, or that from which
wine is made, from the rest, calls it, the wine vine, Num. vi, 4. Some
of the other sorts were of a poisonous quality, as appears from the
story related among the miraculous acts of Elisha, 2 Kings iv, 39, 41.
(See _Grapes_.) The expression of “sitting every man under his own
vine,” probably alludes to the delightful eastern arbours, which were
partly composed of vines. Capt. Norden, in like manner, speaks of vine
arbours as common in the Egyptian gardens; and the Prænestine pavement
in Dr. Shaw gives us the figure of an ancient one. Plantations of trees
about houses are found very useful in hot countries, to give them an
agreeable coolness. The ancient Israelites seem to have made use of the
same means, and probably planted fruit trees, rather than other kinds,
to produce that effect. “It is their manner in many places,” says Sir
Thomas Rowe’s chaplain, speaking of the country of the Great Mogul, “to
plant about and among their buildings, trees which grow high and broad,
the shadow whereof keeps their houses by far more cool: this I observed
in a special manner, when we were ready to enter Amadavar; for it
appeared to us as if we had been entering a wood rather than a city.”
“Immediately on entering,” says Turner, “I was ushered into the court
yard of the aga, whom I found smoking under a vine, surrounded by
horses, servants, and dogs, among which I distinguished an English
pointer.” There were in Palestine many excellent vineyards. Scripture
celebrates the vines of Sorek, of Sebamah, of Jazer, of Abel. Profane
authors mention the excellent wines of Gaza, Sarepta, Libanus, Saron,
Ascalon, and Tyre. Jacob, in the blessing which he gave Judah, “Binding
his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, he
washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes,”
Gen. xlix, 11; he showed the abundance of vines that should fall to his
lot. “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose
branches hang over the wall,” Gen. xlix, 22. “To the northward and
westward,” says Morier, “are several villages, interspersed with
extensive orchards and vineyards, the latter of which are generally
enclosed by high walls. The Persian vine dressers do all in their power
to make the vine run up the wall, and curl over on the other side, which
they do by tying stones to the extremity of the tendril. The vine,
particularly in Turkey and Greece, is frequently made to entwine on
trellises around a well, where, in the heat of the day, whole families
collect themselves, and sit under the shade.”

Noah planted the vine after the deluge, and is supposed to have been the
first who cultivated it, Gen. ix, 20. Many are of opinion that wine was
not unknown before the deluge; and that this patriarch only continued to
cultivate the vine after that event, as he had done before it: but the
fathers think that he knew not the force of wine, having never used it
before, nor having ever seen any one use it. He was the first that
gathered the juice of the grape, and preserved it till by fermentation
it became a potable liquor. Before him men only ate the grapes like
other fruit. The law of Moses did not allow the planters of vineyards to
eat the fruit before the fifth year, Lev. xix, 24, 25. The Israelites
were also required to indulge the poor, the orphan, and the stranger,
with the use of the grapes on the seventh year. A traveller was allowed
to gather and eat the grapes in a vineyard as he passed along, but he
was not permitted to carry any away, Deut. xxiii, 24. The scarcity of
fuel, especially wood, in most parts of the east, is so great, that they
supply it with every thing capable of burning; cow dung dried, roots,
parings of fruits, withered stalks of herbs and flowers, Matthew vi, 30.
Vine twigs are particularly mentioned as used for fuel in dressing their
food, by D’Arvieux, La Roque, and others: Ezekiel says, in his parable
of the vine, used figuratively for the people of God, “Shall wood be
taken thereof to do any work? Or will men take a pin of it to hang any
vessel thereon? Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel,” Ezekiel xv,
3, 4. “If a man abide not in me,” saith our Lord, “he is cast forth as a
branch” of the vine, “and is withered; and men gather them, and cast
them into the fire, and they are burned,” John xv, 6.

VINEGAR, חמץ, Num. vi, 3; Ruth ii, 14; Psalm lxix, 21; Prov. x, 26; xxv,
20; ὄξος, Matt. xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; John xix, 29, 30; an acid
produced by a second fermentation of vinous liquors. The law of the
Nazarite was that he should “separate himself from wine and strong
drink, and should drink no vinegar of wine, nor vinegar of strong drink,
nor any liquor of grapes.” This is exactly the same prohibition that was
given in the case of John the Baptist, Luke i, 15, οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὺ
μὴ ϖίῃ, _wine and sikera he shall not drink_. Any inebriating liquor,
says Jerom, is called _sicera_, whether made of corn, apples, honey,
dates, or other fruits. One of the four prohibited drinks among the
Mohammedans in India is called _sakar_, which signifies inebriating
drink in general, but especially date wine. From the original word,
probably, we have our term cider or sider, which among us, exclusively
means the fermented juice of apples. Vinegar was used by harvesters for
their refreshment. Boaz told Ruth that she might come and dip her bread
in vinegar with his people. Pliny says, ”_Aceto summa vis in
refrigerando_.” [There is the greatest power in vinegar, in cooling.] It
made a very cooling beverage. It was generally diluted with water. When
very strong, it affected the teeth disagreeably, Prov. x, 26. In
Proverbs xxv, 20, the singing of songs to a heavy heart is finely
compared to the contrariety or colluctation between vinegar and nitre;
untimely mirth to one in anxiety serves only to exasperate, and as it
were put into a ferment by the intrusion.

The Emperor Pescennius Niger gave orders that his soldiers should drink
nothing but vinegar on their marches. That which the Roman soldiers
offered to our Saviour at his crucifixion, was, probably, the vinegar
they made use of for their own drinking. Constantine the Great allowed
them wine and vinegar alternately, every day. This vinegar was not of
that sort which we use for salads and sauces; but it was a tart wine
called _pesca_, or _sera_. They make great use of it in Spain and Italy,
in harvest time. They use it also in Holland, and on shipboard, to
correct the ill taste of the water.

VIPER, אפעה, Job xx, 16; Isaiah xxx, 6; lix, 5; ἔχιδνα, Matt. iii, 7;
xii, 34; xxiii, 33; Luke iii, 7; Acts xxviii, 3; a serpent famed for the
venomousness of its bite, which is one of the most dangerous poisons in
the animal kingdom. So remarkable, says Dr. Mead, has the viper been for
its venom, that the remotest antiquity made it an emblem of what is
hurtful and destructive. Nay, so terrible was the nature of these
creatures, that they were very commonly thought to be sent as
executioners of divine vengeance upon mankind, for enormous crimes which
had escaped the course of justice. An instance of such an opinion as
this we have in the history of St. Paul, Acts xxviii, whom the people of
Melita, when they saw the viper leap upon his hand, presently concluded
to be a murderer; and as readily made a god of him when, instead of
having his hand inflamed, or falling down dead, one or other of which is
usually the effect of these bites, he without any harm shook the reptile
into the fire: it being obvious enough to imagine that he must stand in
a near relation at least to the gods themselves, who could thus command
the messengers of their vengeance, and counterwork the effects of such
powerful agents.

VISION, the act of seeing; but, in Scripture, it generally signifies a
supernatural appearance, either by dream or in reality, by which God
made known his will and pleasure to those to whom it was vouchsafed,
Acts ix, 10, 12; xvi, 9, xxvi, 13; 2 Cor. xii, 1. Thus, in the earliest
times, to patriarchs, prophets, and holy men God sent angels, he
appeared to them himself by night in dreams, he illuminated their minds,
he made his voice to be heard by them, he sent them ecstasies, and
transported them beyond themselves, and made them hear things that eye
had not seen, ear had not heard, and which had not entered into the
heart of man. The Lord showed himself to Moses, and spoke to him when he
was at the mouth of the cave. Jesus Christ manifested himself to his
Apostles, in his transfiguration upon the mount, and on several other
occasions after his resurrection. God appeared to Abraham under the form
of three travellers; he showed himself to Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the
splendour of his glory. Vision is also used for the prophecies written
by the prophets. The _beatific vision_ denotes the act of angels and
glorified spirits beholding in heaven the unveiled splendours of the
Lord Jehovah, and privileged to contemplate his perfections and plans in
and by himself.

VOCATION, or CALLING, is a gracious act of God in Christ, by which,
through his word and Spirit, he calls forth sinful men, who are liable
to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition
of the animal life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this
world, 2 Tim. i, 9; Matt. xi, 28; 1 Peter ii, 9, 10; Gal. i, 4; 2 Peter
ii, 20; Romans x, 13–15; 1 Peter iii, 19; Gen. vi, 3, unto “the
fellowship of Jesus Christ,” and of his kingdom and its benefits; that,
being united unto him as their head, they may derive from him life,
sensation, motion, and a plenitude of every spiritual blessing, to the
glory of God and their own salvation, 1 Cor. i, 9; Gal. ii, 20; Eph. i,
3, 6; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. The end intended is, that they who have been
called answer by faith to God and to Christ who give the call, and that
they thus become the covenanted people of God through Christ the
Mediator of the new covenant; and, after having become believers and
parties to the covenant, that they love, fear, honour, and worship God
and Christ, render in all things obedience to the divine precepts “in
righteousness and true holiness,” and that by this means they “make
their calling and election sure,” Prov. i, 24; Heb. iii, 7; Rev. iii,
20; Eph. ii, 11–16; Titus iii, 8; Deut. vi, 4, 5; Jer. xxxii, 38, 39;
Luke i, 74, 75; 2 Peter i, 1, 10. The glory of God, who is supremely
wise, good, merciful, just, and powerful, is so luminously displayed in
this communication both of his grace and glory, as deservedly to raise
into rapturous admiration the minds of angels and of men, and to employ
their loosened tongues in celebrating the praises of Jehovah, Rev. iv,
8–11; v, 8–10. See CALLING.

VOW, a promise made to God, of doing some good thing hereafter. The use
of vows is observable throughout Scripture. When Jacob went into
Mesopotamia, he vowed to God the tenth of his estate, and promised to
offer it at Bethel, to the honour of God, Gen. xxviii, 22. Moses enacts
several laws for the regulation and execution of vows. A man might
devote himself, or his children, to the Lord. Jephthah devoted his
daughter, Judges xi, 30, 31. Samuel was vowed or consecrated to the
service of the Lord before his birth, by his pious mother Hannah; and
was really offered to him, to serve in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 21, &c.
If a man and woman vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to
adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow;
but in some cases they might be redeemed. A man from twenty years of age
till sixty, gave fifty shekels of silver; and a woman thirty, Lev.
xxvii, 3. From the age of five years to twenty, a man gave twenty
shekels, and a woman ten; from a month old to five years, they gave for
a boy five shekels, and for a girl three. A man of sixty years old, or
upward, gave fifteen shekels, and a woman of the same age gave ten. If
the person was poor, and could not procure this sum, the priest imposed
a ransom upon him, according to his abilities. If any one had vowed an
animal that was clean, he had not the liberty of redeeming it, or of
exchanging it, but was obliged to sacrifice it to the Lord. If it was an
unclean animal, and such as was not allowed to be sacrificed, the priest
made a valuation of it; and if the proprietor would redeem it, he added
a fifth part to the value, by way of forfeit. They did the same in
proportion, when the thing vowed was a house or a field. They could not
devote the first born, because in their own nature they belonged to the
Lord, Lev. xxvii, 28, 29. Whatever was devoted by way of anathema, could
not be redeemed, of whatever nature or quality it was. An animal was put
to death, and other things were devoted for ever to the Lord. The
consecration of Nazarites was a particular kind of vow. The vows and
promises of children were void, of course, except they were ratified
either by the express or tacit consent of their parents. It was the same
with the vows of a married woman; they were of no validity, except
confirmed by the express or tacit consent of her husband, Num. xxx. But
widows, or liberated wives, were bound by their vows, whatever they
were.

Whosoever invokes the awful name of God to witness any untruth, knowing
it to be such, is guilty of taking it in vain. Our Lord did not mean to
preclude solemn appeals to heaven, whether oaths or vows, in courts of
justice, or in important compacts. For an oath, or appeal to the
greatest of all beings, as the Searcher of hearts, to witness a
transaction, and to punish falsehood or perjury, is necessary, for
putting an end to all strife or controversy among men, to promote
confirmation or security of property, Heb. vi, 16. And it was sanctioned
by the example of God, swearing by himself, Genesis xxii, 15; Heb. vi,
17, 18; and by the example of the patriarchs and saints of old; thus
Abraham swore by the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth, Gen.
xiv, 22; the transjordanite tribes, by the God of gods, the Lord, Joshua
xxii, 22. And the law prescribed, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and
serve him, and shalt swear by his name,” Deut. vi, 13. And afterward,
“All Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn unto the Lord with a
loud voice, with all their heart, and sought him with their whole
desire: and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round
about,” 2 Chron. xv, 14, 15. And a highly gifted Apostle uses the
following most solemn asseveration, “The God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not,” 2
Cor. xi, 31. See the vows of the priests and Levites, to put away
strange wives, Ezra x, 5; and to take no usury from their brethren, Neh.
x, 29. St. Paul also vowed a vow, which he performed, Acts xviii, 18;
xxi, 23. Our Lord, therefore, reënacted the law, while he guarded
against the abuse of it, by prohibiting all oaths in common
conversation, as a profanation either of God’s name, where that was
irreverently used, or where any of his works was substituted instead of
the awful and terrible name of the Lord, which the Jews, through
superstitious dread, at length ceased to use, from misinterpretation of
Deut. xxviii, 58: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all,” in common
conversation, by any of your usual oaths, “neither by heaven, for it is
God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,” &c. For, by
the detestable casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees, some oaths were
reckoned binding, others not, as we learn from the sequel; thus, to
swear by the temple, the altar, heaven, &c, they considered as not
binding: but to swear by the gold of the temple, by the gift on the
altar, &c, they considered as binding; the absurdity and impiety of
which practice is well exposed by our Lord in Matt. xxiii, 16–22.

VULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one
the church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of
the Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of
the Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long
time known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very
great antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar
version, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with
occasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate.
Nobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it;
pretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had
cited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom;
and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some
corrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the
council of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone
that is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the
ancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which
are still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares
that, in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and
circumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it
misrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access
were not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been
made, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been
much better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them,
have restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that
he never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it,
for fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders
in his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his
translation. This version was not introduced into the church but by
degrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding
his enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this
performance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian.
This translation gained at last so great an authority, by the
approbation of Pope Gregory I., and his declared preference of it to
every other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through
all the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic,
except by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving
to illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.

The two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of pope
Sixtus V. and Clement VIII.: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope
Sixtus had collected the most ancient MSS. and best printed copies,
summoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian
world, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and
counsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared
to be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a
tremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever
afterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically
promulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, _in quâ Petri vivit
potestas, et excellit auctoritas_, [in which the power of Peter lived,
and his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by
Pope Clement VIII.; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to
contain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others
clearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is
also, _ex cathedrâ_, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic
one, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the
former. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that
copies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been
reckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the
celebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher,
relates, with all the ardour of a hard student, the delight which he
experienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to
good and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled “_Bellum
Papale_,” in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions,
contradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and
Clementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about
recognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two
such infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it
as a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the
word of God.

The Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable
to the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek
text, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that
church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no
other at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the
divines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, F. Bouhours for
instance, own, that among the differences that are found between the
common Greek and the Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading
appears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the
second might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think
fit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few
syllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of
the most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient
manuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a
French translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is
probable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the
New Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with
the Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times
of the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better
kept, than any of those used when printing was invented.

“Highly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome,” says
Michaëlis, “it was depreciated beyond measure at the beginning of the
sixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been
followed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning,
when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment
of a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written
with classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered,
their readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New
Testament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it
was not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in
comparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it
known at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the
other versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate.
Our ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengel, have been induced by F.
Simon’s treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have
ascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves.”

VULTURE, דאה, and ראה, Lev. xi, 14; Isa. xxxiv, 15; a large bird of
prey, somewhat resembling the eagle. There are several birds of the
vulturine kind, which, though they differ much in respect to colour and
dimensions, yet are all easily distinguished by their naked heads, and
beaks partly straight and partly crooked. They are frequent in Arabia,
Egypt, and many parts of Africa and Asia. They have a most indelicate
voracity, preying more upon carrion than live animals. They were
declared unclean in the Levitical constitution.


WALDENSES, WALLENSES, or ALBIGENSES, the Vaudois, or inhabitants of the
beautiful valleys of the Alps, between Italy and Provence. Many have
supposed that they derived their name from Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a
merchant of Lyons, in the twelfth century, and one of their leaders and
patrons; but their history has been traced considerably farther back,
which has led others to suppose that, on the contrary, he derived his
name from them, as Peter the Waldensian, or Peter of the Valleys. The
learned Dr. Allix, in his “History of the Churches of Piedmont,” gives
this account: For three hundred years or more, the bishop of Rome
attempted to subjugate the church of Milan under his jurisdiction; and
at last the interest of Rome grew too potent for the church of Milan,
planted by one of the disciples; insomuch that the bishop and the
people, rather than own their jurisdiction, retired to the valleys of
Lucerne and Angrogne, and thence were called Vallenses, Wallenses, or,
The People in the Valleys. From a confession of their faith, of the
early date, A. D. 1120, we extract the following particulars: 1. That
the Scriptures teach that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and
all-good, who made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his
own image and likeness; but that by the envy of the devil sin entered
into the world, and that we are sinners in and by Adam. 2. That Christ
was promised to our fathers, who received the law; that so knowing by
the law their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the
coming of Christ, to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the law by
himself. 3. That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the
Father; that is to say, in the time when all iniquity abounded, that he
might show us grace and mercy, as being faithful. 4. That Christ is our
life, truth, peace, and righteousness; as also our pastor, advocate, and
priest, who died for the salvation of all who believe, and is risen for
our justification. 5. That there is no mediator and advocate with God
the Father, save Jesus Christ. 6. That after this life there are only
two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned. 7. That
the feasts, the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy, as
also to abstain from flesh on certain days, and the like, but especially
the masses, are the inventions of men, and ought to be rejected. 8. That
the sacraments are signs of the holy thing, visible forms of the
invisible grace; and that it is good for the faithful to use those signs
or visible forms; but that they are not essential to salvation. 9. That
there are no other sacraments but baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 10.
That we ought to honour the secular powers by subjection, ready
obedience, and paying of tribute. On the subject of infant baptism, they
held different opinions, as Christians do in the present day.

For bearing this noble testimony against the church of Rome, these pious
people were for many centuries the subjects of a most cruel persecution;
and in the thirteenth century the pope instituted a crusade against
them, and they were pursued with a fury perfectly diabolical. Their
principles, however, continued unsubdued, and at the Reformation their
descendants were reckoned among the Protestants, with whom they were in
doctrine so congenial; but in the seventeenth century the flames of
persecution were again rekindled against them by the cruelty of Louis
XIV. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, about fifteen thousand
perished in the prisons of Pignerol, beside great numbers who perished
among the mountains. They received, however, the powerful protection and
support of England under William III. But still the house of Saxony
continued to treat them as heretics, and they were oppressed by a
variety of cruel edicts.

When Piedmont was subjected to France in 1800, the French government,
Buonaparte being first consul, placed them on the same plan of
toleration with the rest of France; but on the return of the king of
Sardinia to Genoa, notwithstanding the intercession of Lord William
Bentinck, the old persecuting edicts were revived in the end of 1814;
and though they have not been subjected to fire and faggot as aforetime,
their worship has been restrained, and they were not only stripped of
all employments, but, by a most providential circumstance only, saved
from a general massacre. Since then they have been visited by some pious
and benevolent Englishmen; and the number of Waldenses, or Vaudois, has
been taken at nineteen thousand seven hundred and ten, beside about
fifty families residing at Turin.

Mr. Milner very properly connects this people with the Cathari, or
Paulicians, of the seventh century, who resided chiefly in the valleys
of Piedmont, and who, in the twelfth century, according to this valuable
historian, received a great accession of members from the learned
labours and godly zeal of Peter Waldo, a pious man of unusual learning
for a layman at that period. His thoughts being turned to divine things
by the sudden death of a friend, he applied himself to the study of the
Scriptures, and was, according to Mr. Milner, the first who, in the west
of Europe, translated the Bible into a modern language. Waldo was rich,
and distributed his wealth among the poor, and with it the bread of
life, which endeared him to the lower classes; and it was probably the
great increase of these pious people, in consequence of his exertions,
which brought upon them the horrible crusade in the next century. This
was, however, wholly on account of their pretended heresies,--their
bitterest enemies bearing testimony to the purity of their life and
manners. Thus a pontifical inquisitor, quoted by Usher, says, “These
heretics are known by their manners and conversation; for they are
orderly and modest in their behaviour and deportment; they avoid all
appearance of pride in their dress; they are chaste, temperate, and
sober; they seek not to amass riches; they abstain from anger; and, even
while at work, are either learning or teaching.” Seysillius, another
popish writer, says of them, “Their heresy excepted, they generally live
a purer life than other Christians.” Liclenstenius, a Dominican, says,
“In morals and life they are good; true in words; unanimous in brotherly
love; but their faith is incorrigible and vile, as I have shown you in
my treatise.” But most remarkable is the testimony of Reinerus, an
inquisitor of the thirteenth century: “Of all the sects which have been,
or now exist, none is more injurious to the church, (that is, of Rome,)
for three reasons: 1. Because it is more ancient. Some say it has
continued from the time of Silvester; others from the time of the
Apostles. 2. Because it is more general. There is scarcely any country
into which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all other heretics excite
horror by the greatness of their blasphemies against God; but these have
a great appearance of piety, as they live justly before men, and believe
rightly all things concerning God, and all the articles which are
contained in the creed.”

WAR, or WARFARE, the attempt to decide a contest or difference between
princes, states, or large bodies of people, by resorting to extensive
acts of violence, or, as the phrase is, by an appeal to arms. The
Hebrews were formerly a very warlike nation. The books that inform us of
their wars display neither ignorance nor flattery; but are writings
inspired by the Spirit of truth and wisdom. Their warriors were none of
those fabulous heroes or professed conquerors, whose business it was to
ravage cities and provinces, and to reduce foreign nations under their
dominion, merely for the sake of governing, or purchasing a name for
themselves. They were commonly wise and valiant generals, raised up by
God “to fight the battles of the Lord,” and to exterminate his enemies.
Such were Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, David, Josiah, and
the Maccabees, whose names alone are their own sufficient encomiums.
Their wars were not undertaken upon slight occasions, or performed with
a handful of people. Under Joshua the affair was of no less importance
than to make himself master of a vast country which God had given up to
him; and to root out several powerful nations that God had devoted to an
anathema; and to vindicate an offended Deity, and human nature which had
been debased by a wicked and corrupt people, who had filled up the
measure of their iniquities. Under the Judges, the matter was to assert
their liberty, by shaking off the yoke of powerful tyrants, who kept
them in subjection. Under Saul and David the same motives prevailed to
undertake war; and to these were added a farther motive, of making a
conquest of such provinces as God had promised to his people. Far was it
from their intention merely to reduce the power of the Philistines, the
Ammonites, the Moabites, the Idumeans, the Arabians, the Syrians, and
the several princes that were in possession of those countries. In the
later times of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, we observe their kings
bearing the shock of the greatest powers of Asia, of the kings of
Assyria and Chaldea, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and
Nebuchadnezzar, who made the whole east tremble. Under the Maccabees a
handful of men opposed the whole power of the kings of Syria, and
against them maintained the religion of their fathers, and shook off the
yoke of their oppressors, who had a design both against their religion
and liberty. In still later times, with what courage, intrepidity, and
constancy, did they sustain the war against the Romans, who were then
masters of the world!

We may distinguish two kinds of wars among the Hebrews: some were of
obligation, as being expressly commanded by the Lord; but others were
free and voluntary. The first were such as God appointed them to
undertake: for example, against the Amalekites and the Canaanites, which
were nations devoted to an anathema. The others were undertaken by the
captains of the people, to revenge some injuries offered to the nation,
to punish some insults or offences, or to defend their allies. Such was
that which the Hebrews made against the city of Gibeah, and against the
tribe of Benjamin, which would support them in their fault; that which
David made against the Ammonites, whose king had affronted his
ambassadors; and that of Joshua against the kings of the Canaanites, to
protect the Gibeonites. Whatever reasons authorize a nation or a prince
to make war against another, obtained, likewise, among the Hebrews; for
all the laws of Moses suppose that the Israelites might make war, and
might defend themselves, against their enemies. When a war was resolved
upon, all the people that were capable of bearing arms were collected
together, or only part of them, according as the exigence of the
existing case and the necessity and importance of the enterprise
required. For it does not appear that, before the reign of King David,
there were any regular troops or magazines in Israel. A general
rendezvous was appointed, a review was made of the people by tribes and
by families, and then they marched against the enemy. When Saul, at the
beginning of his reign, was informed of the cruel proposal that the
Ammonites had made to the men of the city of Jabesh-Gilead, he cut in
pieces the oxen belonging to his plough, and sent them through the
country, saying, “Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, to
the relief of Jabesh-Gilead, so shall it be done unto his oxen,” 1 Sam.
xi, 7. In ancient times, those that went to war generally carried their
own provisions along with them, or they took them from the enemy. Hence
these wars were generally of short continuance; because it was hardly
possible to subsist a large body of troops for a long time with such
provisions as every one carried along with him. When David, Jesse’s
younger son, stayed behind to look after his father’s flocks while his
elder brothers went to the wars along with Saul, Jesse sent David to
carry provisions to his brothers, 1 Sam. xvii, 13. We suppose that this
way of making war prevailed also under Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David
at the beginning of his reign, the kings of Judah and Israel who were
successors to Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and under the Maccabees, till the
time of Simon Maccabæus, prince and high priest of the Jews, who had
mercenary troops, that is, soldiers who received pay, 1 Mac. xiv, 32.
Every one also provided his own arms for the war. The kings of the
Hebrews went to the wars in person, and, in earlier times, fought on
foot, as well as the meanest of their soldiers; no horses being used in
the armies of Israel before David. The officers of war among the Hebrews
were the general of the army, and the princes of the tribes or of the
families of Israel, beside other princes or captains, some of a
thousand, some of a hundred, some of fifty, and some of ten, men. They
had also their scribes, who were a kind of commissaries that kept the
muster roll of the troops; and these had others under them who acted by
their direction.

Military fortifications were at first nothing more than a trench or
ditch, dug round a few cottages on a hill or mountain, together with the
mound, which was formed by the sand dug out of it; except, perhaps,
there might have sometimes been an elevated scaffolding for the purpose
of throwing stones with the greater effect against the enemy. In the age
of Moses and Joshua, the walls which surrounded cities were elevated to
no inconsiderable height, and were furnished with towers. The art of
fortification was encouraged and patronized by the Hebrew kings, and
Jerusalem was always well defended, especially Mount Zion. In later
times the temple itself was used as a castle. The principal parts of a
fortification were, 1. The wall, which, in some instances, was triple
and double, 2 Chron. xxxii, 5. Walls were commonly made lofty and broad,
so as to be neither readily passed over nor broken through, Jer. li, 58.
The main wall terminated at the top in a parapet for the accommodation
of the soldiers, which opened at intervals in a sort of embrasures, so
as to give them an opportunity of fighting with missile weapons. 2.
Towers, which were erected at certain distances from each other on the
top of walls, and ascended to a great height, terminated at the top in a
flat roof, and were surrounded with a parapet, which exhibited openings
similar to those in the parapet of the walls. Towers of this kind were
erected, likewise, over the gates of cities. In these towers guards were
kept constantly stationed; at least, this was the case in the time of
the kings. It was their business to make known any thing that they
discovered at a distance; and whenever they noticed an irruption from an
enemy, they blew the trumpet, to arouse the citizens, 2 Sam. xiii, 34;
xviii, 26, 27; 2 Kings ix, 17–19; Nahum ii, 1; 2 Chron. xvii, 2. Towers,
likewise, which were somewhat larger in size, were erected in different
parts of the country, particularly on places which were elevated; and
these were guarded by a military force, Judges viii, 9,17; ix, 46, 49,
51; Isaiah xxi, 6; Hab. ii, 1; Hosea v, 8; Jer. xxxi, 6. We find, even
to this day, that the circular edifices of this sort, which are still
erected in the solitudes of Arabia Felix, bear their ancient name of
castles or towers. 3. The walls were erected in such a way as to curve
inward; the extremities of them, consequently, projected outward, and
formed a kind of bastions. The object of forming the walls so as to
present such projections, was to enable the inhabitants of the besieged
city to attack the assailants in flank. We learn from the history of
Tacitus, that the walls of Jerusalem, at the time of its being attacked
by the Romans, were built in this manner. These projections were
introduced by King Uzziah, B.C. 810, and are subsequently mentioned in
Zeph. i, 16. 4. The digging of a fosse put it in the power of the
inhabitants of a city to increase the elevation of the walls, and of
itself threw a serious difficulty in the way of an enemy’s approach, 2
Sam. xx, 15; Isaiah xxvi, 1; Neh. iii, 8; Psalm xlviii, 13. The fosse,
if the situation of the place admitted it, was filled with water. This
was the case at Babylon. 5. The gates were at first made of wood, and
were small in size. They were constructed in the manner of valve doors,
and were secured by means of wooden bars. Subsequently, they were made
larger and stronger; and, in order to prevent their being burned, were
covered with plates of brass or iron. The bars were covered in the same
manner, in order to prevent their being cut asunder; but it was
sometimes the case that they were made wholly of iron. The bars were
secured by a sort of lock, Psalm cvii, 16; Isaiah xlv, 2.

Previously to commencing war, the Heathen nations consulted oracles,
soothsayers, necromancers, and also the lot, which was ascertained by
shooting arrows of different colours, 1 Sam. xxviii, 1–10; Isaiah xli,
21–24; Ezek. xxv, 11. The Hebrews, to whom things of this kind were
interdicted, were in the habit, in the early part of their history, of
inquiring of God by means of Urim and Thummim, Judges i, 1; xx, 27, 28;
1 Sam. xxiii, 2; xxviii, 6; xxx, 8. After the time of David, the kings
who reigned in Palestine consulted, according to the different
characters which they sustained, and the feelings which they exercised,
sometimes true prophets, and sometimes false, in respect to the issue of
war, 1 Kings xxii, 6–13; 2 Kings xix, 2, &c. Sacrifices were also
offered, in reference to which the soldiers were said to consecrate
themselves to the war, Isaiah xiii, 3; Jer. vi, 4; li, 27; Joel iii, 9;
Obad. 1. There are instances of formal declarations of war, and
sometimes of previous negotiations, 2 Kings xiv, 8; 2 Chron. xxv, 27;
Judges xi, 12–28; but ceremonies of this kind were not always observed,
2 Sam. x, 1–12. When the enemy made a sudden incursion, or when the war
was unexpectedly commenced, the alarm was given to the people by
messengers rapidly sent forth, by the sound of warlike trumpets, by
standards floating on the loftiest places, by the clamour of many voices
on the mountains, that echoed from summit to summit, Judges iii, 27; vi,
34; vii, 22; xix, 29, 30; 1 Sam. xi, 7, 8; Isaiah v, 26; xiii, 2; xviii,
3; xxx, 17; xlix, 2; lxii, 10. Military expeditions commonly commenced
in the spring, 2 Sam. xi, 1, and were continued in the summer, but in
the winter the soldiers went into quarters. The firm persuasion that God
fights for the good against the wicked, discovers itself in the Old
Testament, and accounts for the fact, that, not only in the Hebrew, but
also in the Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldaic languages, words, which
originally signify justice, innocence, or uprightness, signify likewise
victory; and that words, whose usual meaning is injustice or wickedness,
also mean defeat or overthrow. The same may be said in respect to words
which signify help or aid, inasmuch as the nation which conquered
received aid from God, and God was its helper, Psalm vii, 9; ix, 9; xx,
6; xxvi, 1; xxxv, 24; xliii, 1; xliv, 5; lxxv, 3; lxxvi, 13; lxxviii, 9;
lxxxii, 8; 1 Sam. xiv, 45; 2 Kings v, 1; Isa. lix, 17; Hab. iii, 8.

The attack of the orientals in battle has always been, and is to this
day, characterized by vehemence and impetuosity. In case the enemy
sustain an unaltered front, they retreat, but it is not long before they
return again with renewed ardour. It was the practice of the Roman
armies to stand still in the order of battle, and to receive the shock
of their opposers. To this practice there are allusions in the following
passages: 1 Cor. xvi, 13; Gal. v, 1; Eph. vi, 14; Phil. i, 27; 1 Thess.
iii, 8; 2 Thess. ii, 15. The Greeks, while they were yet three or four
furlongs distant from the enemy, commenced the song of war; something
resembling which occurs in 2 Chron. xx, 21. They then raised a shout,
which was also done among the Hebrews, 1 Sam. xvii, 52; Joshua vi, 6;
Isa. v, 29, 30; xvii, 12; Jer. iv, 19; xxv, 30. The war shout in Judges
vii, 20, was as follows, “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” In some
instances it seems to have been a mere yell or inarticulate cry. The
mere march of armies with their weapons, chariots, and trampling
coursers, occasioned a great and confused noise, which is compared by
the prophets to the roaring of the ocean, and the dashing of the
mountain torrents, Isa. xvii, 12, 13; xxvii, 2. The descriptions of
battles in the Bible are very brief; but although there is nothing
especially said, in respect to the order in which the battle commenced
and was conducted, there is hardly a doubt that the light-armed troops,
as was the case in other nations, were the first in the engagement. The
main body followed them, and, with their spears extended, made a rapid
and impetuous movement upon the enemy. Hence swiftness of foot in a
soldier is mentioned as a ground of great commendation, not only in
Homer, but in the Bible, 2 Sam. ii, 19–24; 1 Chron. xii, 8; Psalm xviii,
33. Those who obtained the victory were intoxicated with joy; the shout
of triumph resounded from mountain to mountain, Isa. xlii, 11; lii, 7,
8; Jer. 1, 2; Ezek. vii, 7; Nahum i, 15. The whole of the people, not
excepting the women, went out to meet the returning conquerors with
singing and with dancing, Judges xi, 34–37; 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7.
Triumphal songs were uttered for the living, and elegies for the dead, 2
Sam. i, 17, 18; 2 Chron. xxxv, 25; Judges v, 1–31; Exod. xv, 1–21.
Monuments in honour of the victory were erected, 2 Sam. viii, 13; Psalm
lx, 1; and the arms of the enemy were hung up as trophies in the
tabernacle, 1 Sam. xxxi, 10; 2 Kings xi, 10. The soldiers who conducted
themselves meritoriously were honoured with presents, and had the
opportunity of entering into honourable matrimonial connections, Joshua
xiv; 1 Sam. xvii, 25; xxviii, 17; 2 Sam. xviii, 11. See ARMIES, and
ARMS.

WATER. In the sacred Scriptures, bread and water are commonly mentioned
as the chief supports of human life; and to provide a sufficient
quantity of water, to prepare it for use, and to deal it out to the
thirsty, are among the principal cares of an oriental householder. The
Moabites and Ammonites are reproached for not meeting the Israelites
with bread and water; that is, with proper refreshments, Deut. xxxiii,
4. Nabal says in an insulting manner to David’s messengers, “Shall I
then take my bread and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my
shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?” 1 Sam.
xxv, 11. To furnish travellers with water is, even in present times,
reckoned of so great importance, that many of the eastern
philanthropists have been at considerable expense to procure them that
enjoyment. The nature of the climate, and the general aspect of the
oriental regions, require numerous fountains to excite and sustain the
languid powers of vegetation; and the sun, burning with intense heat in
a cloudless sky, demands for the fainting inhabitants the verdure,
shade, and coolness which vegetation produces. Hence fountains of living
water are met with in the towns and villages, in the fields and gardens,
and by the sides of the roads and of the beaten tracks on the mountains;
and a cup of cold water from these wells is no contemptible present.
“Fatigued with heat and thirst,” says Carne, “we came to a few cottages
in a palm wood, and stopped to drink of a fountain of delicious water.
In this northern climate no idea can be formed of the luxury of drinking
in Egypt: little appetite for food is felt; but when, after crossing the
burning sands, you reach the rich line of woods on the brink of the
Nile, and pluck the fresh limes, and, mixing their juice with Egyptian
sugar and the soft river water, drink repeated bowls of lemonade, you
feel that every other pleasure of the senses must yield to this. One
then perceives the beauty and force of those similes in Scripture, where
the sweetest emotions of the heart are compared to the assuaging of
thirst in a thirsty land.” In Arabia, equal attention is paid, by the
wealthy and benevolent, to the refreshment of the traveller. On one of
the mountains of Arabia, Niebuhr found three little reservoirs, which
are always kept full of fine water for the use of passengers. These
reservoirs, which are about two feet and a half square, and from five to
seven feet high, are round, or pointed at the top, of mason’s work,
having only a small opening in one of the sides, by which they pour
water into them. Sometimes he found, near these places of Arab
refreshment, a piece of a ground shell, or a little scoop of wood, for
lifting the water. The same attention to the comfort of travellers is
manifested in Egypt, where public buildings are set apart in some of
their cities, the business of whose inhabitants is to supply the
passengers with water free of expense. Some of these houses make a very
handsome appearance; and the persons appointed to wait on the passengers
are required to have some vessels of copper, curiously tinned and filled
with water, always ready on the window next the street. Some of the
Mohammedan villages in Palestine, not far from Nazareth, brought Mr.
Buckingham and his party bread and water, while on horseback, without
even being solicited to do so; and when they halted to accept it, both
compliments and blessings were mutually interchanged. “Here, as in every
other part of Nubia,” says Burckhardt, “the thirsty traveller finds, at
short distances, water jars placed by the road side under a low roof.
Every village pays a small monthly stipend to some person to fill these
jars in the morning, and again toward evening. The same custom prevails
in Upper Egypt, but on a larger scale: and there are caravanserais often
found near the wells which supply travellers with water.” In India the
Hindoos go sometimes a great way to fetch water, and then boil it, that
it may not be hurtful to travellers that are hot; and after this stand
from morning till night in some great road, where there is neither pit
nor rivulet, and offer it in honour of their gods, to be drunk by the
passengers. This necessary work of charity in these hot countries seems
to have been practised among the more pious and humane Jews; and our
Lord assures them, that if they do this in his name, they shall not lose
their reward. Hence a cup of water is a present in the east of great
value, though there are some other refreshments of a superior quality.
It is still the proper business of the females to supply the family with
water. From this drudgery, however, the married women are exempted,
unless when single women are wanting. The proper time for drawing water
in those burning climates is in the morning, or when the sun is going
down; then they go forth to perform that humble office adorned with
their trinkets, some of which are often of great value. Agreeably to
this custom Rebecca went instead of her mother to fetch water from the
well, and the servant of Abraham expected to meet an unmarried female
there who might prove a suitable match for his master’s son. In the East
Indies, the women also draw water at the public wells, as Rebecca did,
on that occasion, for travellers, their servants and their cattle; and
women of no mean rank literally illustrate the conduct of an unfortunate
princess in the Jewish history, by performing the services of a menial,
2 Sam. xiii, 8. The young women of Guzerat daily draw water from the
wells, and carry the jars upon the head; but those of high rank carry
them upon the shoulder. In the same way Rebecca carried her pitcher; and
probably for the same reason, because she was the daughter of an eastern
prince, Gen. xxiv, 45.

Water sometimes signifies the element of water, Gen. i, 10; and
metaphorically, trouble and afflictions, Psalm lxix, 1. In the language
of the prophets, waters often denote a great multitude of people, Isa.
viii, 7; Rev. xvii, 15. Water is put for children or posterity, Num.
xxiv, 7; Isa. xlviii, 1; for the clouds, Psalm civ, 3. Waters sometimes
stand for tears, Jer. ix, 1, 7; for the ordinances of the Gospel, Isa.
xii, 3; xxxv, 6, 7; lv, 1; John vii, 37, 38. “Stolen waters” denote
unlawful pleasures with strange women, Prov. ix, 17. The Israelites are
reproached with having forsaken the fountain of living water, to quench
their thirst at broken cisterns, Jer. ii, 13; that is, with having
quitted the worship of God for the worship of false and ridiculous
deities. Waters of Meribah, or the waters of strife, were so called
because of the quarrelling or contention and murmuring of the Israelites
against Moses and against God. When they came to Kadesh, and there
happened to be in want of water, they made a sedition against him and
his brother Aaron, Numbers xx, 1, &c. Upon this occasion Moses committed
that great sin with which God was so much displeased, that he deprived
him of the honour of introducing his people into the land of promise.

WAX, דונג, Psalm xxii, 14; lxviii, 2; xcvii, 5; Micah i, 4. Thus the
LXX. throughout, κηρὸς, and vulgate _cera_; so there is no room to doubt
but this is the true meaning of the word: and the idea of the root
appears to be soft, melting, yielding, or the like, which properties are
not only well known to belong to wax, but are also intimated in all the
passages of Scripture in which this word occurs.

WAYFARING MEN. In the primitive ages of the world there were no public
inns or taverns. In those days the voluntary exhibition of hospitality
to one who stood in need of it was highly honourable. The glory of an
open-hearted and generous hospitality continued even after public inns
or caravanserais were erected, and continues to this day in the east,
Job xxii, 7; xxxi, 17; Gen. xviii, 3–9; xix, 2–10; Exodus ii, 20; Judges
xix, 2–10; Acts xvi, 15; xvii, 7; xxviii, 7; Matt. xxv, 35; Mark ix, 41;
Rom. xii, 13; 1 Tim. iii, 2; v, 10; Heb. xiii, 2. Buckingham in his
“Travels among the Arab Tribes,” says, “A foot passenger could make his
way at little or no expense, as travellers and wayfarers of every
description halt at the sheikh’s dwelling, where, whatever may be the
rank or condition of the stranger, before any questions are asked him as
to where he comes from, or whither he is going, coffee is served to him
from a large pot always on the fire; and a meal of bread, milk, oil,
honey, or butter, is set before him, for which no payment is ever
demanded or even expected by the host, who, in this manner, feeds at
least twenty persons on an average every day in the year from his own
purse; at least, I could not learn that he was remunerated in any manner
for this expenditure, though it is considered as a necessary consequence
of his situation, as chief of the community, that he should maintain
this ancient practice of hospitality to strangers.--We had been directed
to the house of Eesa, or Jesus. Our horses were taken into the court
yard of the house, and unburdened of their saddles, without a single
question being asked on either side; and it was not until we had seated
ourselves that our intention to remain here for the night was
communicated to the master of the house: so much is it regarded a matter
of course, that those who have a house to shelter themselves in, and
food to partake of, should share those comforts with wayfarers.” The
passage in Isa. xxxv, 8, “The wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err
therein,” receives elucidation from some of the accounts of modern
travellers. Irwin, speaking of his passing through the deserts on the
eastern side of the Nile, in his going from Upper Egypt to Cairo, tells
us, that, after leaving a certain valley, which he mentions, their road
lay over level ground. “As it would be next to an impossibility to find
the way over these stony flats, where the heavy foot of a camel leaves
no impression, the different bands of robbers,” wild Arabs, he means,
who frequent that desert, “have heaped up stones at unequal distances
for their direction through this desert. We have derived great
assistance from the robbers in this respect, who are our guides when the
marks either fail, or are unintelligible to us.” “It was on the 24th of
March,” says Hoste, “that I departed from Alexandria for Rosetta: it was
a good day’s journey thither, over a level country, but a perfect
desert, so that the wind plays with the sand, and there is no trace of a
road. We travel first six leagues along the sea coast; but when we leave
this, it is about six leagues more to Rosetta, and from thence to the
town there are high stone or bark pillars, in a line, according to which
travellers direct their journey.”

WAYS, in Scripture, means conduct: for example: “Make your paths
straight.” The paths of the wicked are crooked. To forsake the ways of
the Lord, is to forsake his laws. Ways also signifies custom, manners,
and way of life: “All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth,” Gen.
vi, 12; xix, 31; Jer. xxxii, 19. The way of the Lord expresses his
conduct to us: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
my ways, saith the Lord,” Isa. lv, 8. We find through the whole of
Scripture this kind of expressions: The way of peace, of justice, of
iniquity, of truth, of darkness. To go the way of all the earth, Joshua
xxiii, 14, signifies dying and the grave. A hard way represents the way
of sinners, a way of impiety, Judges ii, 19. Jesus Christ is called the
Way, John xiv, 6, because it is by him alone that believers obtain
eternal life, and an entrance into heaven. The psalmist says, “Thou wilt
show me the path of life,” Psalm xvi, 11; that is, Thou wilt raise my
body from death to life, and conduct me to the place and state of
everlasting happiness. When a great prince in the east sets out on a
journey, it is usual to send a party of men before him, to clear the
way. The state of those countries in every age, where roads are almost
unknown, and, from the want of cultivation, in many parts overgrown with
brambles, and other thorny plants, which renders travelling, especially
with a large retinue, very incommodious, requires this precaution. The
emperor of Hindostan, in his progress through his dominions, as
described in the narrative of Sir Thomas Roe’s embassy to the court of
Delhi, was preceded by a very great company, sent before him to cut up
the trees and bushes, to level and smooth the road, and prepare their
place of encampment. Balin, who swayed the imperial sceptre of India,
had five hundred chosen men, in rich livery, with their drawn sabres,
who ran before him, proclaiming his approach, and clearing the way. Nor
was this honour reserved exclusively for the reigning emperor; it was
often shown to persons of royal birth. When an Indian princess made a
visit to her father, the roads were directed to be repaired, and made
clear for her journey; fruit trees were planted, water vessels placed in
the road side, and great illuminations prepared for the occasion. Mr.
Bruce gives nearly the same account of a journey, which the king of
Abyssinia made through a part of his dominions. The chief magistrate of
every district through which he had to pass was, by his office, obliged
to have the roads cleared, levelled, and smoothed; and he mentions, that
a magistrate of one of the districts, having failed in this part of his
duty, was, together with his son, immediately put to death on the spot,
where a thorn happened to catch the garment, and interrupt for a moment
the progress of his majesty. This custom is easily recognized in that
beautiful prediction: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway
for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill
shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the
rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all
flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,”
Isa. xl, 3–5. We shall be able, perhaps, to form a more clear and
precise idea, from the account which Diodorus gives of the marches of
Semiramis, the celebrated queen of Babylon, into Media and Persia. In
her march to Ecbatane, says the historian, she came to the Zarcean
mountain, which, extending many furlongs, and being full of craggy
precipices and deep hollows, could not be passed without taking a great
compass. Being therefore desirous of leaving an everlasting memorial of
herself, as well as of shortening the way, she ordered the precipices to
be digged down, and the hollows to be filled up; and at great expense
she made a shorter and more expeditious road; which to this day is
called, from her, the road of Semiramis. Afterward she went into Persia,
and all the other countries of Asia subject to her dominion; and
wherever she went, she ordered the mountains and the precipices to be
levelled, and raised causeways in the plain country, and at a great
expense made the ways passable. Whatever may be in this story, the
following statement is entitled to the fullest credit: “All eastern
potentates have their precursors and a number of pioneers to clear the
road, by removing obstacles, and filling up the ravines and the hollow
ways in their route. In the days of Mogul splendour, the emperor caused
the hills and mountains to be levelled, and the valleys to be filled up
for his convenience. This beautifully illustrates the figurative
language in the approach of the Prince of Peace, when every valley shall
be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the
crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”

WEAVING. The combined arts of spinning and weaving are among the first
essentials of civilized society, and we find both to be of very ancient
origin. The fabulous story of Penelope’s web, and, still more, the
frequent allusions to this art in the sacred writings, tend to show that
the fabrication of cloth from threads, hair, &c, is a very ancient
invention. It has, however, like other useful arts, undergone a vast
succession of improvements, both as to the preparation of the materials
of which cloth is made, and the apparatus necessary in its construction,
as well as in the particular modes of operation by the artist. Weaving,
when reduced to its original principle, is nothing more than the
interlacing of the weft or cross threads into the parallel threads of
the warp, so as to tie them together, and form a web or piece of cloth.
This art is doubtless more ancient than that of spinning; and the first
cloth was what we now call matting, that is, made by weaving together
the shreds of the bark, or fibrous parts of plants, or the stalks, such
as rushes and straws. This is still the substitute for cloth among most
rude and savage nations. When they have advanced a step farther in
civilization than the state of hunters, the skins of animals become
scarce, and they require some more artificial substance for clothing,
and which they can procure in greater quantities. When it was discovered
that the delicate and short fibres which animals and vegetables afford
could be so firmly united together by twisting, as to form threads of
any required length and strength, the weaving art was placed on a very
permanent foundation. By the process of spinning, which was very simple
in the origin, the weaver is furnished with threads far superior to any
natural vegetable fibres in lightness, strength, and flexibility; and he
has only to combine them together in the most advantageous manner. In
the beautiful description which is given, in the last chapter of
Solomon’s Proverbs, of the domestic economy of the virtuous woman, it is
said, “She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands:
she layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She
maketh herself coverings of tapestry,” &c. Such is the occupation of
females in the east in the present day. Not only do they employ
themselves in working rich embroideries, but in making carpets filled
with flowers and other pleasing figures. Dr. Shaw gives us an account of
the last: “Carpets, which are much coarser than those from Turkey, are
made here in great numbers, and of all sizes. But the chief branch of
their manufactories is the making of _hykes_, or blankets, as we should
call them. The women alone are employed in this work, (as Andromache and
Penelope were of old,) who do not use the shuttle, but conduct every
thread of the woof with their fingers.” Hezekiah says, “I have cut off
like a weaver my life,” Isa. xxxviii, 12. Mr. Harmer suggests whether
the simile here used may not refer to the weaving of a carpet filled
with flowers and other ingenious devices; and that the meaning may be,
that, just as a weaver, after having wrought many decorations into a
piece of carpeting, suddenly cuts it off, while the figures were rising
into view fresh and beautiful, and the spectator expecting he would
proceed in his work; so, after a variety of pleasing transactions in the
course of life, it suddenly and unexpectedly comes to its end.

WEEKS. A period of seven days, under the usual name of a week, שבעה, is
mentioned as far back as the time of the deluge, Gen. vii, 4, 10; viii,
10, 12; xxix, 27, 28. It must, therefore, be considered a very ancient
division of time, especially as the various nations among whom it has
been noticed, for instance, the Nigri in Africa, appear to have received
it from the sons of Noah. The enumeration of the days of the week
commenced at Sunday. Saturday was the last or seventh, and was the
Hebrew Sabbath, or day of rest. The Egyptians gave to the days of the
week the same names that they assigned to the planets. From the
circumstance that the Sabbath was the principal day of the week, the
whole period of seven days was likewise called שפת, in Syriac שבתא, in
the New Testament σάϐϐατον and σάϐϐατα. The Jews, accordingly, in
designating the successive days of the week, were accustomed to say, the
first day of the Sabbath, that is, of the week; the second day of the
Sabbath, that is, Sunday, Monday, &c, Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xxiv, 1; John
xx, i, 19. In addition to the week of days, the Jews had three other
seasons, denominated weeks, Lev. xxv, 1–17; Deut. xvi, 9–10: 1. The week
of weeks. It was a period of seven weeks or forty-nine days, which was
succeeded on the fiftieth day by the feast of pentecost, ϖεντηκοσὴ,
“fifty,” Deut. xvi, 9, 10. 2. The week of years. This was a period of
seven years, during the last of which the land remained untilled, and
the people enjoyed a Sabbath or season of rest. 3. The week of seven
sabbatical years. It was a period of forty-nine years, and was succeeded
by the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv, 1–22; xxvi, 34. See YEAR.

WEIGHTS. See “Table of Weights and Measures” at the end of the volume.

WELLS. When the pool, the fountain, and the river fail, the oriental
shepherd is reduced to the necessity of digging wells; and, in the
patriarchal age, the discovery of water was reckoned of sufficient
importance to be the subject of a formal report to the master of the
flock, who commonly distinguished the spot by an appropriate name. A
remarkable instance of this kind is recorded by Moses in these terms:
“And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar,
and dwelt there. And Isaac digged again the wells of water which they
had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had
stopped them after the death of Abraham; and he called their names after
the names by which his father had called them. And Isaac’s servants
digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water. And the
herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac’s herdmen, saying, The water is
ours; and he called the name of the well Ezek, because they strove with
him. And they digged another well; and they strove for that also, and he
called the name of it Sitnah, (opposition;) and he removed from thence
and digged another well: and for that they strove not; and he called the
name of it Rehoboth, (room;) and he said, For now the Lord hath made
room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land,” Gen. xxvi, 17, &c.
“Strife,” says Dr. Richardson, “between the different villagers and the
different herdsmen here, exists still, as it did in the days of Abraham
and Lot: the country has often changed masters; but the habits of the
natives, both in this and other respects, have been nearly stationary.”
So important was the successful operation of sinking a well in Canaan,
that the sacred historian remarks in another passage: “And it came to
pass the same day, (that Isaac and Abimelech had concluded their
treaty,) that Isaac’s servants came and told him concerning the well
which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water; and he
called it Shebah, (the oath,) therefore the name of the city is
Beershebah unto this day,” Gen. xxvi, 33. To prevent the sand, which is
raised from the parched surface of the ground by the winds, from filling
up their wells, they were obliged to cover them with a stone. In this
manner the well was covered, from which the flocks of Laban were
commonly watered: and the shepherds, careful not to leave them open at
any time, patiently waited till all the flocks were gathered together,
before they removed the covering, and then, having drawn a sufficient
quantity of water, they replaced the stone immediately. The extreme
scarcity of water in these arid regions, entirely justifies such
vigilant and parsimonious care in the management of this precious fluid;
and accounts for the fierce contentions about the possession of a well,
which so frequently happened between the shepherds of different masters.
But after the question of right, or of possession, was decided, it would
seem the shepherds were often detected in fraudulently watering their
flocks and herds from their neighbour’s well. To prevent this, they
secured the cover with a lock, which continued in use so late as the
days of Chardin, who frequently saw such precautions used in different
parts of Asia, on account of the real scarcity of water there. According
to that intelligent traveller, when the wells and cisterns were not
locked up, some person was so far the proprietor that no one dared to
open a well or cistern but in his presence. This was probably the reason
that the shepherds of Padanaram declined the invitation of Jacob to
water the flocks, before they were all assembled; either they had not
the key of the lock which secured the stone, or, if they had, they durst
not open it but in the presence of Rachel, to whose father the well
belonged. It is ridiculous to suppose the stone was so heavy that the
united strength of several Mesopotamian shepherds could not roll it from
the mouth of the well, when Jacob had strength or address to remove it
alone; or that, though a stranger, he ventured to break a standing rule
for watering the flocks, which the natives did not dare to do, and that
without opposition. The oriental shepherds were not on other occasions
so passive, as the violent conduct of the men of Gerar sufficiently
proves.

Twice in the day they led their flocks to the wells; at noon, and when
the sun was going down. To water the flocks was an operation of much
labour, and occupied a considerable space of time. It was, therefore, an
office of great kindness with which Jacob introduced himself to the
notice of his relations, to roll back the stone which lay upon the mouth
of the well, and draw water for the flocks which Rachel tended. Some of
these wells are furnished with troughs and flights of steps down to the
water, and other contrivances to facilitate the labour of watering the
cattle. It is evident the well to which Rebekah went to draw water, near
the city of Nahor, had some convenience of this kind; for it is written,
“Rebekah hasted and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again
unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels,” Gen. xxiv,
20. A trough was also placed by the well, from which the daughters of
Jethro watered his flocks, Exod. ii, 16; and, if we may judge from
circumstances, was a usual contrivance in every part of the east. In
modern times, Mr. Park found a trough near the well, from which the
Moors watered their cattle, in the sandy deserts of Sahara. Dr. Shaw,
speaking of the occupation of the Moorish women in Barbary, says, “To
finish the day, at the time of the evening, even at the time that the
women go out to draw water, they are still to fit themselves with a
pitcher or goat skin, and tying their sucking children behind them,
trudge it in this manner two or three miles to fetch water.” “The women
in Persia,” says Morier, “go in troops to draw water for the place. I
have seen the elder ones sitting and chatting at the well, and spinning
the coarse cotton of the country, while the young girls filled the skins
which contain the water, and which they all carry on their backs into
the town.” “A public well,” says Forbes, “without the gate of Diamonds,
in the city Dhuboy, was a place of great resort: there, most travellers
halted for shade and refreshment: the women frequented the fountains and
reservoirs morning and evening, to draw water. Many of the Gwzerat wells
have steps leading down to the surface of the water; others have not,
nor do I recollect any furnished with buckets and ropes for the
convenience of a stranger; most travellers are therefore provided with
them, and halcarras and religious pilgrims frequently carry a small
brass pot affixed to a long string for this purpose.”

WHALE, תן and תניין, Gen. i, 21; Job vii, 12; Ezek. xxxii, 2; κῆτος,
Matt. xii, 40; the largest of all the inhabitants of the water. A late
author, in a dissertation expressly for the purpose, has proved that the
crocodile, and not the whale, is spoken of in Gen. i, 21. The word in
Job vii, 12, must also be taken for the crocodile. It must mean some
terrible animal, which, but for the watchful care of Divine Providence,
would be very destructive. Our translators render it by _dragon_ in
Isaiah xxvii, 1, where the prophet gives this name to the king of Egypt:
“He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.” The sea there is the
river Nile, and the dragon the crocodile, Ezek. xxxii, 2. On this
passage Bochart remarks, ”The תנין is not a whale, as people imagine;
for a whale has neither feet nor scales, neither is it to be found in
the rivers of Egypt; neither does it ascend therefrom upon the land;
neither is it taken in the meshes of a net; all of which properties are
ascribed by Ezekiel to the תנין of Egypt. Whence it is plain that it is
not a whale that is here spoken of, but the crocodile. Merrick supposes
David, in Psalm lxxiv, 13, to speak of the _tunnie_, a kind of whale,
with which he was probably acquainted; and Bochart thinks it has its
Greek name _thunnos_ from the Hebrew _thanot_. The last-mentioned fish
is undoubtedly that spoken of in Psalm civ, 26. We are told, that, in
order to preserve the Prophet Jonah when he was thrown overboard by the
mariners, “the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow him up.” What kind
of fish it was, is not specified; but the Greek translators take the
liberty to give us the word κῆτος, _whale_; and though St. Matthew, xii,
40, makes use of the same word, we may probably conclude that he did so
in a general sense; and that we are not to understand it as an
appropriated term, to point out the particular species of fish. It is
notorious that sharks are common in the Mediterranean.

WHEAT, חטה, Gen. xxx, 14; Deut. viii, 8; σῖτος, Matt. xiii, 25; Luke
xvi, 7; 1 Cor. xv, 37; the principal and the most valuable kind of grain
for the service of man. (See _Barley_, and _Fitches_.) In Lev. ii,
directions are given for oblations, which in our translation are called
meat-offerings; but as meat means flesh, and all kinds of offerings
there specified, were made of wheat, it had been better to render it
“wheaten offerings.” Calmet has observed, that there were five kinds of
these, simple flour, oven cakes, cakes of the fire plate, cakes of the
frying pan, and green ears of corn. The word בר, translated _corn_, Gen.
xli, 35, and _wheat_ in Jer. xxiii, 28; Joel ii, 24; Amos v, 11, &c, is
undoubtedly the _burr_, or wild corn of the Arabs, mentioned by Forskal.

WHIRLWIND, a wind which rises suddenly from almost every point, is
exceedingly impetuous and rapid, and imparts a whirling motion to dust,
sand, water, and occasionally to bodies of great weight and bulk,
carrying them either upward or downward, and scattering them about in
different directions. Whirlwinds and water spouts are supposed to
proceed from the same cause; their only difference being, that the
latter pass over the water, and the former over the land. Both of them
have a progressive as well as a circular motion, generally rise after
calms and great heats, and occur most frequently in warm latitudes. The
wind blows in every direction from a large surrounding space, both
toward the water spout and the whirlwind; and a water spout has been
known to pass, in its progressive motion, from sea to land, and, when it
has reached the latter, to produce all the phenomena and effects of a
whirlwind. There is no doubt, therefore, of their arising from a similar
cause, as they are both explicable on the same general principles. In
the imagery employed by the sacred writers, these frightful hurricanes
are introduced as the immediate instruments of the divine indignation:
“He shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living and in his
wrath,” Psalm lviii, 9. “God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far
off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind,
and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind,” Isaiah xvii, 13. “The
Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are
the dust of his feet,” Nahum i, 3. All these are familiar images to the
inhabitants of eastern countries, and receive some elucidation from the
subjoined descriptions of English travellers. “On the 25th,” says Bruce,
“at four o’clock in the afternoon, we set out from the villages of the
Nuba, intending to arrive at Basbock, where is the ferry over the Nile;
but we had scarcely advanced two miles into the plain, when we were
enclosed in a violent whirlwind, or what is called at sea the water
spout. The plain was red earth, which had been plentifully moistened by
a shower in the night time. The unfortunate camel that had been taken by
Cohala seemed to be nearly in the centre of its vortex; it was lifted
and thrown down at a considerable distance, and several of its ribs
broken; although, as far as I could guess, I was not near the centre, it
whirled me off my feet, and threw me down upon my face, so as to make my
nose gush out with blood: two of the servants, likewise, had the same
fate. It plastered us all over with mud, almost as smoothly as could
have been done with a trowel. It took away my sense and breathing for an
instant; and my mouth and nose were full of mud when I recovered. I
guess the sphere of its action to be about two hundred feet. It
demolished one half of a small hut, as if it had been cut through with a
knife, and dispersed the materials all over the plain, leaving the other
half standing.” “When there was a perfect calm,” observes Morier,
“partial and strong currents of air would arise, and form whirlwinds,
which produced high columns of sand all over the plain. Those that we
saw at Shiraz were formed and dissipated in a few minutes: nor is it the
nature of this phenomenon to travel far; it being a current of air that
takes its way in a capricious and sudden manner, and is dissolved by the
very nature of its formation. Whenever one of them took our tents, it
generally disturbed them very materially, and frequently threw them
down. Their appearance was that of water spouts at sea, and perhaps they
are produced in the same manner.” And Burchell remarks: “The hottest
days are often the most calm; and at such times the stillness of the
atmosphere was sometimes suddenly disturbed in an extraordinary manner.
Whirlwinds, raising up columns of dust to a great height in the air, and
sweeping over the plains with momentary fury, were no unusual
occurrence. As they were always harmless, it was an amusing sight to
watch these tall pillars of dust as they rapidly passed by, carrying up
every light substance to the height of from one to even three or four
hundred feet. The rate at which they travelled varied from five to ten
miles in the hour: their form was seldom straight, nor were they quite
perpendicular, but uncertain and changing. Whenever they happened to
pass over our fire, all the ashes were scattered in an instant, and
nothing remained but the heavier sticks and logs. Sometimes they were
observed to disappear, and in a minute or two afterward to make their
re-appearance at a distance farther on. This occurred whenever they
passed over rocky ground, or a surface on which there was no dust, nor
other substances sufficiently light to be carried up in the vortex.
Sometimes they changed their colour, according to that of the soil or
dust which lay in their march; and when they crossed a tract of country
where the grass had lately been burned, they assumed a corresponding
blackness. But to-day the calm and heat of the air was only the prelude
to a violent wind, which commenced as soon as the sun had sunk, and
continued during the greater part of the night. The great heat and
long-protracted drought of the season had evaporated all moisture from
the earth, and rendered the sandy soil excessively light and dusty.
Astonishing quantities of the finer particles of this sand were carried
up by the wind, and filled the whole atmosphere, where, at a great
height, they were borne along by the tempest, and seemed to be real
clouds, although of a reddish hue; while the heavier particles,
descending again, presented, at a distance, the appearance of mist or
driving rains.”

WHITE, a favourite and emblematical colour in Palestine. See HABITS.

WIDOW. Among the Hebrews, even before the law, a widow who had no
children by her husband was to marry the brother of her deceased spouse,
in order to raise up children who might inherit his goods and perpetuate
his name and family. We find the practice of this custom before the law
in the person of Tamar, who married successively Er and Onan, the sons
of Judah, and who was likewise to have married Selah, the third son of
this patriarch, after the two former were dead without issue, Gen.
xxxviii, 6–11. The law that appoints these marriages is Deut. xxv, 5,
&c. Two motives prevailed to the enacting of this law. The first was,
the continuation of estates in the same family; and the other was to
perpetuate a man’s name in Israel. It was looked upon as a great
misfortune for a man to die without an heir, or to see his inheritance
pass into another family. This law was not confined to brothers-in-law
only, but was extended to more distant relations of the same kind; as we
see in the example of Ruth, who married Boaz after she had been refused
by a nearer kinsman. See SANDALS.

WILL. “In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his
Creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness, and
power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to
perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him:
yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of
divine grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of
and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really
good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his
intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ
through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand,
esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is
made a partaker of this regeneration, or renovation, since he is
delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that
which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of divine grace.”
Such were the sentiments of the often misrepresented Arminius on this
subject; to which is only to be added, to complete the Scriptural view,
that a degree of grace to consider his ways, and to return to God, is
through the merit of Christ vouchsafed to every man. Every one must be
conscious that he possesses free will, and that he is a free agent; that
is, that he is capable of considering and reflecting upon the objects
which are presented to his mind, and of acting, in such cases as are
possible, according to the determination of his will. And, indeed,
without this free agency, actions cannot be morally good or bad; nor can
the agents be responsible for their conduct. But the corruption
introduced into our nature by the fall of Adam has so weakened our
mental powers, has given such force to our passions, and such
perverseness to our wills, that a man “cannot turn and prepare himself
by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon
God.” The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation
often acknowledged the necessity of extraordinary assistance from God:
David prays to God to open his eyes, to guide and direct him; to create
in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him, Psalm li, 10;
cxix, 18, 33, 35. Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure
precepts of the Gospel, and urged by the motives which it suggests, must
still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and confess, in the
words of the tenth article, that “we have no power to do good works
pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God preventing us,
that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good
will.” The necessity of divine grace to strengthen and regulate our
wills, and to coöperate with our endeavours after righteousness, is
clearly asserted in the New Testament: “They that are in the flesh
cannot please God,” Rom. viii, 8. “Abide in me,” says our Saviour, “and
I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in
the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, and ye
are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth
forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 4, 5. “No
man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.”
“It is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good
pleasure,” Phil. ii, 13. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to
think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor.
iii, 5. “We know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit
helpeth our infirmities,” Rom. viii, 26. We are said to be “led by the
Spirit,” and to “walk in the Spirit,” Rom. viii, 14; Gal. v, 16, 25.
These texts sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a
prevenient and of a coöperating grace. This doctrine we find asserted in
many of the ancient fathers, and particularly in Ambrose, who, in
speaking of the effects of the fall, uses these words: “Thence was
derived mortality, and no less a multitude of miseries than of crimes.
Faith being lost, hope being abandoned, the understanding blinded, and
the will made captive, no one found in himself the means of repairing
these things. Without the worship of the true God, even that which seems
to be virtue is sin; nor can any one please God without God. But whom
does he please who does not please God, except himself and Satan? The
nature therefore, which was good is made bad by habit: man would not
return unless God turned him.” And Cyprian says, “We pray day and night
that the sanctification and enlivening, which springs from the grace of
God, may be preserved by his protection.” Dr. Nicholls, after quoting
many authorities to show that the doctrine of divine grace always
prevailed in the catholic church, adds, “I have spent, perhaps, more
time in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I
have done is to show that the doctrine of divine grace is so essential a
doctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the
primitive fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not
in any age maintain their religion without it,--it being necessary, not
only for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of
our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to have been the opinion of the
compilers of our excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a
prevenient and a coöperating grace is unequivocally acknowledged;
particularly in the second collect for the evening service; in the
fourth collect at the end of the communion service; in the collect for
Easter day; in the collect for the fifth Sunday after Easter; in the
collects for the third, ninth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-fifth
Sundays after Trinity. This assistance of divine grace is not
inconsistent with the free agency of men: it does not place them under
an irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will.
Our own exertions are necessary to enable us to work out our salvation;
but our sufficiency for that purpose is from God. It is, however,
impossible to ascertain the precise boundary between our natural efforts
and the divine assistance, whether that assistance be considered as a
coöperating or a prevenient grace. Without destroying our character as
free and accountable beings, God may be mercifully pleased to counteract
the depravity of our hearts by the suggestions of his Spirit; but still
it remains with us to choose whether we will listen to those
suggestions, or obey the lusts of the flesh. We may rest assured that he
will, by the communication of his grace, varied often as to power and
distinctness, help our infirmities, invigorate our resolutions, and
supply our defects. The promises that if we draw nigh to God, God will
draw nigh to us, and pour out his Spirit upon us, James iv, 8; Acts ii,
17, and that he will give his Holy Spirit to every one that asketh him,
Luke xi, 13, imply that God is ever ready to work upon our hearts, and
to aid our well-doing through the powerful, though invisible, operation
of his Spirit: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth;
so is every one that is born of the Spirit,” John iii, 8. The joint
agency of God and man, in the work of human salvation, is pointed out in
the following passage: “Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of
his good pleasure,” Phil, ii, 12, 13; and therefore we may assure
ourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode
and degree of their coöperation be utterly inexplicable, and though at
different times one may appear for a season to overwhelm the other. This
doctrine has, however, been the subject of much dispute among
Christians: some sects contend for the irresistible impulses of grace,
and others reject the idea of any influence of the divine Spirit upon
the human mind. The former opinion seems irreconcilable with the free
agency of man, if held as the constant unvarying mode in which he
carries on his work in the soul of man, and the latter contradicts the
authority of Scripture; “and therefore,” says Veneer, “let us neither
ascribe nothing to free will, nor too much; let us not, with the
defenders of irresistible grace, deny free will, or make it of no
effect, not only before, but even under, grace; nor let us suffer the
efficacy of saving grace, on the other hand, to be swallowed up in the
strength and freedom of our wills; but, allowing the government or
superiority to the grace of God, let the will of man be admitted to be
its handmaid, but such a one as is free, and freely obeys; by which,
when it is freely excited by the admonitions of prevenient grace, when
it is prepared as to its affections, strengthened and assisted as to its
powers and faculties, a man freely and willingly coöperates with God,
that the grace of God be not received in vain.” “All men are also to be
admonished,” observes Cranmer, in his “Necessary Doctrine,” “and chiefly
preachers, that in this high matter they, looking on both sides, so
temper and moderate themselves, that they neither so preach the grace of
God that they take away thereby free will, nor on the other side so
extol free will, that injury be done to the grace of God.” And Jortin
remarks: “Thus do the doctrine of divine grace and the doctrine of free
will or human liberty unite and conspire, in a friendly manner, to our
everlasting good. The first is adapted to excite in us gratitude, faith,
and humility; the second, to awaken our caution and quicken our
diligence.”

Many, indeed, relying on mere abstract arguments, deny free will, in the
strict meaning of the term, altogether, and define the mental faculties
of man according to their various fancies. But the existence and nature
of our moral and rational powers are and ought to be, in true
philosophy, the subject of mental observation, not the sport of
hypothesis. Those who love metaphysical abstractions may people the
worlds of their imagination with beings of whatsoever character they
prefer; but the nature and capabilities of man, as he really is, must be
determined not by speculation but by experience. It is true that this
experience is the object of consciousness, not of the senses; and,
accordingly, each man is, in some respect, the judge in his own case,
and may, if he chooses, deny his own freedom and his power of self
control, or of using those means which God hath appointed to lead to
this result. But this is seldom done in ordinary life, except by those
abandoned individuals who seek, in such a statement, an excuse for
capricious or unprincipled conduct,--an excuse which is never admitted
by the majority of reasoning persons, much less by the truly pious. The
latter, indeed, will always be found attributing any thing good they
achieve to the coöperating efficacy of superior assistance. But they
will, with equal sincerity, blame themselves for what they have done
amiss; or, in other words, acknowledge that they should and might have
willed and acted otherwise; and this is exactly the practical question,
the very turning point, on which the whole controversy hinges. The only
competent judges in such a question, says Dr. R. H. Graves, are those
who have made it the subject of mental observation, exertion, and
pursuit; or, in other words, those who have sought after righteousness,
under whatever dispensation, Acts x, 35; Romans ii, 7, 10. And surely
the confessions, the prayers, the repentance, and the sacrifices, of the
humble and pious of all ages show that they felt, not only that they
were themselves to blame for their actions, and therefore that they
might have done otherwise, that is, they had a free will, but that, to
make this will operative in spiritual matters, they required an aid
beyond the reach of mere human attainment. Some may fancy this statement
inconsistent in itself; and I allow that it cannot satisfy the mere
speculative supporters either of free will or its opponents. But to me
it seems the testimony of conscience and experience, which, in natural
religion, must, as I conceive, be preferred to abstract hypothesis. The
inquiry is not how the mind _may be_, but how it _is actually_,
constituted. This surely is a question of fact, not of conjecture, and
must therefore be decided by an appeal to common sense and experience,
not by random speculation. Again: even those who in theory contend for
the doctrine of necessity, yet in all the affairs of life where their
interests, comforts, or gratifications are concerned, both speak and act
as if they disbelieved it, and as if they really imagined themselves
capable of such self determination and self control, as to improve their
talents, their opportunities, and their acquirements, and so to exercise
a material influence on their worldly fortunes. But suppose the
assertions of individuals, as to their consciousness in this particular,
to disagree. It is then evident, that, the question being as to the
nature of man in general, it must be determined by the voice of
preponderating testimony. But how, it may be asked, are the suffrages to
be collected? Since the judgment of each individual must in this scheme
be considered as a separate fact, how is a sufficiently extensive
induction to be made? In answer, it may be asserted, that in every
civilized nation the induction has been already made, the suffrages have
been taken, the case has been tried, and the decision is on record. And
the verdict is the most impartial that can be looked for in such a case,
because given without any reference to the controversy in dispute. All
human laws, forbidding, condemning, and punishing vicious actions, are
grounded on the acknowledged supposition that man is possessed of a self
control, a self determining power, by which he could, both in will and
in deed, have avoided the very actions for which he is condemned, and in
the very circumstances in which he has committed them. Nor would it be
easy to find a case where the criminal has deceived himself, or hoped to
deceive his judges, by pleading that he laboured under a fatal
necessity, which rendered his crimes unavoidable, and therefore
excusable. The justice of all legislative enactments evidently and
essentially depends on the principle, that the things prohibited can be
avoided, or, in other words, might have been done otherwise than they
were done; and this is the very turning point of the controversy.
Accordingly, in whatever instances such freedom of will is not
presupposed, (as in the cases of idiots and madmen,) the operation of
such enactments is suspended. All nations, therefore, who consent to
frame and abide by such laws, do thereby testify their deliberate and
solemn assent to the truth of this principle, and, consequently, to the
existence of free will in man; and do certify the sincerity of their
conviction by staking upon it their properties, their liberties, and
their lives. Numberless other instances might be adduced in which the
practice of mankind implies their belief in this principle. And so
conscious of this are the opponents of free will, that they generally
deprecate appeals to common sense and experience, and resort to
metaphysical arguments to examine what is in truth a matter of truth,
not of conjecture; or, in other words, to determine, not what man is,
but what they imagine he _must be_. In their reasonings they differ, as
might have been expected, as much from each other as they do from truth
and reality. But the experience of common sense and conscience will
always decide, that no man can conscientiously make this excuse for his
crimes, that he could not have willed or acted otherwise than he did.
The existence of the above faculties in the human mind once acknowledged
leads, by necessary inference, to the admission, that there exists in
the great First Cause a power to create them. Not, indeed, that these
faculties themselves exist in him in the same manner as in us, but the
power of originating and producing them in all possible variety. We can
indeed conclude, that having created all these in us, his nature must be
so perfect that we cannot attribute to him any line of conduct
inconsistent with whatever is excellent in the exercise of these
faculties in ourselves. And therefore we cannot ascribe to him, as his
special act, any thing we should perceive to be unworthy of any just or
merciful, any wise or upright, being. But this furnishes no clue
whatever to a knowledge of the real constitution of his nature, or of
the manner in which his divine attributes exist together. In truth, we
no more comprehend how he wills than how he acts, and therefore we have
no better right to assert that he wills evil than that he does evil.
Again: we as little understand how he knows as how he sees, and
therefore might as well argue that all things exist in consequence of
his beholding them, as that all events arise in consequence of his
foreknowing them. In short, all that can be inferred by reason
concerning the intrinsic nature of the invisible, unsearchable Deity,
must be admitted by the candid inquirer to be no better than conjecture.
And he who should hope from such doubtful support as his fancied insight
into the unknown operations of the divine mind to suspend a system of
irrespective decrees, embracing the moral government of the world, would
but too much resemble him who should imagine the material globe
adequately sustained if upheld by a chain whose highest links were
wrapped in clouds and darkness. Thus our affirmative knowledge of the
Deity, as derived from this part of our inquiry, consists in the
certainty, (though his nature is unknown to us,) that he is the creative
source of all that is great, glorious, and good in heaven or in earth;
while we may negatively conclude, that his moral government shall, on
the whole, be conducted in a manner not inconsistent with whatever is
excellent in the exercise of power and wisdom, justice and mercy,
goodness and truth. Nor is it a little important, as connected with the
present inquiry, to keep in mind this distinction between our
affirmative and negative knowledge in this matter. For it shows us that
as, on the one side, we cannot pretend to such an insight into the
nature and character of the divine knowledge as to deduce therefrom a
system of eternal and irrespective decrees; so neither, on the other,
can this system of moral government be ascribed to the Deity, because it
would be manifestly unworthy, not merely of him who has created all
moral excellence, but of any of those beings on whom he has conferred
the most ordinary degrees of mercy and justice. The natural benefits or
evils arising out of moral or immoral practices are, in fact, so many
rewards or punishments, exhibiting the Being who has so constituted our
nature as a moral governor. This part of his government may not be so
clearly discernible in individual instances, because much of the
happiness and unhappiness attending virtue and vice is mental and
invisible. In the case of nations, however, considered merely as bodies
politic, the internal sanction of an approving or reproaching
conscience, of subdued or distracting passions, can have no existence;
and therefore the external sanctions are more uniformly enforced. Hence,
whoever carefully examines the dealings of Providence with the human
race will admit, that national prosperity has ever kept pace with
national wisdom and integrity; whereas, the greatest empires, when once
corrupted, have soon become the prey of internal strife or foreign
domination. Again: man is made for society, and cannot exist without it:
consequently, all the regulations which are really conducive to the
maintenance of civil policy and social order must be regarded as evident
consequences of our nature, when enlightened to the rational pursuit of
its own advantage; and therefore should be considered as intimations of
a moral government, carried on through their intervention. In addition
to which, it ought to be observed, that these laws may be regarded in
another point of view,--as a most important class of moral phenomena;
inasmuch as they virtually exhibit the most unexceptionable declarations
of reason on this subject, because they are collected from the common
consent of mankind, and therefore rendered, in a great measure,
independent of the obliquities of individual intellect, the errors of
private judgment, and the partial views of self interest, prejudice, or
passion. But all the laws of civilized nations, both in their enactment
and administration, not only presuppose certain notions concerning the
freedom and accountableness of man, the merit and demerit of human
actions, and the inseparable connection of virtue and vice with rewards
and punishments, but greatly contribute to fix and perpetuate these
notions. It is therefore evidently the intention of that part of the
moral government with which we are acquainted, to impress these
principles deeply on the human mind, and to induce the human race to
regulate their conduct accordingly. The laws, then, of this moral
government under which we find ourselves placed, and from which we
cannot escape, correspond with and corroborate the conclusions deduced
from the observation of mental phenomena. And from both we conclude that
similar principles of government will be adopted, (so far, at least, as
man is concerned,) in other worlds and in future ages; only more
developed, and therefore more evidently free from its present apparent
imperfections. Upon this account we look, in another life, for some such
general disclosure and consummation of the ways and wisdom of Providence
as shall vindicate, even in the minor details, the grand principles upon
which, generally speaking, the government of God is at present obviously
conducted. How this may be done, with many questions connected
therewith, reason without revelation could, as I conceive, do little
more than form plausible conjectures. Though now that it has pleased God
in Christ to bring “life and immortality to light through the Gospel,”
it is possible for reason to estimate the beauty and the mercy and the
wisdom of the dispensation by which it has been effected.

WIND. The Hebrews, like us, acknowledge four principal winds, Ezek.
xiii, 16–18: the east wind, the north wind, the south wind, and the west
wind, or that from the Mediterranean sea. See WHIRLWIND.

WINDOWS. The method of building both in Barbary and the Levant seems to
have continued the same from the earliest ages. All the windows open
into private courts, if we except sometimes a latticed window or balcony
toward the street. It is only during the celebration of some _zeenah_,
or public festival, that these houses and their latticed windows are
left open; for this being a time of great liberty, revelling, and
extravagance, each family is ambitious of adorning both the inside and
outside of their houses with the richest part of their furniture; while
crowds of both sexes, dressed out in their best apparel, and laying
aside all ceremony and restraint, go in and out where they please. The
account we have, 2 Kings ix, 30, of Jezebel’s painting her face, tiring
her head, and looking out at a window upon Jehu’s public entry into
Jezreel, gives us a lively idea of an eastern lady at one of those
solemnities.

WINE, יין, Gen. xix, 32, οινος, Matt. ix, 17, a liquor expressed from
grapes. The art of refining wine upon the lees was known to the Jews.
The particular process, as it is now practised in the island of Cyprus,
is described in Mariti’s Travels. The wine is put immediately from the
vat into large vases of potters’ ware, pointed at the bottom, till they
are nearly full, when they are covered tight and buried. At the end of a
year what is designed for sale is drawn into wooden casks. The dregs in
the vases are put into wooden casks destined to receive wine, with as
much of the liquor as is necessary to prevent them from becoming dry
before use. Casks thus prepared are very valuable. When the wine a year
old is put in, the dregs rise, and make it appear muddy, but afterward
they subside and carry down all the other feculences. The dregs are so
much valued that they are not sold with the wine in the vase, unless
particularly mentioned.

The “new wine,” or “must,” is mentioned, Isa. xlix, 26; Joel i, 5; iii,
18; and Amos ix, 13, under the name עסים. The “mixed wine,” ממסד, Prov.
xxiii, 30, and in Isaiah lxv, 11 rendered “drink-offering,” may mean
wine made stronger and more inebriating by the addition of higher and
more powerful ingredients, such as honey, spices, _defrutum_, or wine
inspissated by boiling it down, myrrh, mandragora, and other strong
drugs. Thus the drunkard is properly described as one that seeketh
“mixed wine,” Prov. xxiii, 30, and is mighty to “mingle strong drink,”
Isa. v, 22; and hence the psalmist took that highly poetical and sublime
image of the cup of God’s wrath, called by Isaiah, li, 17, “the cup of
trembling,” containing, as St. John expresses it, Rev. xiv, 10, pure
wine made yet stronger by a mixture of powerful ingredients: “In the
hand of Jehovah is a cup, and the wine is turbid; it is full of a mixed
liquor, and he poureth out of it,” or rather, “he poureth it out of one
vessel into another,” to mix it perfectly; “verily the dregs thereof,”
the thickest sediment of the strong ingredients mingled with it, “all
the ungodly of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them.” “Spiced
wine,” Cant. viii, 2, was wine rendered more palatable and fragrant with
aromatics. This was considered as a great delicacy. Spiced wines were
not peculiar to the Jews; Hafiz speaks of wines “richly bitter, richly
sweet.” The Romans lined their vessels, _amphoræ_, with odorous gums, to
give the wine a warm bitter flavour: and the orientals now use the
admixture of spices to give their wines a favourite relish. The “wine of
Helbon,” Ezek. xxvii, 18, was an excellent kind of wine, known to the
ancients by the name of _chalibonium vinum_. It was made at Damascus;
the Persians had planted vineyards there on purpose, says Posidosius,
quoted by Athenæus. This author says that the kings of Persia used no
other wine. Hosea, xiv, 7, mentions the wine of Lebanon. The wines from
the vineyards on that mount are even to this day in repute; but some
think that this may mean a sweet-scented wine, or wine flavoured with
fragrant gums.

WINE PRESS. The vintage in Syria commences about the middle of
September, and continues till the middle of November. But grapes in
Palestine, we are informed, were ripe sometimes even in June or July,
which arose perhaps from a triple pruning, in which case there was also
a third vintage. The first vintage was in August, the second in
September, and the third in October. The grapes when not gathered were
sometimes found on the vines until November and December. The Hebrews
were required to leave gleanings for the poor, Lev. xix, 10. The season
of vintage was a most joyful one, Judges ix, 27; Isaiah xvi, 10; Jer.
xxv, 30; xlviii, 33. With shoutings on all sides, the grapes were
plucked off and carried to the wine press, פורה, פארה, ληνὸς, which was
in the vineyard, Isa. liii, 3; Zech. xiv, 10; Haggai ii, 16; Matt. xxi,
33; Rev. xiv, 19, 20. The presses consisted of two receptacles, which
were either built of stones and covered with plaster, or hewn out of a
large rock. The upper receptacle, called נת, as it is constructed at the
present time in Persia, is nearly eight feet square and four feet high.
Into this the grapes are thrown and trodden out by five men. The juice
flows out into the lower receptacle, through a grated aperture, which is
made in the side near the bottom of the upper one. The treading of the
wine press was laborious, and not very favourable to cleanliness; the
garments of the persons thus employed were stained with the red juice,
and yet the employment was a joyful one. It was performed with singing,
accompanied with musical instruments; and the treaders, as they jumped,
exclaimed, הידד, Isa. xvi, 9, 10; Jer. xxv, 30; xlviii, 32, 33.
Figuratively, vintage, gleaning, and treading the wine press, signified
battles and great slaughters, Isa. xvii, 6; lxiii, 1–3; Jer. xlix, 9;
Lam. i, 15. The must, as is customary in the east at the present day,
was preserved in large firkins, which were buried in the earth. The wine
cellars were not subterranean, but built upon the earth. When deposited
in these, the firkins, as is done at the present time in Persia, were
sometimes buried in the ground, and sometimes left standing upon it.
Formerly, also, new wine or must was preserved in leathern bottles; and,
lest they should be broken by fermentation, the people were very careful
that the bottles should be new, Job xxxii, 19; Matt. ix, 17; Mark ii,
22. Sometimes the must was boiled and made into syrup, which is
comprehended under the term דבש, although it is commonly rendered
“honey,” Gen. xliii, 11; 2 Chron. xxxi, 5. Sometimes the grapes were
dried in the sun and preserved in masses, which were called “bunches or
clusters of raisins,” 1 Sam. xxv, 18; 2 Sam. xvi, 1; 1 Chron. xii, 40;
Hosea iii, 1. From these dried grapes, when soaked in wine and pressed a
second time, was manufactured sweet wine, which is also called new wine,
γλεῦκος, Acts ii, 13.

WISDOM is put for that prudence and discretion which enables a man to
perceive that which is fit to be done, according to the circumstances of
time, place, persons, manners, and end of doing, Eccles. ii, 13, 14. It
was this sort of wisdom that Solomon intreated of God with so much
earnestness, and which God granted him with such divine liberality, 1
Kings iii, 9, 12, 28. It also signifies quickness of invention, and
dexterity in the execution of several works, which require not so much
strength of body, as industry, and labour of the mind. For example, God
told Moses, Exod. xxxi, 3, that he had filled Bezaleel and Aholiab with
wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, to invent and perform several
sorts of work for completing the tabernacle. It is used for craft,
cunning, and stratagem, and that whether good or evil. Thus it is said
by Moses, that Pharaoh dealt wisely with the Israelites, when he opposed
them in Egypt, Exodus i, 10: it is observed of Jonadab, the friend of
Ammon, and nephew of David, that he was very wise, that is, very subtle
and crafty, 2 Sam. xiii, 3; and Job, v, 13, says, that God “taketh the
wise in their own craftiness.” Wisdom means also doctrine, learning, and
experience: “With the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days
understanding,” Job xii, 12. It is put for true piety, or the fear of
God, which is spiritual wisdom: “So teach us to number our days, that we
may apply our hearts unto wisdom,” Psalm xc, 12; “The fear of the Lord
that is wisdom,” Job xxvii, 28. Wisdom is put for the eternal Wisdom,
the Word of God. It was by wisdom that God established the heavens, and
founded the earth, Prov. iii, 19. How magnificently does Solomon
describe the primeval birth of the eternal Son of God, under the
character of Wisdom personified; to which so many references and
allusions are to be found in the Old and New Testament! “The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was
set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains
abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills was I brought forth,” Prov. viii, 22–25. The apocryphal book of
Wisdom introduces, by a reference to this passage, the following
admirable invocation, Wisdom ix, 9, 10:--

           “O send forth wisdom, out of thy holy heavens,
             Even from the throne of thy glory;
           That being present she may labour with me,
             That I may know what is pleasing in thy sight!”

And our Lord assumes the title of Wisdom, Luke xi, 49; Matt. xxiii, 34;
and declares that “wisdom shall be justified of all her children,” Matt.
xi, 19; Luke vii, 35.

WISDOM, BOOK OF, an apocryphal book of Scripture, so called on account
of the wise maxims contained in it. This book has been commonly ascribed
to Solomon, either because the author imitated that king’s manner of
writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name. But it is certain
Solomon was not the author of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor
was it inserted in the Jewish canon, nor is the style like that of
Solomon; and therefore St. Jerom observes justly that it smells strong
of the Grecian eloquence; that it is composed with art and method, after
the manner of the Greek philosophers, very different from that noble
simplicity so full of life and energy to be found in the Hebrew books.
It has been ascribed by many of the ancients to Philo.

WOLF, זאב, in Arabic, _zeeb_, Gen. xlix, 27; Isa. xi, 6; lxv, 25; Jer.
v, 6; Ezek. xxii, 27; Zeph. iii, 3; Hab. i, 8; λύκος, Matt. vii, 15; x,
16; Luke x, 3; John x, 12; Acts xx, 29; Eccles. xiii, 17. M. Majus
derives it from the Arabic word _zaab_ or _daaba_, “to frighten;” and
hence, perhaps, the German word _dieb_, “a thief.” The wolf is a fierce,
strong, cunning, mischievous, and carnivorous quadruped; externally and
internally so nearly resembling the dog, that they seem modelled alike,
yet have a perfect antipathy to each other. The Scripture observes of
the wolf, that it lives upon rapine; is violent, bloody, cruel,
voracious, and greedy; goes abroad by night to seek its prey, and is a
great enemy to flocks of sheep. Indeed, this animal is fierce without
cause, kills without remorse, and by its indiscriminate slaughter seems
to satisfy its malignity rather than its hunger. The wolf is weaker than
the lion or the bear, and less courageous than the leopard; but he
scarcely yields to them in cruelty and rapaciousness. His ravenous
temper prompts him to destructive and sanguinary depredations; and these
are perpetrated principally in the night. This circumstance is expressly
mentioned in several passages of Scripture. “The great men have
altogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds; wherefore, a lion out of
the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil
them,” Jer. v, 6. The rapacious and cruel conduct of the princes of
Israel is compared by Ezekiel, xxii, 27, to the mischievous inroads of
the same animal: “Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves
ravening the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, to get dishonest
gain;” and Zephaniah, iii, 3, says, “Her princes within her are roaring
lions, her judges are evening wolves: they gnaw not the bones till the
morrow.” Instead of protecting the innocent and restraining the evil
doer, or punishing him according to the demerit of his crimes, they
delight in violence and oppression, in blood and rapine; and so
insatiable is their cupidity, that, like the evening wolf, they destroy
more than they are able to possess. The dispositions of the wolf to
attack the weaker animals, especially those which are under the
protection of man, is alluded to by our Saviour in the parable of the
hireling shepherd: “The wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the flock,”
Matt. vii, 15. And the Apostle Paul, in his address to the elders of
Ephesus, gives the name of this insidious and cruel animal to the false
teachers who disturbed the peace and perverted the faith of their
people: “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock,” Acts xx, 29.

WORD. Sometimes the Scripture ascribes to the word of God certain
supernatural effects, and often represents it as animated and active:
“He sent his word and healed them,” Psalm cvii, 20. It also signifies
what is written in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, Luke
xi, 28; James i, 22; the divine law which teaches and commands good
things, and forbids evil, Psalm cxix, 101; and is used to express every
promise of God, Psalm cxix, 25, &c, and prophecy or vision, Isaiah, ii,
1. This term is likewise consecrated and appropriated to signify the
only Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second Person of the
most holy Trinity, equal to and consubstantial with the Father. St. John
the evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the
mystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made,” John i, 1–3. The Chaldee paraphrasts,
the most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally make use of the word
_memra_, which signifies “the Word,” in those places where Moses puts
the name Jehovah. They say, for example, that it was the _Memra_, or the
Word, which created the world, which appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai,
which gave him the law, which spoke to him face to face, which brought
Israel out of Egypt, which marched before the people, and which wrought
all those miracles that are recorded in Exodus. It was the same Word
that appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, that was seen of Jacob
at Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged as God, saying,
“If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, then
shall the Lord be my God,” Gen. xxviii, 20, 21. The manner in which St.
John commences his Gospel is strikingly different from the introductions
to the histories of Christ by the other evangelists; and no less
striking and peculiar is the title under which he announces him--“the
Word.” It has therefore been a subject of much inquiry and discussion,
from whence this evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and what
reasons led him, as though intending to solicit particular attention, to
place it at the very head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose of
establishing an express opinion, as to the personal character of him it
is used to designate, is made more than probable from the predominant
character of the whole Gospel, which is more copiously doctrinal, and
contains a record more full of what Jesus “_said_” than the others. As
to the source from which the term Logos was drawn by the Apostle, some
have held it to be taken from the Jewish Scriptures; others, from the
Chaldee paraphrases; others, from Philo and the Hellenizing Jews. The
most natural conclusion certainly appears to be, that, as St. John was a
plain, “unlearned” man, chiefly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, he
derived this term from the sacred books of his own nation, in which the
Hebrew phrase, _Dabar Jehovah_, “the Word of Jehovah,” frequently occurs
in passages which must be understood to speak of a personal Word, and
which phrase is rendered Λόγος Κυρίου [the word of the Lord] by the
Septuagint interpreters. Certainly, there is not the least evidence in
his writings, or in his traditional history, that he ever acquainted
himself with Philo or with Plato; and none, therefore, that he borrowed
the term from them, or used it in any sense approaching to or suggested
by these refinements:--in the writings of St. Paul there are allusions
to poets and philosophers; in those of St. John, none, except to the
rising sects afterward known under the appellation of Gnostics. The
Hebrew Scriptures contain frequent intimations of a distinction of
Persons in the Godhead; one of these Divine Persons is called Jehovah;
and, though manifestly represented as existing distinct from the Father,
is yet arrayed with attributes of divinity, and was acknowledged by the
ancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, “their God,” the God with
whom, through all their history, they chiefly “had to do.” This Divine
Person is proved to have been spoken of by the prophets as the future
Christ; the evangelists and Apostles represent Jesus as that Divine
Person of the prophets; and if, in the writings of the Old Testament, he
is also called the Word, the application of this term to our Lord is
naturally accounted for. It will then appear to be a theological, not a
philosophic appellation, and one which, previously even to the time of
the Apostle, had been stamped with the authority of inspiration.

Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is
not, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has
chosen that our Saviour should be principally designated. It occurs but
a very few times, and principally and emphatically in the introduction
to St. John’s Gospel. A cogent reason can be given why this Apostle
adopts it; and we are not without a probable reason why, in the New
Testament, the title “Son of God” should have been preferred, which is a
frequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo. Originating
from the spiritual principle of connection, between the first and the
second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of
connection; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the
Word is to the energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual
energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too
spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If
with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a
filiation of the second Being to the first, we have seen the attempts of
Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust
of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had
only such a spiritual denomination as this for the second! This would
certainly have been considered by it as too unsubstantial for distinct
personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity. One of the
first teachers of this system was Cerinthus. We have not any particular
account of all the branches of his system; and it is possible that we
may ascribe to him some of those tenets by which later sects of Gnostics
were discriminated. But we have authority for saying, that the general
principle of the Gnostic scheme was openly taught by Cerinthus before
the publication of the Gospel of St. John. The authority is that of
Irenæus, a bishop who lived in the second century, who in his youth had
heard Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained the
discourses of Polycarp in his memory till his death. There are yet
extant of the works of Irenæus, five books which he wrote against
heresies, one of the most authentic and valuable monuments of
theological erudition. In one place of that work he says, that Cerinthus
taught in Asia that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by a
certain power very separate and far removed from the Sovereign of the
universe, and ignorant of his nature. In another place, he says that
John the Apostle wished, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had
been spread among men by Cerinthus; and Jerom, who lived in the fourth
century, says that St. John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the
bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly
against the doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who said that
Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary.

“It appears,” says Dr. Hill, “to have been the tradition of the
Christian church, that St. John, who lived to a great age, and who
resided at Ephesus, in Proconsular Asia, was moved by the growth of the
Gnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, to
bear his testimony to the truth in writing, and particularly to
recollect those discourses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish
the clearest refutation of the persons who denied his preëxistence. This
tradition is a key to a great part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which are the
evidences of his divine mission; of those events in his life upon earth
which are most interesting to the human race; and of those moral
discourses in which the wisdom, the grace, and the sanctity of the
Teacher shine with united lustre. Their whole narration implies that
Jesus was more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beautiful
simplicity, which adds very much to their credit as historians, they
have not, with the exception of a few incidental expressions, formally
stated the conclusion that Jesus was more than man; but have left the
Christian world to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, or to
receive it by the teaching and the writings of the Apostles. St. John,
who was preserved by God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn by
the great body of Christians, and had been established in the epistles,
denied by different heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history
of Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and draws our attention
particularly to the truth of that which had been denied. When you come
to analyze the Gospel of St. John, you will find that the first eighteen
verses contain the positions laid down by the Apostle, in order to meet
the errors of Cerinthus; that these positions, which are merely affirmed
in the introduction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by the
testimony of John the Baptist, and by the words and the actions of our
Lord; and that after the proof is concluded by the declaration of
Thomas, who, upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, ‘My
Lord, and my God,’ St. John sums up the amount of his Gospel in these
few words: ‘These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God;’ that is, that Jesus and the Christ are not
distinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle
does not condescend to mention the name of Cerinthus, because that would
have preserved, as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name which
might otherwise be forgotten. But, although there is dignity and
propriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was necessary, in
laying down the positions that were to meet his errors, to adopt some of
his words, because the Christians of those days would not so readily
have applied the doctrine of the Apostle to the refutation of those
heresies which Cerinthus was spreading among them, if they had not found
in the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms in which the heresy
was delivered; and as the chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus
applied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a phrase in common use
among the Jews, ‘the Word of Jehovah,’ and was probably borrowed from
thence, John by his use of Logos rescues it from the degraded use of
Cerinthus, and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of
the Jewish phrase.”

The Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, _pro re
natâ_, [according to circumstances,] or even suggested by the Holy
Spirit, as a suitable title for a prophet by whom God chose to reveal
himself or his Word. It was a term diversely understood in the world
before St. John began his Gospel. Is it possible, therefore, that he
should have used the term without some express allusion to these
prevailing opinions? Had he contradicted them all, it would, of course,
have been a plain proof, that they were all equally fabulous and
fanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly meant to show, that the
error did not consist in believing that there was a Logos, or Word of
God, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, indeed, have wondered much
had he decidedly adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in preference
to the Jewish; but that he should harmonize with the latter, is by no
means surprising; first, because he was a Jew himself; and, secondly,
because Christianity was plainly to be shown to be connected with, and,
as it were, regularly to have sprung out of, Judaism. It is certainly,
then, in the highest degree consistent with all we could reasonably
expect, to find St. John and others of the sacred writers expressing
themselves in terms not only familiar to the Jews under the old
covenant, but, in such as might tend, by a perfect revelation of the
truth, to give instruction to all parties; correcting the errors of the
Platonic and oriental systems, and confirming, in the clearest manner,
the hopes and expectations of the Jews.

While the reasons for the use of this term by St. John are obvious, the
argument from it is irresistible; for, first, the Logos of the
evangelist is a _person_, not an _attribute_, as many Socinians have
said, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen to render it _wisdom_. For
if it be an attribute, it were a mere truism to say, that “it was in the
beginning with God;” because God could never be without his attributes.
The Apostle also declares, that the Logos was the Light; but that John
Baptist was not the light. Here is a kind of parallel supposed, and it
presumes, also, that it was possible that the same character might be
erroneously ascribed to both. Between person and person this may,
undoubtedly, be the case; but what species of parallel can exist between
man and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting,
that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him whom that
attribute inspired, the man Jesus Christ, because the name of our
Saviour has not yet been mentioned; because that rule of interpretation
must be inadmissible, which at one time would explain the term Logos by
an attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the convenience of
hypothesis; and because, if it be, in this instance, conceived to
indicate our Saviour, it must follow, that our Saviour created the
world, (which the Unitarians will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who
was that which John the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly
declared to have made the world. Again: the Logos was made flesh, that
is, became man; but in what possible sense could an attribute become
man? The Logos is “the only begotten of the Father;” but it would be
uncouth to say of any attribute, that it is begotten; and, if that were
passed over, it would follow, from this notion, either that God has only
one attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute.
Farther: St. John uses terms decisively personal, as that he is God, not
divine as an attribute, but God personally; not that he was in God,
which would properly have been said of an attribute, but _with_ God,
which he could only say of a person; that “all things were made by him;”
that he was “in the world;” that “he came to his own;” that he was “in
the bosom of the Father;” and that “he hath declared the Father.” The
absurdity of representing the Logos of St. John as an attribute seems,
at length, to have been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their
new version accordingly regards it as a personal term.

If the Logos be a person, then is he Divine; for, first, eternity is
ascribed to him: “In the beginning was the Word.” The Unitarian comment
is, “from the beginning of his ministry,” or “the commencement of the
Gospel dispensation;” which makes St. John use another trifling truism,
and solemnly tell his readers, that our Saviour, when he began his
ministry, was in existence! “in the beginning of his ministry the Word
_was_!” It is true, that ἀρχὴ, “the beginning,” is used for the
beginning of Christ’s ministry, when he says that the Apostles had been
with him from the beginning; and it may be used for the beginning of any
thing whatever. It is a term which must be determined in its meaning by
the context; and the question, therefore, is, how the connection here
determines it. Almost immediately it is added, “All things were made by
him;” which can only mean the creation of universal nature. He, then,
who made all things was prior to all created things; he _was_ when they
_began_ to be, and before they began to be; and, if he existed before
all created things, he was not himself created, and was, therefore,
eternal. Secondly, he is expressly called God; and, thirdly, he is as
explicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The two last
particulars have often been largely established, and nothing need be
added, except, as another proof that the Scriptures can only be fairly
explained by the doctrine of a distinction of divine Persons in the
Godhead, the declaration of St. John may be adduced, that “the Word was
_with_ God, and the Word was God.” What hypothesis but this goes a
single step to explain this wonderful language? Arianism, which allows
the preëxistence of Christ _with_ God, accords with the first clause,
but contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to
an official, and therefore a temporal, distinction, accords with the
second clause, but contradicts the first; for Christ, according to this
theory, was not with God in the beginning, that is in eternity.
Socinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was
neither with God in the beginning, nor was he God. “The faith of God’s
elect” agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established: “The
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” See UNITARIANS.

WORM, the general name in Scripture for little creeping insects. Several
kinds are spoken of: 1. Those that breed in putrefied bodies, רמה, Exod.
xvi, 20, 24; Job vii, 5; xvii, 14; xxi, 26; xxiv, 20; xxv, 6; Isa. xiv,
11; σκώληξ, Ecclus. vii, 17; x, 11; 1 Mac. ii, 62; 2 Mac. ix, 9; Judith
xvi, 17; Mark ix, 44, 46, 48; Acts xii, 23. 2. That which eats woollen
garments, סס, Isa. li, 8; σὴς, Matt. vi, 19, 20; Luke xii, 33. 3. That
which, perforating the leaves and bark of trees, causes the little
excrescences called _kermes_, whence is made a crimson dye, תולע, Deut.
xxviii, 39; Job xxv, 6; Psalm xxii, 6; Isa. xiv, 11; xii, 14; lxvi, 24;
Exod. xvi, 20; Jonah iv, 7. 4. The worm destructive of the vines,
referred to in Deut. xxviii, 39; which was the _pyralis vitanæ_, or
_pyralis fasciana_, of Forskal, the vine weevil, a small insect
extremely hurtful to the vines.

WORMWOOD, לענה, Deut. xxix, 18; Prov. v, 4; Jer. ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam.
iii, 15, 19; Amos v, 7; vi, 12; ἄψινθον, Rev. viii, 11. In the
Septuagint the original word is variously rendered, and generally by
terms expressive of its figurative sense, for what is offensive, odious,
or deleterious; but in the Syriac and Arabic versions, and in the Latin
Vulgate, it is rendered “wormwood;” and this is adopted by Celsius, who
names it the _absinthium santonicum Judaicum_, [bitter wormwood of
Judea.] From the passages of Scripture, however, where this plant is
mentioned, something more than the bitterness of its qualities seems to
be intimated, and effects are attributed to it greater than can be
produced by the wormwood of Europe. The Chaldee paraphrase gives it even
the character of “the wormwood of death.” It may therefore mean a plant
allied, perhaps, to the _absinthium_ in appearance and in taste, but
possessing more nauseous, hurtful, and formidable properties.

WORSHIP. The Scriptural obligation of public worship is partly founded
upon example, and partly upon precept; so that no person who admits that
authority, can question this great duty without manifest and criminal
inconsistency. The institution of public worship under the law, and the
practice of synagogue worship among the Jews, from at least the time of
Ezra, cannot be questioned; both of which were sanctioned by the
practice of our Lord and his Apostles. The preceptive authority for our
regular attendance upon public worship, is either inferential or direct.
The command to publish the Gospel includes the obligation of assembling
to hear it; the name by which a Christian society is designated in
Scripture is a church; which signifies an assembly for the transaction
of business; and, in the case of a Christian assembly, that business
must necessarily be spiritual, and include the sacred exercises of
prayer, praise, and hearing the Scriptures. But we have more direct
precepts, although the practice was obviously continued from Judaism,
and was therefore consuetudinary. Some of the epistles of St. Paul are
commanded to be read in the churches. The singing of psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs is enjoined as an act of solemn worship to the Lord; and
St. Paul cautions the Hebrews that they “forsake not the assembling of
themselves together.” The practice of the primitive age is also manifest
from the epistles of St. Paul. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the
body of believers collectively; and this Apostle prescribes to the
Corinthians regulations for the exercises of prayer and prophesyings,
“when they came together in the church,”--the assembly. The statedness
and order of these holy offices in the primitive church, appear also
from the apostolical epistle of St. Clement: “We ought also, looking
into the depths of the divine knowledge, to do all things in order,
whatsoever the Lord hath commanded to be done. We ought to make our
oblations, and perform our holy offices, at their appointed seasons; for
these he hath commanded to be done, not irregularly or by chance, but at
determinate times and hours; as he hath likewise ordained by his supreme
will, where, and by what persons, they shall be performed; that so all
things being done according to his pleasure, may be acceptable in his
sight.” This passage is remarkable for urging a divine authority for the
public services of the church, by which St. Clement, no doubt, means the
authority of the inspired directions of the Apostles. The ends of the
institution of public worship are of such obvious importance, that it
must ever be considered as one of the most condescending and gracious
dispensations of God to man. By this his church confesses his name
before the world; by this the public teaching of his word is associated
with acts calculated to affect the mind with that solemnity which is the
best preparation for hearing it to edification. It is thus that the
ignorant and the vicious are collected together, and instructed and
warned; the invitations of mercy are published to the guilty, and the
sorrowful and afflicted are comforted. In these assemblies God, by his
Holy Spirit, diffuses his vital and sanctifying influence, and takes the
devout into a fellowship with himself, from which they derive strength
to do and to suffer his will in the various scenes of life, while he
there affords them a foretaste of the deep and hallowed pleasures which
are reserved for them at his right hand for evermore. Prayers and
intercessions are offered for national and public interests; and while
the benefit of these exercises descends upon a country, all are kept
sensible of the dependence of every public and personal interest upon
God. Praise calls forth the grateful emotions, and gives cheerfulness to
piety; and that instruction in righteousness which is so perpetually
repeated, diffuses the principles of morality and religion throughout
society; enlightens and gives activity to conscience; raises the
standard of morals; attaches shame to vice, and praise to virtue; and
thus exerts a powerfully purifying influence upon mankind. Laws thus
receive a force, which, in other circumstances, they could not acquire,
even were they enacted in as great perfection; and the administration of
justice is aided by the strongest possible obligation and sanction being
given to legal oaths. The domestic relations are rendered more strong
and interesting by the very habit of the attendance of families upon the
sacred services of the sanctuary of the Lord; and the rich and the poor
meeting together, and standing on the same common ground as sinners
before God, equally dependent upon him, and equally suing for his mercy,
has a powerful, though often an insensible, influence in humbling the
pride which is nourished by superior rank, and in raising the lower
classes above abjectness of spirit, without injuring their humility.
Piety, benevolence, and patriotism are equally dependent for their
purity and vigour upon the regular and devout worship of God in the
simplicity of the Christian dispensation.

The following is an abridgment of Dr. Neander’s account of the mode of
conducting public worship among the primitive Christians, which, though
questionable on some points, is upon the whole just and
interesting:--Since the religion of the New Testament did not admit of
any peculiar outward priesthood, similar to that of the Old, the same
outward kind of worship, dependent on certain places, times, and outward
actions and demeanours, would also have no place in its composition. The
kingdom of God, the temple of the Lord, were to be present, not in this
or that place, but in every place where Christ himself is active in the
Spirit, and where through him the worship of God in spirit and in truth
is established. Every Christian in particular, and every church in
general, were to represent a spiritual temple of the Lord; the true
worship of God was to be only in the inward heart, and the whole life
proceeding from such inward disposition, sanctified by faith, was to be
a continued spiritual service; this is the great fundamental idea of the
Gospel, which prevails throughout the New Testament, by which the whole
outward appearance of religion was to assume a different form, and all
that once was carnal was to be converted into spiritual, and ennobled.
This notion came forward most strongly in the original inward life of
the first Christians, particularly when contrasted with Judaism, and
still more so when contrasted with Heathenism; a contrast which taught
the Christians to avoid all pomp that caught the eye, and all
multiplication of means of devotion addressed to the senses, while it
made them hold fast the simple, spiritual character of the Christian
worship of God. It was this which always struck the Heathen so much in
the Christian worship; namely, that nothing was found among them of the
outward pomp of all other religions; no temples, no altars, no images.
This reproach was made to the Christians by Celsus, and answered thus by
Origen: “In the highest sense the temple and image of God are in the
human nature of Christ; and hence, also, in all the faithful, who are
animated by the Spirit of Christ,--living images! with which no statue
of Jove by Phidias is fit to be compared.” Christianity impelled men
frequently to seek for the stillness of the inward sanctuary, and here
to pour forth their heart to God, who dwells in such temples; but then
the flames of love were also lighted in their hearts, which sought
communion in order to strengthen each other mutually, and to unite
themselves into one holy flame which pointed toward heaven. The
communion of prayer and devotion was thought a source of sanctification,
inasmuch as men knew that the Lord was present by his Spirit among those
who were gathered together in his name; but then they were far from
ascribing any peculiar sacredness and sanctity to the place of assembly.
Such an idea would appear to partake of Heathenism; and men were at
first in less danger of being seduced into such an idea, because the
first general places of assembly of the Christians were only common
rooms in private houses, just according as it happened that any member
of the church had sufficient accommodation for the purpose. Thus Gaius
of Corinth, Rom. xvi, is called the host of the church, because the
church was in the habit of assembling in a room of his house. Origen
says, “The place where believers come together to pray has something
agreeable and useful about it;” but then he only says this in respect to
that spiritual communion. Man, we must avow, is very easily led to fall
away from the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and to connect the
religion of the Spirit with outward and earthly things; as the Apostle
says, “Having begun in the Spirit, to wish to end in the flesh.”
Watchfulness on this point was constantly needed, lest the Jewish or the
Heathen notions should here intrude themselves on those of the Gospel,
which was likely enough to happen as soon as the Old and the New
Testament notions of the priesthood had been confused. Even in the time
of Clemens of Alexandria he found himself obliged to combat the notion,
which allowed the essentials of a Christian life to be of one kind in,
and of another out of, the church. “The disciples of Christ,” he says,
“must form the whole course of their life and conduct on the model which
they assume in the churches, for the sake of propriety; they must be
such, and not merely seem so; as mild, as pious, and as charitable. But
now, I know not how it is, they change their habits and their manners
with the change of place, as the polypus, they say, changes its colour,
and becomes like the rock on which it hangs. They lay aside the
spiritual habit which they had assumed in the church, as soon as they
have left the church, and assimilate themselves to the multitude among
whom they live. I should rather say, that they convict themselves of
hypocrisy, and show what they really are in their inward nature, by
laying aside the mask of piety which they had assumed; and while they
honour the word of God, they leave it behind them in the place where
they heard it.”

The Christian places of assembly were, at first, in the rooms of private
houses; it may perhaps be the case, that in large towns, where the
number of Christians was soon considerable, and no member of the church
had any room in his house sufficient to contain all his brethren, or in
places where men did not fear any prejudicial consequences from large
assemblies, the church divided itself into different sections, according
to the habitations of its members, of which each section held its
assemblies in one particular chamber of the house of some wealthy member
of the church; or, perhaps, while it was usual to unite on Sundays in
one general assembly, yet each individual part of the church met
together daily in the rooms which lay the most convenient to it. Perhaps
the passages in St. Paul’s epistles, which speak of churches in the
houses of particular persons, are thus to be understood. The answer of
Justin Martyr to the question of the prefect, “Where do you assemble?”
exactly corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit on this point. This
answer was, “Where each one can and will. You believe, no doubt, that we
all meet together in one place; but it is not so, for the God of the
Christians is not shut up in a room, but, being invisible, he fills both
heaven and earth, and is honoured every where by the faithful.” Justin
adds, that when he came to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in one
particular spot, and that those Christians who were instructed by him,
and wished to hear his discourses, assembled at his house. He had not
visited any other congregations of the church. The arrangements which
the peculiarities of the Christian worship required, were gradually made
in these places of assembly, such as an elevated seat for the purpose of
reading the Scriptures and preaching, a table for the distribution of
the sacrament, to which as early as the time of Tertullian the name of
altar, _ara_ or _altare_, was given, and perhaps not without some
mixture of the unevangelical Old Testament notion of a sacrifice; or at
least this idea might easily attach itself to this name. When the
churches increased, and their circumstances improved, there were, during
the course of the third century, already separate church buildings for
the Christians, as the name θρησκεύσιμοι τοπόι, [religious places,] of
the Christians occurs in the edict of Gallienus. In the time of the
external prosperity of the church, during the reign of Diocletian, many
handsome churches arose in the great towns. The use of images was
originally quite foreign to the Christian worship and churches, and it
remained so during this whole period. The intermixture of art and
religion, and the use of images for the latter, appeared to the first
Christians a Heathenish practice. As in Heathenism the divine becomes
desecrated and tarnished by intermixture with the natural; and as men
have often paid homage to the beauties of nature, with injury to the
cause of holiness, the first warmth of Christian zeal, which opposed the
idolatry of nature, so common to Heathenism, and sought to maintain the
divine in all its purity and elevation, was inclined rather to set
holiness in the strongest contrast with what is beautiful by nature,
than to endeavour to grace it by lending it a beautiful form. Men were
more inclined in general to carry into extremes the idea of the
appearance of the Divinity in the form of a servant, which suited the
oppressed condition of the church in these centuries than to throw it
into the back ground, and overwhelm it under the predominance of their
æsthetic dispositions, and their love of art. This is peculiarly shown
by the general belief of the early church, that Christ had clothed his
inward divine glory in a mean outward form, which was in direct
contradiction to it; a conclusion which was drawn from interpreting the
prophecy of the Messiah in Isa. liii, 2, too literally. Thus, Clemens of
Alexandria warns the Christians, from the example of Christ, not to
attribute too much value to outward beauty: “The Lord himself was mean
in outward form; and who is better than the Lord? But he revealed
himself not in the beauty of the body, perceptible to our senses, but in
the true beauty of the soul as well as of the body; the beauty of the
soul consisting in benevolence, and that of the body in immortality!”
Fathers of entirely opposite habits of mind, the adherents of two
different systems of conceiving divine things, were nevertheless united
on this point by their common opposition to the mixture of the natural
and the divine in Heathenism, and by the endeavour to maintain the
devotion to God, in spirit and in truth, pure and undefiled. Clemens of
Alexandria is as little favourable as Tertullian to the use of images.
Heathens, who, like Alexander Severus, saw something divine in Christ’s
personal form, and sects which mixed Heathenism and Christianity
together, were the first who made use of images of Christ; as, for
instance, the Gnostic sect of the followers of Carpocratian, who put his
image beside those of Plato and Aristotle. The use of religious images
among the Christians did not proceed from their ecclesiastical but from
their domestic life. In the intercourse of daily life, the Christians
saw themselves every where surrounded by objects of Heathen mythology,
or by such as shocked their moral and Christian feelings. Similar
objects adorned the walls of chambers, the drinking vessels, and the
signet rings, (on which the Heathen had constantly idolatrous images,)
to which, whenever they pleased, they could address their devotions; and
the Christians naturally felt themselves obliged to replace these
objects, which wounded their moral and religious feelings, with others
more suited to those feelings. Therefore, they gladly put the likeness
of a shepherd carrying a lamb upon his shoulders, on their cups, as a
symbol of the Redeemer, who saves the sinners that return to him,
according to the parable in the Gospel. And Clemens of Alexandria says,
in reference to the signet rings of the Christians, “Let our signet
rings consist of a dove,” the emblem of the Holy Ghost, “or a fish, or a
ship sailing toward heaven,” the emblem of the Christian church, or of
individual Christian souls, “or a lyre,” the emblem of Christian joy,
“or an anchor,” the emblem of Christian hope; “and he who is a
fisherman, let him remember the Apostle, and the children who were
dragged out from the water; for those men ought not to engrave
idolatrous forms, to whom the use of them is forbidden; those can
engrave no sword and no bow, who seek for peace; the friends of
temperance cannot engrave drinking cups.” And yet, perhaps, religious
images made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as
the end of the third century, and the walls of the churches were painted
in the same way. The council of Elvira set itself against this
innovation as an abuse, for it made the following order: “Objects of
reverence and worship shall not be painted on the walls.” It is probable
that the visible representation of the cross found its way very early
into domestic and ecclesiastical life. This token was remarkably common
among them; it was used to consecrate their rising and their going to
bed, their going out and their coming in, and all the actions of daily
life; it was the sign which Christians made involuntarily whenever any
thing of a fearful nature surprised them. This was a mode of expressing,
by means perceptible to the senses, the purely Christian idea, that all
the actions of Christians, as well as the whole course of their life,
must be sanctified by faith in the crucified Jesus, and by dependence
upon him; and that this faith is the most powerful means of conquering
all evil, and preserving oneself against it. But here also, again, men
were too apt to confuse the idea and the token which represented it; and
they attributed the effects of faith in the crucified Redeemer to the
outward sign, to which they ascribed a supernatural, sanctifying, and
preservative power; an error of which we find traces as early as the
third century.

We now pass from the consideration of the places of public worship, to
that of the seasons of worship, and the festivals of the early
Christians. It is here shown again, that the Gospel, as it remodelled
the former conceptions of the priesthood, of worship in general, and of
holy places, also entirely changed the then views of sacred seasons. And
here again, also, the character of the theocracy of the New Testament
revealed itself, a theocracy spiritualized, ennobled, and freed from its
outward garb of sense, and from the limits which bounded its
generalization. The Jewish laws relating to their festivals were not
merely abrogated by the Gospel, in such a manner as to transfer these
festivals to different seasons; but they were entirely abolished, as far
as fixing religious worship to particular times is concerned. St. Paul
expressly declares all sanctifying of certain seasons, as far as men
deduced this from the divine command, to be Jewish and unevangelical,
and to be like returning to the slavery of the law, and to captivity to
outward precepts. Such was the opinion of the early church. At first the
churches assembled every day; as, for instance, the first church of
Jerusalem, which assembled daily for prayer in common, and for the
public consideration of the divine word, for the common celebration of
the Lord’s Supper and the _agapæ_, as well as to maintain the connection
between the common head of the spiritual body of the church and
themselves, and between one another as members of this body. Traces of
this are also found in later times in the daily assembling of the
churches for the purpose of hearing the Scriptures read, and of
celebrating the communion. Although, in order to meet the wants of human
nature generally, consisting as it does of sense as well as soul, and
those of a large body of Christians in particular, who were only in a
state of education, and were to be brought up to the ripeness of
Christian manhood, men soon selected definite times [beside the
authorized Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week] for religious
admonitions, and to consecrate them to a fuller occupation with
religious things, as well as to public devotion, with the intention,
that the influence of these definite times should animate and sanctify
the rest of their lives, and that Christians who withdrew themselves
from the distractions of business on these days, and collected their
hearts before God in the stillness of solitude, as well as in public
devotion, might make these seasons of service to the other parts of
their life; yet this was in itself, and of itself, nothing
unevangelical. It was only a dropping down from the purely spiritual
point of view, on which even the Christian, as he still carries about
two natures in himself, cannot always maintain himself, to the carnal; a
dropping down which became constantly more necessary, the more the fire
of the first animation and the warmth of the first love of the
Christians died away. It was no more unevangelic than the gradual
limitation of the exercise of many rights, belonging to the common
priesthood of all Christians, to a certain class in the church, which
circumstances rendered necessary. But just as the unevangelic made its
appearance, men supposed certain days distinguished from others, and
hallowed by divine right, when they introduced a distinction between
holy and common days into the life of the Christian, and in this
distinction forgot his calling to sanctify all days alike. When the
Montanists wished to introduce and make imperative new fasts, which were
fixed to certain days, the Epistle to the Galatians was very properly
brought to oppose them; but Tertullian, who stood on the boundary
between the original pure evangelic times and those when the
intermixture of Jewish and Christian notions first took place, confuses
here the views of the two religions, because he makes the evangelical to
consist, not in a wholly different method of considering festivals
altogether, but in the celebration of different particular festivals;
and he makes the Judaizing, which the Apostle condemns, to consist only
in the observation of the Jewish instead of the peculiarly Christian
festivals. The weekly and the yearly festivals originally arose from the
self-same fundamental idea, which was the centre point of the whole
Christian life; the idea of imitating Christ, the crucified and the
risen; to follow him in his death, by appropriating to ourselves, in
penitence and faith, the effects of his death, by dying to ourselves and
to the world; to follow him in his resurrection, by rising again with
him, by faith in him and by his power, to a new and holy life, devoted
to God, which, beginning here below in the seed, is matured in heaven.
Hence the festival of joy was the festival of the resurrection; and the
preparation for it, the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, with
mortification and crucifixion of the flesh, was the day of fasting and
penitence. Thus in the week the Sunday was the joyful festival; and the
preparation for it was a day of penitence and prayer, consecrated to
remembrance of the sufferings of Christ and the preparations for them,
and this was celebrated on the Friday; and thus also the yearly
festivals were to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, and the
operations of the Redeemer after he had risen again; the preparation for
this day was in commemoration of the sufferings and fastings of our
Saviour. Allusion is made to Sunday under the character of a festival,
as a symbol of a new life, consecrated to the Lord in opposition to the
old Sabbath, in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians: “If they who
were brought up under the Old Testament have attained to a new hope, and
no longer keep [Jewish] Sabbaths holy, but have consecrated their life
to the day of the Lord, on which also our life rose up in him, how shall
we be able to live without him?” Sunday was distinguished as a day of
joy by the circumstances, that men did not fast upon it, and that they
prayed standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had raised up fallen man
to heaven again through his resurrection. And farther: two other days in
the week, Friday and Wednesday, particularly the former, were
consecrated to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, and of the
circumstances preparatory to them; congregations were held on them, and
a fast till three o’clock in the afternoon, but nothing was positively
appointed concerning them; in respect to joining in these solemnities
every one consulted his own convenience or inclination. Such fasts,
joined with prayer, were considered as the watches of the _milites
Christi_ [soldiers of Christ] on their post by the Christians, who
compared their calling to a warfare, the _militia Christi_, and they
were _stationes_, and the days on which they took place were called
_dies stationum_, [day of their stations.] The churches, which were a
graft of a Christian on a Jewish spirit, although they received the
Sunday, retained also that of the Sabbath; and from them the custom
spread abroad in the oriental church, of distinguishing this day, as
well as the Sunday, by not fasting and by praying in an erect posture;
in the western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to
Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the
custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast day. This
difference in customs would of course be striking, where members of the
oriental church spent their Sabbath day in the western church. It was
only too soon that men lost sight of the principle of the apostolic
church, which retained the unity of faith and spirit in the bond of
love, but allowed all kinds of difference in external things; and then
they began to require uniformity in these things. The first yearly
festivals of the Christians proceeded from similar views; and at first
the contrast which had in early times the most powerful influence on the
developement as well of the churchly life, as of the doctrines of
Christianity, is peculiarly prominent; I mean the contrast between the
Jewish churches and those of the Gentile converts. The former retained
all the Jewish festivals as well as the whole ceremonial law; although
by degrees they introduced into them a Christian meaning which
spontaneously offered itself. On the contrary, there was probably no
yearly festival at all, from the beginning, among the Heathen converts;
for no trace of any thing of the sort is found in the whole of the New
Testament. The passover of the Old Testament was easily ennobled and
converted to a passover which suited the New Testament, by merely
substituting the idea of deliverance from spiritual bondage, that is,
from the slavery of sin, for that of deliverance from earthly bondage.
The paschal lamb was a type of Christ, by whom that deliverance was
wrought. These representations went on the supposition, that Christ had
partaken his last meal with his disciples, as a proper passover, at the
very time that the Jews were celebrating theirs. This passover was,
therefore, always celebrated on the night between the fourteenth and
fifteenth of the Jewish month Nisan, as a remembrance at the same time
of the last supper of Christ. This was the fundamental notion of the
whole Jewish Christian passover, on which all the rest was built. The
day following this passover was consecrated to the remembrance of the
sufferings of Christ, and the third day from it to the remembrance of
his resurrection. On the contrary, in the greater number of Heathen
churches, as soon as men began to celebrate yearly festivals, (a time
which cannot be determined very precisely,) they followed the method
observed in the weekly festivals. They appointed one Sunday in the year
for the festival of the resurrection, and one Friday as a day of
penitence and fasting preparatory to this Sunday, in remembrance of the
sufferings of Christ; and they gradually lengthened this time of
penitence and fasting, as a preparation for that high and joyful
festival. In these churches they were more inclined to take up a kind of
antithetical turn against the Jewish festivals, than to graft Christian
ones upon them. It was far from their notions to think of observing a
yearly passover with the Jews. The following was the view which they
took of the matter: “Every typical feast has lost its true meaning by
the realization of that which is typified; in the sacrifice of Christ,
the Lord’s Supper, as the new covenant, has taken the place of that of
the old covenant.” This difference of outward customs between the Jewish
Christian churches and the churches allied to them on the one hand, and
the Heathen Christian churches founded by St. Paul on the other, existed
at first without its being supposed that external things of this nature
were of importance enough to lead to a controversy. A fast formed the
introduction to the passover; and this was the only fast formally
established by the church. The necessity of this fast was deduced from
Matthew ix, 15; but it was by a carnal interpretation of the passage,
and an application of it quite contrary to its real sense. For it does
not relate to the time of Christ’s suffering, but to the time when he
should be with his disciples no more. As long as they enjoyed his
society they were to give themselves up to joy, and to be disturbed in
it by no forced asceticism. But a time of sorrow was to follow this time
of joy, although only for a season, after which a time of higher and
imperishable joy, in invisible communion with him, was to follow, John
xvi, 22. The duration of this fast, however, was not determined; the
imitation of the temptation of our Lord for forty days introduced the
custom of fasting forty hours in some places, which afterward was
extended to forty days; and thus the fast of forty days, the
quadrigesimal fast, arose. The festival of pentecost, Whitsuntide, was
closely connected with that of the resurrection; and this was dedicated
to commemorating the first visible effects of the operations of the
glorified Christ upon human nature, now also ennobled by him, the lively
proofs of his resurrection and reception into glory; and therefore
Origen joins the festivals of the resurrection and of pentecost together
as one whole. The means of transition from an Old Testament festival to
one befitting the New Testament, were here near at hand. The first
fruits of harvest in the kingdom of nature; the first fruits of harvest
in the kingdom of grace; the law of the letter from Mount Sinai--the law
of the Spirit from the heavenly Jerusalem. This festival originally
embraced the whole season of fifty days from Easter, and was celebrated
like a Sunday, that is to say, no fasts were kept during the whole of
it, and men prayed standing, and not kneeling; and perhaps also in some
places assemblies of the church were held, and the communion was
celebrated every day. Afterward, two peculiar points of time, the
ascension of Christ and the effusion of the Holy Spirit, were selected
from this whole interval. These were the only festivals generally
celebrated at that time, as the passage cited from Origen proves. The
fundamental notion of the whole Christian life, which referred every
thing to the suffering, the resurrection, and the glorification of
Christ, as well as the adherence, or, on the other hand, the opposition,
to the Jewish celebration of festivals, were the cause that these were
the only general festivals. The notion of a birth-day festival was far
from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general; they looked
upon the second birth as the true birth of men. The case must have been
somewhat different with the birth of the Redeemer; human nature was to
be sanctified by him from its first developement; but then this last
notion could not at first come so prominently forward among the early
Christians, because so many of them were first converted to Christianity
when well advanced in years, after some decisive excitement of their
life; but then it may have entered generally into domestic life, though
at first gradually. Nevertheless, we find in this period apparently one
trace of Christmas as a festival. Its history is intimately connected
with the history of a kindred festival; the festival of the
manifestation of Jesus in his character of Messiah, his consecration to
the office of Messiah by the baptism of John, and the beginning of his
public ministry as the Messiah, which was afterward called Epiphany, the
ἑυρτη τῶν ἐπιφανίων, or τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Χριϛοῦ, [the festival of
Epiphany, or of the appearance of Christ.] We find in later times that
these festivals extended themselves in opposite directions, that of
Christmas spreading from west to east, and the other from east to west.
Clemens of Alexandria merely relates, that the Gnostic sect of the
Basilidians celebrated the festival of the Epiphany at Alexandria in his
time. We can hardly suppose that this sect invented the festival,
although they may have had some dogmatical reason for celebrating it;
for it is highly improbable that the catholic church should have
afterward received a festival from the Gnostics; and these Gnostics most
probably received it from the Jewish Christian churches in Palestine or
Syria. For this time of our Saviour’s life would appear the most
important to the notions of the Jewish Christians; and the Gnostics
would afterward explain it according to their own ideas.

The character of a spiritual worship of God distinguished the Christian
worship from that of other religions, which consisted in symbolical
pageantry and lifeless ceremonies. As a general elevation of spirit and
sanctification of heart was the object of every thing in this religion,
instruction and edification, through a common study of the divine word,
and through prayer in common, were the leading features in the Christian
worship. And in this respect it might in its form adhere to the
arrangements made about the congregations in the Jewish synagogues, in
which also the element of a spiritual religious worship was the
prevailing ingredient. As the reading of portions of the Old Testament
had formed the ground work of religious instruction in the Jewish
synagogues, this custom also passed into the Christian congregations.
First the Old Testament, and especially the prophetic parts of it, were
read as things that pointed to the Messiah; then followed the Gospels,
and after that the epistles of the Apostles. The reading of the
Scriptures was of still greater consequence then, because it was
desirable that every Christian should be acquainted with them; and yet,
by reason of the rarity and dearness of manuscripts, and the poverty of
a great proportion of the Christians, or perhaps also because all were
not able to read, the Bible itself could not be put into the hands of
all. Frequent hearing was therefore with many to supply the place of
their own reading. The Scriptures were therefore read in the language
which all could understand, and that was, in most parts of the Roman
empire, the Greek or the Latin. In very early times different
translations of the Bible into Latin were in existence; as every one who
knew a little of Greek, found it needful to have his own Bible in his
own mother tongue. In places where the Greek or the Latin language was
understood only by a part of the church, that is to say, by the educated
classes, while the rest understood only their native language, as was
the case in many Egyptian and Syrian towns, church interpreters were
appointed, as in the Jewish synagogues, and they immediately translated
what had been read into the language of the country, so that it might be
intelligible to all. After the reading of the Scripture there followed,
as there had previously in the Jewish synagogues, short, and at first
very simple, addresses in familiar language, the momentary effusions of
the heart, which contained an explanation and application of what had
just been read. Justin Martyr expresses himself thus on the subject:
“After the reading of the Scriptures, the president instructs the people
in a discourse, and incites them to the imitation of these good
examples.” Among the Greeks, where the taste was more rhetorical, the
sermon from the very earliest times was of a more lengthened kind, and
formed a very important part of the service. Singing also passed from
the Jewish service into that of the Christian church. St. Paul exhorts
the early churches to sing spiritual songs. What was used for this
purpose were partly the Psalms of the Old Testament, and partly songs
composed with this very object, especially songs of praise and thanks to
God and Christ; and these, we know, Pliny found to be customary among
the Christians. In the controversies with the Unitarians, about the end
of the second century, and the beginning of the third, the hymns, in
which from early times Christ had been honoured as a God, were appealed
to. The power of church singing over the heart was soon recognized; and
hence those who wished to propagate any peculiar opinions, like
Bardasanes, or Paul of Samosata, endeavoured to spread them by means of
hymns. In compliance with the infirmities of human nature, composed as
it is of sense and spirit, the divine Founder of the church, beside his
word, ordained two outward signs, as symbols of the invisible communion
which existed between him, the Head of the spiritual body, and the
faithful, its members; and also of the connection of these members, as
with him, so also with one another. These were visible means to
represent the invisible, heavenly benefits to be bestowed on the members
of this body through him; and while man received in faith the sign
presented to his senses, the enjoyment of that heavenly communion and
those heavenly advantages was to gladden his inward heart. As nothing in
all Christianity and in the whole Christian life stands isolated, but
all forms one whole, proceeding from one centre, therefore, also, that
which this outward sign represented must be something which should
continue through the whole of the inward Christian life, something
which, spreading itself forth from this one moment over the whole
Christian life, should be capable of being especially excited again and
promoted in return, by the influence of isolated moments. Thus, baptism
was to be the sign of a first entrance into communion with the Redeemer,
and with the church, the first appropriation of those advantages which
Christ has bestowed on man, namely, of the forgiveness of sins and the
inward union of life, which proceeds from it, as well as of the
participation in a sanctifying divine Spirit of life. And the Lord’s
Supper was to be the sign of a constant continuance in this communion,
in the appropriation and enjoyment of these advantages; and thus were
represented the essentials of the whole inward Christian life, in its
earliest rise and its continued progress. The whole peculiar spirit of
Christianity was particularly stamped in the mode in which these
external things were administered; and the mode of their administration
in return exerted a powerful influence on the whole nature of the
Christian worship. The connection of the moments, represented by these
signs, with the whole Christian life, the connection of inward and
divine things with the outward act was present to the lively Christian
feelings of the first Christians.

WRITING. In regard to alphabetic writing, all the ancient writers
attribute the invention of it to some very early age, and some country
of the east; but they do not pretend to designate precisely either the
time or the place. They say, farther, that Cadmus introduced letters
from Phenicia into Greece, if we may credit the Parisian Chronicle, B.
C. 1519, that is, forty-five years after the death of Moses. Anticlides
asserts, and attempts to prove, that letters were invented in Egypt
fifteen years before Phoroneus, the most ancient king of Greece; that
is, four hundred and nine years after the deluge, and in the one hundred
and seventeenth year of Abraham. On this it may be remarked that they
might have been introduced into Egypt at this time, but they had been
previously invented by the Phenicians. Epigenes, who, in the estimation
of Pliny, is weighty authority, informs us that observations, made upon
the heavenly bodies for seven hundred and twenty years at Babylon, were
written down upon baked tiles; but Berosus and Critodemus, also referred
to by Pliny, make the number of years four hundred and eighty. Pliny
from these statements draws the conclusion that the use of letters, as
he expresses it, must have been eternal, that is, beyond all records.
Simplicius, who lived in the fifth century, states, on the authority of
Porphyry, an acute historian, that Callisthenes, the companion of
Alexander, found at Babylon a record of observations on the heavenly
bodies for one thousand nine hundred and three years. Of course the
record must have been begun B. C. 2234, that is, the eighty-ninth year
of Abraham. This statement receives some confirmation from the fact that
the month of March is called Adar in the Chaldaic dialect; and at the
time mentioned, namely, the eighty-ninth year of Abraham, the sun,
during the whole month of March, was in the sign of the zodiac called
Aries, or the Ram. The word Adar means the same with Aries. But, as
letters would be unquestionably first used for the purposes of general
intercourse, they must have been known long before they were employed to
transmit the motions of the stars. Of this we have an evidence in the
bill of sale, which, as we have reason to suppose from the expressions
used in Gen. xxiii, 20, was given to Abraham by the sons of Heth. Hence
it is not at all wonderful that books and writings are spoken of in the
time of Moses, as if well known, Exodus xvii, 14; xxiv, 4; xxviii, 9–11;
xxxii, 32; xxxiv, 27, 28; Numbers xxxiii, 2; Deut. xxvii, 8. Nor is it a
matter of surprise that long before his time there had been public
scribes, who kept written genealogies: they were called by the Hebrews
שוטרים, Exod. v, 14; Deut. xx, 5–9. Even in the time of Jacob, seals,
upon which names are engraved in the east, were in use, Gen. xxxviii,
18; xii, 42; which is another probable testimony to the great antiquity
of letters.

Letters, which had thus become known at the earliest period, were
communicated by means of the Phenician merchants and colonies, and
subsequently by Egyptian emigrants, through all the east and the west. A
strong evidence of this is to be found in the different alphabets
themselves, which betray by their resemblance a common origin. That the
posterity of the Hebrew patriarchs preserved a knowledge of alphabetical
writing during their abode in Egypt, where essentially the same alphabet
was in use, is evident from the fact, that the Hebrews while remaining
there always had public genealogists. The law, also, was ordered to be
inscribed on stones; a fact which implies a knowledge of alphabetical
writing. The writing thus engraven upon stones is designated by its
appropriate name, namely, חרות, Exodus xxxii, 16, 32. Not a few of the
Hebrews might be unable to read and write, Judges viii, 14; but those
who were capable of writing wrote for others, when necessary. Such
persons were commonly priests, who, as they do to this day in the east,
bear an inkhorn in their girdle, Ezek. x, 2, 3, 11. In the inkhorn were
the materials for writing, and a knife for sharpening the pen, Jer.
xxxvi, 23. The rich and noble had scribes of their own, and readers
also; whence there is more frequent mention made of hearing than of
reading, 1 Kings iv, 3; 2 Kings xii, 10; Isa. xxix, 18; Jer. xxxvi, 4;
Rom. ii, 13; James v, 11; Rev. i, 3. The scribes took youth under their
care, who learned from them the art of writing. Some of the scribes seem
to have held public schools for instruction; some of which, under the
care of Samuel and other prophets, became in time quite illustrious, and
were called the schools of the prophets, 1 Sam. xix, 16, &c; 2 Kings ii,
3, 5; iv, 38; vi, 1. The disciples in these schools were not children or
boys, but young men, who inhabited separate edifices, as is the case in
the Persian academies. They were taught music and singing, and without
doubt writing also, the Mosaic law and poetry. They were denominated, in
reference to their instructers, the sons of the prophets; teachers and
prophets being sometimes called fathers. After the captivity there were
schools for instruction either near the synagogues or in them.

The materials and instruments of writing were, 1. The leaves of trees.
2. The bark of trees, from which, in the process of time, a sort of
paper was manufactured. 3. A table of wood, πίναξ, לוח, Deut. ix, 9;
Ezek. xxxvii, 5; Luke i, 63. In the east, these tables were not covered
with wax as they were in the west; or at any rate very rarely so. 4.
Linen was first used for the object in question at Rome. Linen books are
mentioned by Livy. Cotton cloth also, which was used for the bandages of
Egyptian mummies, and inscribed with hieroglyphics, was one of the
materials for writing upon. 5. The paper made from the reed papyrus,
which, as Pliny has shown, was used before the Trojan war. 6. The skins
of various animals; but they were poorly prepared for the purpose, until
some improved methods of manufacture were invented at Pergamus, during
the reign of Eumenes, about B. C. 300. Hence the skins of animals,
prepared for writing, are called in Latin _pergamena_, in English
parchment, to this day, from the city Pergamus. They are sometimes
denominated in Greek, μεμβράνα, 2 Tim. iv, 13. 7. Tables of lead, עפרת,
Job xix, 24. 8. Tables of brass, δέλτοι χαλκαὶ. Of all the materials,
brass was considered among the most durable, and was employed for those
inscriptions which were designed to last the longest, 1 Macc. viii, 22;
xiv, 20–27. 9. Stones or rocks, upon which public laws, &c, were
written. Sometimes the letters engraved were filled up with lime, Exod.
xxiv, 12; xxxi, 18; xxxii, 19; xxxiv, 1; Deut. xxvii, 1–9; Joshua viii,
32; Job xix, 24. 10. Tiles. The inscriptions were made upon the tiles
first, and afterward they were baked in the fire. They are yet to be
found in the ruins of Babylon; others of later origin are to be found in
many countries in the east. 11. The sand of the earth, in which the
children in India to this day learn the art of writing, and in which
Archimedes himself delineated his mathematical figures, John viii, 1–8.
If in Ezekiel iii, 1, and in Revelation x, 9, we are informed that books
were eaten, we must remember that the descriptions are figurative, and
that they were eaten in vision; and consequently we are not at liberty
to draw the conclusion from these passages, that any substance was used
as materials for writing upon, which was at the same time used for food.
The representations alluded to are symbolic, introduced to denote a
communication or revelation from God.

As to the instruments used in writing, when it was necessary to write
upon hard materials, as tables of stone and brass, the style was made of
iron, and sometimes tipped with diamond, Jer. xvii. 1. The letters were
formed upon tablets of wood, (when they were covered with wax,) with a
style sharpened at one end, broad and smooth at the other; by means of
which the letters, when badly written, might be rubbed out and the wax
smoothed down. 2. Wax, however, was but rarely used for the purpose of
covering writing tables in warm regions. When this was not the case, the
letters were painted on the wood with black tincture or ink. 3. On
linen, cotton cloth, paper, skins, and parchment, the letters were
painted with a very small brush, afterward with a reed, which was split.
The orientals use this elegant instrument to the present day instead of
a pen. _Ink_, called דיו, is spoken of in Num. v, 23, as well known and
common, Jer. xxxvi, 18, and was prepared in various ways, which are
related by Pliny. The most simple, and consequently the most ancient,
method of preparation was a mixture of water with coals broken to
pieces, or with soot, with an addition of gum. The ancients used other
tinctures also; particularly, if we may credit Cicero and Persius, the
ink extracted from the cuttle fish, although their assertion is in
opposition to Pliny. The Hebrews went so far as to write their sacred
books in gold, as we may learn from Josephus compared with Pliny.

Hieroglyphics, that is, sacred sculptures or engravings, received that
appellation, because it was once, and indeed till very lately, thought,
that they were used only to express, in a manner hidden from the vulgar,
what was exclusively religious; and which it was thought proper to
conceal from all but the learned. The fact, however, is, that the
hieroglyphic was a kind of picture writing, which passed through various
modifications, and was applied alike to sacred and to civil purposes; to
the emblazonment of the attributes of idols, the exploits of warriors,
and the events of illustrious history. Rudiments of the same art have
been found among almost all savages. Among the semi-civilized Mexicans
history was pictorial: and in Ceylon and Continental India the same
vehicle of instruction is made use of on the walls of their temples, to
convey moral lessons, or to indicate the character and exploits of their
deities. In Egypt, however, the art was carried into a more perfect
system, and was more ostensibly set before the public eye on the massive
and almost eternal monuments which cover the country. There, too, it
ascends to ages of the world with which the Scriptures have made us
familiar, and stands associated with royal dynasties, and vicissitudes
of conquest, more intimately blended with that stream of civil history,
along the margin of which European education conducts us. These mystic
characters have acquired an adventitious interest also, from the
circumstance that the key to them was for so many ages lost. This
knowledge perished among that people themselves, the records of whose
kings and conquests lay hid under the inexplicable symbol, or the
fanciful representation of letters and sounds which were still familiar
to the lips of those to whom the signs had become wholly unmeaning. Age
after age they were gazed at by the curious; conjectures respecting
their nature and use were offered by the learned, some absurd and some
approaching the truth, but all failing to throw light upon a mystery,
which at length was surrendered, by common consent, to the receptacle of
lost and irrecoverable knowledge. Whether the hieroglyphics were symbols
only, or words, or picturesque alphabetical characters, or expressed the
popular tongue, or one known only to the priests, were questions
answered at random by the prompt and dogmatic; and even the more modest
and probable solutions of the cautious had so little collateral evidence
to support them, that they led to no result. As to their intent, one
thought that they involved the mysteries of magic; another, that they
were a form of the Chinese language; a third, that they veiled the
doctrines of the true patriarchal religion; a fourth, that they
enveloped the dogmatic arcana of the Egyptian priesthood. The great
point, however, to be determined was, whether the hieroglyphics were the
signs of a language; that is, of the sounds of any language; and, if so,
whether the language was now known, or knowable, from books still
extant. Each of these points was of equal importance; for in vain would
it have been ascertained that these signs represented the sounds of a
tongue once spoken, if that tongue had perished from the earth. Clement
of Alexandria, who lived about the end of the second century, asserted
that the Egyptians had three modes of writing,--the epistolographic, or
common characters; the hieratic, or sacerdotal, employed chiefly by the
priesthood in writing books; and the hieroglyphic, used on public
monuments. The symbolical he again distributes into imitative, which
represent the plain figure of an object, as a circle to express the sun,
and a half circle the moon; tropical,--which have recourse to analogy
for the representation of the object; and enigmatical,--as “a serpent,
to signify the oblique course of the stars.” This writer could not so
accurately have expressed the truth of the case, unless he had known
much more than he has written; and we may presume, that if he had been
more liberal in his communications, the present age would not have had
the honour of throwing open the gate to this branch of ancient learning.
The notion which has generally prevailed, that by whatever rule the
hieroglyphics were composed, they were invented by the Egyptian priests
to conceal their wisdom from the vulgar, was combated by Bishop
Warburton, with his usual acuteness. According to him, the first kind of
hieroglyphics were mere pictures; because the most natural way of
communicating our conceptions by marks or figures was, to trace out the
images of things. But the hieroglyphics invented by the Egyptians were
an improvement on this rude and inconvenient essay toward writing; for
they contrived to make them both pictures and characters. He proceeds to
other observations, which have lost their interest in consequence of the
recent discoveries; but he argues conclusively, that hieroglyphics could
not, in a vast number of cases, have been resorted to for purposes of
secrecy, since they were employed to record openly and plainly their
laws, history, and all kinds of civil matters. This, as a general view,
has been proved to be correct; but still no key to the reading of these
characters was found. The figures of deities might, in many instances,
be deciphered by their attributes; other symbols were not difficult to
explain, as they spoke a universal language. Thus two hands, one holding
a bow, and another a shield, suggested a battle; an eye and a sceptre, a
monarch of intelligence and vigilance; a ship and a pilot, the governor
of a state if associated with a man, the ruler of the universe if
associated with a deity. A lion was a natural emblem of strength and
courage; a bullock, of agriculture; a horse, of liberty; a sphynx, of
subtlety. But still those hieroglyphics were in the greatest number
which appeared to represent letters; and many might prove, at the same
time, both emblematic and alphabetical. Approaches to the truth of the
case had been, indeed, made. Warburton, from an attentive perusal of
what Clemens Alexandrinus had said on the subject, had, in fact,
concluded, in a way highly creditable to his acuteness, that
hieroglyphics were a real written language, applicable to the purposes
of history and common life, as well as to those of religion; and that,
among the different sorts of hieroglyphics, the Egyptians possessed
those which were used phonetically, or alphabetically, as letters; but,
till recently, the means of following out this ingenious and correct
conjecture were wanting to the learned. The first effectual step was
taken by M. Quattermere, who proved, in his work _Sur la Langue et
Littérature de l’Egypte_, [Concerning the Language and Literature of
Egypt,] that the Coptic, a language of easy attainment, at least to a
considerable extent, was the language of the ancient Egyptians. The
second favouring circumstance of modern times was, the publication of
the researches made as to the monuments of Egypt by the literary men and
artists who accompanied the French expedition to that country. Previous
to this, the specimens which had been brought to Europe were few, and
the impressions and the fac similes of them incorrect. Some, too, were
imitations, and others spurious. In the works published in France after
this expedition, the representations of Egyptian monuments were
numerous; and the inscriptions were given with perfect exactness and
fidelity. Still, however, those would have remained as unintelligible as
the originals but for the discovery of the Rosetta stone, now among the
Egyptian antiquities in the gallery of the British museum. This stone
was dug up by the French, near Rosetta, and contained an inscription in
three sets of characters: one in hieroglyphics; a second in a sort of
running hand, called enchorial, that is, in the common characters of the
country; and a third in Greek. The latter appearing, from the
disposition of the whole, to be a translation of the enchorial
inscription, as that was of the hieroglyphic, the importance of this
stone was at once seen by the French savans; but by the fortune of war,
it was taken, with other valuables, by the British troops, and was sent
to this country. The Antiquarian Society had it immediately engraved;
and the fac similes, which were circulated through Europe attracted
great attention. Dr. Young has, however, the honour of being the
discoverer of the nature and use of the hieroglyphical inscription. M.
de Sacy, and more especially Mr. Ackerblad, a Danish gentleman, made
some progress in identifying the sense of several parts of the second
inscription, or that in demotic or enchorial characters, but made no
progress in the hieroglyphics; and it was left for British industry to
convert to permanent profit a monument which had been a useless, though
a glorious, monument of British valour. The inscription upon this
celebrated stone proved to be a decree of the Egyptian priests, solemnly
assembled in the temple, to record upon a monument, as a public
expression of their gratitude, all the events of the reign of Ptolemy
Epiphanes; his liberality to the temples and to the gods; his success
against his rebellious subjects; his clemency toward some of the
traitors; his measures against the fatal consequences of excessive
inundations of the Nile; and his munificence toward the college of the
priests, by remitting the arrears of several years’ payment of taxes. It
was an important circumstance, that the whole concludes by ordering that
this decree “shall be engraved on a hard stone in sacred characters, in
common characters, and in Greek.” By this it was ascertained that the
second and third inscriptions were translations of the first; and that
the second inscription was in the common character of the country. It
was this that led Ackerblad to the investigation of the enchorial text,
in order to discover its alphabet; in which he partially succeeded. His
labours were, however, for some time unnoticed; but in 1814, Dr. Young
published, in the Archæologia, an improvement on the alphabet of
Ackerblad, and a translation of the Egyptian inscription. Difficulties
of no ordinary kind, beside those arising from the mutilated state of
the stone, presented themselves to all who had applied to make out even
the second, or enchorial inscription.

“The method,” says the Marquis Spineto, “pursued by our learned men in
this Herculean task of deciphering the Rosetta stone, deserves to be
noticed; it may serve to give you a proper idea of the infinite labour
to which they have been obliged to submit; a labour which at first
seemed calculated to deter the most indefatigable scholar. Figure to
yourself, for a moment, the fashion introduced of writing the English
language with the omission of most of its vowels, and then suppose our
alphabet to be entirely lost or forgotten, a new mode of writing
introduced, letters totally different from those we use, and then
conceive what our labour would be, if, after the lapse of fifteen
hundred years, when the English language, by the operation of ages, and
the intercourse with foreigners, was much altered from what it now is,
we should be required, by the help of a Greek translation, to decipher a
bill of parliament written in this old, forgotten, and persecuted
alphabet, in every word of which we should find, and even this not
always, the regular number of consonants, but most of the vowels left
out. And yet this is precisely what our learned antiquarians have been
obliged to do. The Egyptians, like most of the orientals, left out many
of the vowels in writing. The enchorial, or demotic alphabet, which they
used, has been laid aside since the second or third century of our era.
From that time to this, that is, for nearly sixteen hundred years, the
Coptic alphabet has been used; and yet in this Coptic language, and in
these very enchorial or demotic characters, was engraved on the Rosetta
stone the inscription which they have deciphered.”

The steps of this interesting process are given by Dr. Young, in the
Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica. The substance is as follows:
“As the demotic characters showed something like the shape of letters,
it was shrewdly suspected that they might have been used as an alphabet.
By comparing, therefore, its different parts with each other, and with
the Greek, it was observed that the two groups in the fourth and
seventeenth lines of the Greek inscription, in which Alexander and
Alexandria occur, corresponded with two other groups in the second and
the tenth line of the demotic inscription. These two groups, therefore,
were considered as representing these two names, and thus not less than
seven characters, or letters, were ascertained. Again: it was observed
that a small group of character occurs very often in almost every line.
At first it was supposed that this group was either a termination, or
some very common particle; and after some words had been identified, it
was found to mean the conjunction _and_. It was then observed, that the
next remarkable collection of characters was repeated twenty-nine or
thirty times in the enchorial inscription; and nothing found to occur so
often in the Greek, except the word king, which with its compounds, is
repeated about thirty-seven times. A fourth assemblage of characters was
found fourteen times in the enchorial inscription, agreeing sufficiently
well in frequency with the name of Ptolemy, which occurs eleven times in
the Greek, and generally in passages corresponding to those of the
enchorial text, in their relative situation; and, by a similar
comparison, the name of Egypt was identified. Having thus obtained a
sufficient number of common points of subdivision, the next step was to
write the Greek text over the enchorial, in such a manner that the
passages ascertained should coincide as nearly as possible; taking,
however, a proper care to observe that the lines of the demotic or
enchorial inscription are written from right to left, while those of the
Greek run in a contrary direction from left to right. At first sight
this difficulty seemed very great; but it was conquered by proper
attention and practice; because, after some trouble, the division of the
several words and phrases plainly indicated the direction in which they
were to be read. Thus it was obvious that the intermediate parts of each
inscription stood then very near to the corresponding passages of the
other.”

By means of the process above mentioned, Ackerblad, De Sacy, and Dr.
Young, among whom a correspondence had been carried on, obtained a sort
of alphabet from the enchorial characters, which might aid them in
future researches. This result was published by Dr. Young in 1814. The
examination of another stone at Menoup, containing an inscription in
enchorial and in Greek characters, enabled Dr. Young to confirm the
accuracy of former discoveries, and to add several new characters to the
enchorial or demotic alphabet. Dr. Young next turned his attention to
the hieroglyphics; and, though not with equal success, yet so as to
demonstrate that they were phonetic or alphabetical, and to spell
several proper names. The difficulty here, indeed, was how to begin; but
his success opened a certain way to future progress; and it was upon Dr.
Young’s discovery that Champollion afterward engrafted his system, and
was enabled to carry his researches into Egyptian antiquities and
Egyptian hieroglyphics, to an extent which is now deeply engaging the
attention of the literary world.

Two practical ends appear to have been answered already by the
deciphering of the mystic monuments of Egypt. The first is, that the
inscriptions which have been read by Champollion, afford assistance in
settling some questions of ancient chronology; the other is, that
important collateral proof has been afforded of the historical accuracy
of the Old Testament, and the antiquity of its books. It is presumptive
in favour of the genuineness and antiquity of the writings of Moses,
that such proper Egyptian names as are found in no other ancient
writings beside his own, such as On, and Rameses, and Potipherah, and
Asenath, should now be read in hieroglyphic characters on monuments
still standing in the same country. But the confirmatory evidence goes
still farther. In one inscription the names of two of the Pharaohs,
Osorgon and Scheschonk, are exhibited. Of the characters which compose
this legend some are phonetic, some figurative, and some symbolic. The
whole reading in Coptic, is, “_Ouab an Amon-re soten annenoute Osorchon
pri_ (or _pre_) _ce_ or _ci an ouab an Amon-re Souten Scheschonk-re
Soten Nebto_, (_Amonmai Osorchon_,)” &c. The meaning of which is, “The
pure by Amon-re, king of the gods, Osorchon deceased, son of the pure,
by Amon-re, king of the gods, Scheschonk deceased, son of king of the
world, (beloved by Amon-re, Osorchon,) imparting life, like the sun, for
ever.” This Osorchon seems to have been the Zarah, or Zarach, the king
of Ethiopia, recorded in the Second Book of Chronicles, who, with a host
of a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots, came to make war
against Asa, the grandson of Jeroboam, and was defeated at Mareshah.
Although the Greek historians have never mentioned either the name or
exploits of Osorchon, this fact is attested by an hieroglyphical
manuscript, published by Denon. It is a funeral legend, loaded with
figures, on and round which there are several hieroglyphical
inscriptions. With respect to the other Pharaoh, Champollion, speaking
of the temple of Karnac, says, “In this marvellous place I saw the
portraits of most of the ancient Pharaohs, known by their great actions.
They are real portraits, represented a hundred times on the
basso-relievos of the outer and inner walls. Each of them has his
peculiar physiognomy, different from that of his predecessors and
successors. Thus, in colossal representations, the sculpture of which is
lively, grand, and heroic, more perfect than can be believed in Europe,
we see the Pharaoh Mandouei combating the nations hostile to Egypt, and
returning triumphant to his country. Farther on, the campaigns of
Rhamses Sesostris; elsewhere Sesonchis, or Shishak, dragging to the feet
of the Theban Trinity, Ammon, Mouth, and Khous, the chiefs of thirty
conquered nations, among which is found, written in letters at full
length, the word _Joudahamalek_, that is, the kingdom of the Jews, or
the kingdom of Judah. This is a commentary on the fourteenth chapter of
the First Book of Kings, which relates the arrival of Shishak at
Jerusalem, and his success there. Thus the identity between the Egyptian
Sheschonk, the Sesonchis of Manetho, and the Sesac, or Schischak of the
Bible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.”


YEAR. The Hebrews had always years, of twelve months each. But at the
beginning, and in the time of Moses, these were solar years, of twelve
months; each having thirty days, except the twelfth which had
thirty-five. We see, by the reckoning that Moses gives us of the days of
the deluge, Gen. vii, that the Hebrew year consisted of three hundred
and sixty-five days. It is supposed that they had an intercalary month
at the end of one hundred and twenty years; at which time the beginning
of their year would be out of its place full thirty days. But it must be
owned, that no mention is made in Scripture of the thirteenth month, or
of any intercalation. It is not improbable that Moses retained the order
of the Egyptian year, since he himself came out of Egypt, was born in
that country, had been instructed and brought up there, and since the
people of Israel, whose chief he was, had been for a long time
accustomed to this kind of year. But the Egyptian year was solar, and
consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and that for a very long
time before. After the time of Alexander the Great, and the reign of the
Grecians in Asia, the Jews reckoned by lunar months, chiefly in what
related to religion, and the order of the festivals. St. John, in his
Revelation, xi, 2, 3; xii, 6, 14; xiii, 5, assigns but twelve hundred
and sixty days to three years and a half, and consequently just thirty
days to every month, and just three hundred and sixty days to every
year. Maimonides tells us, that the years of the Jews were solar, and
their months lunar. Since the completing of the Talmud, they have made
use of years that are purely lunar, having alternately a full month of
thirty days, and then a defective month of twenty-nine days. And to
accommodate this lunar year to the course of the sun, at the end of
three years they intercalate a whole month after Adar; which
intercalated month they call Ve-adar, or the second Adar.

The beginning of the year was various among different nations: the
ancient Chaldeans, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Armenians, and Syrians,
began their year about the vernal equinox; and the Chinese in the east,
and Latins and Romans in the west, originally followed the same usage.
The Egyptians, and from them the Jews, began their civil year about the
autumnal equinox. The Athenians and Greeks in general began theirs about
the summer solstice; and the Chinese, and the Romans after Numa’s
correction, about the winter solstice. At which of these the primeval
year, instituted at the creation, began, has been long contested among
astronomers and chronologers. Philo, Eusebius, Cyril, Augustine,
Abulfaragi, Kepler, Capellus, Simpson, Lange, and Jackson, contend for
the vernal equinox; and Josephus, Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Bedford,
Kennedy, &c, for the autumnal. The weight of ancient authorities, and
also of argument, seems to preponderate in favour of the former opinion.
1. All the ancient nations, except the Egyptians, began their civil year
about the vernal equinox: but the deviation of the Egyptians from the
general usage may easily be accounted for, from a local circumstance
peculiar to their country; namely, that the annual inundation of the
Nile rises to its greatest height at the autumnal equinox. 2. Josephus,
the only ancient authority of any weight on the other side seems to be
inconsistent with himself, in supposing that the deluge began in the
second civil month, _Dius_, or _Marheshvan_, rather than in the second
sacred month; because Moses, throughout the Pentateuch, uniformly adopts
the sacred year; and fixes its first month by an indelible and
unequivocal character, calling it _Abib_, as ushering in the season of
green corn. And as Josephus calls the second month elsewhere
_Artemisius_, or _Iar_, in conformity with Scripture, there is no reason
why he should deviate from the same usage in the case of the deluge. 3.
To the authority of Josephus, we may oppose that of the great Jewish
antiquary, Philo, in the generation before him; who thus accounts for
the institution of the sacred year by Moses:--“This month, _Abib_, being
the seventh in number and order according to the sun’s course, or civil
year, reckoned from the autumnal equinox, is virtually the first, and is
therefore called ‘the first month’ in the sacred books. And the reason,
I think, is this: because the vernal equinox is the image and
representative of the original epoch of the creation of the world.
Thereby God notified the spring, in which all things bloom and blossom,
to be an annual memorial of the world’s creation. Wherefore this month
is properly called the first in the law, as being the image of the first
original month, stamped upon it, as it were, by that archetypal seal.”
4. The first sacrifice on record seems to decide the question. The time
of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel appears to have been spring; when
Cain, who was a “tiller of the ground,” brought the first fruits of his
tillage, or a sheaf of new corn; and Abel, who was “a feeder of sheep,”
“the firstlings of his flock,” lambs: and this was done “at the end of
days,” or “at the end of the year;” which is the correct meaning of the
phrase מקץ ימם, and not the indefinite expression, “in process of time,”
Gen. iv, 3. It is a remarkable proof of the accuracy of Moses, and a
confirmation of this expression, that he expresses the end of the civil
year, or “ingathering of the harvest,” by different phrases, בצאת השנה,
“at the going out of the year,” Exod. xxiii, 16; and תקופת השנה, “at the
revolution of the year,” Exod. xxxiv, 22; as those phrases may more
critically be rendered. But, in process of time, it was found that the
primeval year of three hundred and sixty days was shorter than the
tropical year; and the first discovery was, that it was deficient five
entire days, which therefore it was necessary to intercalate, in order
to keep up the correspondence of the civil year to the stated seasons of
the principal festivals. How early this discovery and intercalation was
made, is nowhere recorded. It might have been known and practised before
the deluge. The apocryphal book of Enoch, which probably was as old as
the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, stated that “the archangel
Ariel, president of the stars, discovered the nature of the month and of
the year to Enoch, in the one hundred and sixty-fifth year of his age,
and A. M. 1286.” And it is remarkable, that Enoch’s age at his
translation, three hundred and sixty-five years, expressed the number of
entire days in a tropical year. This knowledge might have been handed
down to Noah and his descendants; and that it was early communicated
indeed to the primitive Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Chinese, we learn from
ancient tradition.

This article would be rendered too prolix were we to notice the various
inventions of eminent men in different ages to rectify the calendar by
adjusting the difference between lunar and tropical years; which at
length was effected by Gregory XIII. in 1583. This Gregorian, or
reformed Julian year, was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when,
the deficiency from the time of the council of Nice then amounting to
eleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by
act of parliament; and the third day was counted the fourteenth, in that
year of confusion. The next year, A. D. 1752, was the first of the new
style. Russia is the only country in Europe which retains the old style.

The civil year of the Hebrews has always begun at autumn, at the month
they now call Tisri, which answers to our September, and sometimes
enters into October, according as the lunations happen. But their sacred
years, by which the festivals, assemblies, and all other religious acts,
were regulated, begin in the spring, at the month Nisan, which answers
to March, and sometimes takes up a part of April, according to the
course of the moon. See MONTHS.

Nothing is more equivocal among the ancients, than the term year. It
always has been, and still is, a source of disputes among the learned,
whether on account of its duration, its beginning, or its end. Some
people heretofore made their year consist only of one month, others of
four, others of six, others of ten, and others of twelve. Some have
divided one of our years into two, and have made one year of winter,
another of summer. The beginning of the year was fixed sometimes at
autumn, sometimes at the spring, and sometimes at midwinter. Some people
have used lunar months, others solar. Even the days have been
differently divided: some people beginning them at evening, others at
morning, others at noon, and others at midnight. With some the hours
were equal, both in winter and summer; with others, they were unequal.
They counted twelve hours to the day, and as many to the night. In
summer the hours of the day were longer than those of the night; but, on
the contrary, in winter the hours of the night were longer than those of
the day.

While the Jews continued in the land of Canaan, the beginnings of their
months and years were not settled by any astronomical rules or
calculations, but by the phasis, or actual appearance of the new moon.
When they saw the new moon, they began the month. Persons were therefore
appointed to watch on the tops of the mountain for the first appearance
of the moon after the change. As soon as they saw it, they informed the
sanhedrim, and public notice was given by lighting beacons throughout
the land; though after they had been often deceived by the Samaritans,
who kindled false fires, they used, say the Mishnical rabbins, to
proclaim its appearance by sending messengers. Yet as they had no months
longer than thirty days, if they did not see the new moon the night
following the thirtieth day, they concluded the appearance was
obstructed by the clouds, and, without watching any longer, made the
next day the first of the following month. But after the Jews became
dispersed through all nations, where they had no opportunity of being
informed of the first appearance of the new moon, as they formerly had,
they were forced to make use of astronomical calculations and cycles for
fixing the beginning of their months and years. The first cycle they
made use of for this purpose was of eighty-four years. But that being
discovered to be faulty, they came afterward into the use of Meto’s
cycle of nineteen years, which was established by the authority of Rabbi
Hillel Hannasi, or prince of the sanhedrim, about A. D. 360. This they
still use, and say it is to be observed till the coming of the Messiah.
In the compass of this cycle there are twelve common years, consisting
of twelve months, and seven intercalary years, consisting of thirteen
months. We find the Jews and their ancestors computing their years from
different eras, in different parts of the Old Testament; as from the
birth of the patriarchs, for instance, of Noah, Gen. vii, 11; viii, 13;
afterward from their exit out of Egypt, Num. xxxiii, 38; 1 Kings vi, 1;
then from the building of Solomon’s temple, 2 Chron. viii, 1; and from
the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. In latter times the
Babylonish captivity furnished them with a new epocha, from whence they
computed their years, Ezek. xxxiii, 21; xl, 1. But since the times of
the Talmudical rabbins, they have constantly used the era of the
creation.

There is not a more prolific source of confusion and embarrassment in
ancient chronology, than the substitution of the cardinal numbers, one,
two, three, for the ordinals, first, second, third, &c, which frequently
occurs in the sacred and profane historians. Thus Noah was six hundred
years old when the deluge began, Gen. vii, 6; and presently after, in
his six hundredth year: confounding complete and current years. And the
dispute whether A. D. 1800, or A. D. 1801, was the first of the
nineteenth century, should be decided in favour of the latter; the
former being in reality the last of the eighteenth century; which is
usually, but improperly, called the year one thousand eight hundred,
complete; whereas it is really the one thousandth, eight hundredth; as
in Latin we say, _Anno Domini millesimo octingentesimo_. There is also
another and a prevailing error, arising from mistranslation of the
current phrases, μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, &c, usually
rendered, “after eight days,” “after three days,” &c; but which ought to
be rendered “eight days after,” “three days after,” as in other places,
μετὰ τινὰς ἡμέρας, μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, which are correctly rendered
“some days after,” “not many days after,” in our English Bible, Acts xv,
36; Luke xv, 13, the extreme days being included. Such phrases seem to
be elliptical, and the ellipsis is supplied, Luke ix, 28, speaking of
our Lord’s transfiguration, μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ:
“After these sayings, about eight days,” or rather about the eighth day,
counted inclusively; for in the parallel passages, Matt. xvii, 1, Mark
ix, 2, there are only “six days,” counted exclusively, or omitting the
extremes. Thus, circumcision is prescribed, Gen. xvii, 11, when the
child is “eight days old;” but in Lev. xii, 3, “on the eighth day.” And
Jesus accordingly was circumcised, ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ, “when
eight days were accomplished,” Luke ii, 21; whereas John the Baptist, τῇ
ογδοῃ ἡμέρᾳ, “on the eighth day.” The last, which was the constant
usage, explains the meaning of the former. This critically reconciles
our Lord’s resurrection, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, “three days after,”
according to Matt. xxvii, 63; Mark viii, 31; with his resurrection, τῇ
τρίτη hήμερᾳ, “on the third day,” according to Matt. xvi, 21; Luke ix,
22; and according to fact: for our Lord was crucified on Good Friday,
about the third hour; and he arose before sunrise, πρωΐ, “early,” on
Sunday; so that the interval, though extending through three calendar
days current, did not in reality amount to two entire days, or
forty-eight hours. This phraseology is frequent among the most correct
classic writers. Some learned commentators, Beza, Grotius, Campbell,
Newcome, render such phrases, “within eight days,” “within three days;”
which certainly conveys the meaning, but not the literal translation, of
the preposition μετὰ, “after.” In memory of the primeval week of
creation, revived among the Jews, after their departure from Egypt,
their principal festivals, the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles,
lasted a week each. They had weeks of seven years a piece, at the term
of which was the sabbatical year; as also weeks of seven times seven
years, that were terminated by the year of jubilee; and finally weeks of
seven days. And it is remarkable that, from the earliest times,
sacrifices were offered by sevens. Thus, in the patriarch Job’s days,
“seven bullocks and seven rams were offered up for a burnt offering” of
atonement, by the divine command, Job xiii, 8. The Chaldean diviner,
Balaam, built seven altars, and prepared seven bullocks and seven rams,
Num. xxiii, 1. And the Cumæan sibyl, who came from Chaldea, or
Babylonia, gives the same directions to Æneas, that Balaam did to Balak:

          _Nunc grege de intacto septem mactare juvencos
          Præstiterit, totidem lectas, de more, bidentes._

          “Seven bullocks, yet unyoked, for Phœbus choose,
          And for Diana seven unspotted ewes.”
                                              DRYDEN.

And when the ark was brought home by David, the Levites offered seven
bullocks and seven rams, 1 Chronicles xv, 26. And hence we may account
for the peculiar sanctity of the seventh day, among the older Heathen
writers, even after the institution of the Sabbath fell into disuse, and
was lost among them.

THE FALLOW OR SABBATIC YEAR. Agricultural labour among the Jews ceased
every seventh year. Nothing was sown and nothing reaped; the vines and
the olives were not pruned; there was no vintage and no gathering of
fruits, even of what grew wild; but whatever spontaneous productions
there were, were left to the poor, the traveller, and the wild beast,
Lev. xxv, 1–7; Deut. xv, 1–10. The object of this regulation seems to
have been, among others, to let the ground recover its strength, and to
teach the Hebrews to be provident of their income and to look out for
the future. It is true, that extraordinary fruitfulness was promised on
the sixth year, but in such a way as not to exclude care and foresight,
Lev. xxv, 20–24. We are not to suppose, however, that the Hebrews spent
the seventh year in absolute idleness: they could fish, hunt, take care
of their bees and flocks, repair their buildings and furniture,
manufacture cloths of wool, linen, and of the hair of goats and camels,
and carry on commerce. Finally, they were obliged to remain longer in
the tabernacle or temple this year, during which the whole Mosaic law
was read, in order to be instructed in religious and moral duties, and
the history of their nation, and the wonderful works and blessings of
God, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. This seventh year’s rest, as Moses predicted,
Lev. xxvi, 34, 35, was for a long time neglected, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 21;
after the captivity it was more scrupulously observed.

As a period of seven days was every week completed by the Sabbath, so
was a period of seven years completed by the sabbatic year. It seems to
have been the design of this institution, to afford a longer opportunity
than would otherwise have been enjoyed for impressing on the memory the
great truth, that God the Creator is alone to be worshipped. The
commencement of this year was on the first day of the seventh month
Tishri, or October. During the continuance of the feast of tabernacles
this year, the law was to be publicly read for eight days together,
either in the tabernacle or temple, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. Debts, on account
of there being no income from the soil, were not collected, Deut. xv, 1,
2; they were not, however, cancelled, as was imagined by the Talmudists,
for we find in Deut. xv, 9, that the Hebrews are admonished not to deny
money to the poor on account of the approach of the sabbatical year,
during which it could not be exacted; but nothing farther than this can
be educed from that passage. Nor were servants manumitted on this year,
but on the seventh year of their service, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 12;
Jer. xxxiv, 14.

THE YEAR OF JUBILEE followed seven sabbatic years; it was on the
fiftieth year, Lev. xxv, 8–11. To this statement agree the Jews
generally, their rabbins, and the Caraites; and say farther, that the
argument of those who maintain that it was on the forty-ninth, for the
reason that the omission to till the ground for two years in succession,
namely, the forty-ninth and fiftieth, would produce a famine, is not to
be attended to. It is not to be attended to, simply because these years
of rest being known long beforehand, the people would of course lay up
provision for them. It may be remarked farther in reference to this
point, that certain trees produced their fruits spontaneously,
particularly the fig and sycamore, which yield half the year round, and
that those fruits could be preserved for some months; which explains at
once how a considerable number of the people might have obtained no
inconsiderable portion of their support. The return of the year of
jubilee was announced on the tenth day of the seventh month, or Tishri,
October, being the day of propitiation or atonement, by the sound of
trumpet, Lev. xxv, 8–13; xxvii, 24; Num. xxxvi, 4; Isa. lxi, 1, 2.
Beside the regulations which obtained on the sabbatic year, there were
others which concerned the year of jubilee exclusively: 1. All the
servants of Hebrew origin on the year of jubilee obtained their freedom,
Lev. xxv, 39–46; Jer. xxxiv, 7, &c. 2. All the fields throughout the
country, and the houses in the cities and villages of the Levites and
priests which had been sold on the preceding years, were returned on the
year of jubilee to the sellers, with the exception of those which had
been consecrated to God, and had not been redeemed before the return of
the said year, Lev. xxv, 10, 13–17, 24–28; xxvii, 16–21. 3. Debtors, for
the most part, pledged or mortgaged their lands to the creditor, and
left it to his use till the time of payment, so that it was in effect
sold to the creditor, and was, accordingly, restored to the debtor on
the year of jubilee. In other words, the debts for which land was
pledged were cancelled; the same as those of persons who had recovered
their freedom after having been sold into slavery, on account of not
being able to pay. Hence it usually happened in the later periods of
Jewish history, as we learn from Josephus, that, at the return of
jubilee, there was a general cancelling of debts.


ZABII, or ZABÆANS, or ZABIANS, or SABIANS. The Sabians mentioned in
Scripture were evidently a nation, or perhaps a wandering horde, such as
fell upon Job’s cattle, Job i, 15; men of stature, Isa. xiv, 14; a
people afar off, Joel iii, 8. But we speak here of the Zabians as a
sect, probably the first corrupters of the patriarchal religion; and so
called, as is believed, from _tsabiim_, the “hosts,” that is, of heaven;
namely, the sun, moon, and stars, to whom they rendered worship; first
immediately, and afterward through the medium of images; this
particularly distinguished them from the magi, whose idolatry was
confined to the solar orb, and its earthly representative, the fire. If
the above derivation be right, the Zabians were originally Chaldeans,
though afterward the same sect arose in Arabia. Their study of the
heavenly bodies led them, not only to astronomy, but to astrology, its
degenerate daughter, which was for many ages the favourite pursuit of
the oriental nations.

The following account is abridged from Dr. Townley’s “Essays;”--The
Zabii, or Zabians, were a sect of idolaters who flourished in the early
ages of the world, considerable in their numbers, and extensive in their
influence. The denomination of Zabii, given to these idolaters, appears
to have been derived from the Hebrew צבא, a _host_; with reference to
the צכא השמים or, _host of heaven_, which they worshipped; though others
have derived it from the Arabic _tsaba_ “to apostatize,” “to turn from
one religion to another;” or from צביים, or the Arabic _Tsabin_,
“Chaldeans,” or “inhabitants of the east.” Lactantius considers Ham, the
son of Noah, as the first seceder from the true religion after the
flood; and supposes Egypt, which was peopled by his descendants, to have
been the country in which Zabaism, or the worship of the stars, first
prevailed. That the worship of the heavenly bodies prevailed in the east
at a very early period, is certain from the words of Job, who thus
exculpates himself from the charge of idolatry: “If I beheld the sun
when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath
been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were
an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the
God that is above,” Job xxii, 26–28. It would appear that the idolatrous
opinions of the Zabii originated with the posterity of Ham, at a very
early period after the flood, in Egypt or Chaldea; but spread so rapidly
and extensively, that in a very short time nearly the whole of the
descendants of Noah were infected with their pestiferous sentiments and
practices. Maimonides says, “This people,” that is, the Zabii, “had
filled the whole world.” Their first and principal adoration was
directed to the host of heaven, or the stars. They were _ignicolæ_, or
“worshippers of fire.” The city of Ur, in Chaldea, seems to have had its
name from the inhabitants being devoted to the worship of fire. They
dedicated images to the sun and the other celestial orbs, supposing
that, by a formal consecration of them to those luminaries, a divine
virtue was infused into them, by which they acquired the faculty of
understanding, and the power of conferring prophecy and other gifts upon
their worshippers. These images were formed of various metals, according
to the particular star to which any of them was dedicated. They also
regarded certain trees as being appropriated to particular stars, and,
when idolatrously dedicated, as being possessed of very singular
virtues. From these opinions sprang the adoption of astrology by them,
in all its various forms. They maintained the doctrine of the eternity
of the world. “All the Zabii,” says Maimonides, “believe in the eternity
of the world; for, according to them, the heavens are God.” Holding the
eternity of the world, they easily became Pre-Adamites, affirming that
Adam was not the first man. They also fabled concerning him, that he was
the apostle of the moon, and the author of several works on husbandry.
Of Noah, they taught, that he was a husbandman, and was imprisoned for
dissenting from their opinions. They add, that Seth was another of those
who forsook the worship of the moon. They held agriculture in the
highest estimation, regarding it as intimately connected with the
worship of the heavenly bodies. On this account, it was deemed criminal,
by the major part of them, to slay or feed upon cattle. Goats were also
reputed to be sacred animals, because the demons whom they worshipped
were said to appear in the woods and deserts in the forms of goats or of
satyrs. Of their superstitious practices, some were dangerous, as the
sacrifices of lions, tigers, and other wild beasts. Certain of their
rites were cruel, as the passing of their children through the fire, and
branding themselves also with fire. Some of their practices were
loathsome and disgustful; such as eating blood, believing it to be the
food of demons, &c. Others were frivolous and tedious; as offering bats
and mice to the sun, various and frequent ablutions, lustrations, &c.
Some of them were obscene and beastly, as the rites practised on
engrafting a tree, or to obtain rain. Many of the rites were magical.
These Maimonides divides into three kinds:--“The first is that which
respects plants, animals, and metals. The second consists in the
limitation and determination of the times in which certain works ought
to be performed. The third consists in human gestures and actions, as
leaping, clapping the hands, shouting, laughing, lying down, or
stretching at full length upon the ground, burning particular things,
raising a smoke, and, lastly, repeating certain intelligible or
unintelligible words. Some things cannot be completed without the use of
all these rites.” It is generally acknowledged that some traces of
Zabianism are still to be found both among the Hindoos and Chinese in
the east, and the Mexicans and other nations in the south. The Guebres,
or Parsees, who inhabit Persia, and are scattered through various parts
of Hindostan, are the acknowledged worshippers of fire, or the supreme
Deity under that symbol. “That the Persians,” says Hyde, “were formerly
Sabians or Zabii, is rendered probable by Ibn Phacreddin Angjou, a
Persian, who, in his book ‘_Pharhangh Gjihanghiri_,’ treating of the
Persians descended from Shem, says in the preface, ‘Their religion, at
that time, was Zabianism; but at length they became magi, and built fire
temples.’ And the author of the book ‘_Mu’gjizat Pharsi_,’ adopts the
same opinion: ‘In ancient times, the Persians were of the Zabian
religion, worshipping the stars, until the time of Gushtasp, son of
Lohrasp.’ For then Zoroaster reformed their religion.” The modern
Sabians, who inhabit the country round about Mount Libanus, believe the
unity of God, but pay an adoration to the stars, or the angels and
intelligences which they suppose reside in them, and govern the world
under the supreme Deity. They are obliged to pray three times a day, and
they fast three times a year. They offer many sacrifices, but eat no
part of them; and abstain from beans, garlic, and some other pulse and
vegetables. They greatly respect the temple of Mecca and the pyramids of
Egypt, fancying these last to be the sepulchres of Seth, and of Enoch
and Sabi, his two sons, whom they look on as the first propagators of
their religion. At these structures, they sacrifice a cock and a black
calf, and offer up incense. Their principal pilgrimage, however, is to
Haran, the supposed birth place of Abraham. Such is the account of this
sect given by Sale, D’Herbelot, and Hyde.

ZACCHEUS, chief of the publicans; that is, farmer general of the
revenues, Luke xix, 1, &c. This is all that is known concerning this
person. See PUBLICANS and SYCAMORE.

ZADOK, son of Ahitub, high priest of the Jews, of the race of Eleazar.
At the death of Ahimelech, or Abiathar, he came to the pontificate, A.
M. 2944. For some time there were two high priests in Israel, 2 Sam.
viii, 17; xv, 24, &c; xix, 11, 12; 1 Kings i, 8, &c. After the death of
David, 1 Kings ii, 35, Solomon excluded Abiathar from the high
priesthood, because he espoused the party of Adonijah, and made Zadok
high priest alone.

ZAMZUMMIM, or ZUZIM, a gigantic race of people, who, together with the
Rephaim and Emim, men of like stature, occupied, in the time of Abraham,
the country east of Jordan and the Dead Sea, where they were routed by
Chedorlaomer, and from which they were afterward expelled by the
Ammonites, Deut. ii, 20, 21. These, together with the Anakim, another
family of giants, were all evidently of a race foreign to the original
inhabitants of the countries where they were found; they were probably
tribes of invading Cushites. The Vulgate and the Septuagint say, they
were conquered with the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim. The Chaldee
interpreters have taken Zuzim in the sense of an appellative, for stout
and valiant men; and the Septuagint have rendered the word Zuzim, ἔθνη
ἰσχυρὰ, _robust nations_. We meet with the word Zuzim only in Gen. xiv,
5.

ZEAL. The original word, in its primary signification, means heat; such
as the heat of boiling water. When it is figuratively applied to the
mind, it means any warm emotion or affection. Sometimes it is taken for
envy: so we render it, Acts v, 17, where we read, “The high priest, and
all that were with him, were filled with envy,” ἐπλήσθησαν ζήλου:
although it might as well be rendered, “were filled with zeal.”
Sometimes it is taken for anger and indignation; sometimes, for vehement
desire. And when any of our passions are strongly moved on a religious
account, whether for any thing good, or against any thing which we
conceive to be evil, this we term religious zeal. But it is not all that
is called religious zeal which is worthy of that name. It is not
properly religious or Christian zeal, if it be not joined with charity.
A fine writer (Bishop Sprat) carries the matter farther still. “It has
been affirmed,” says he, “no zeal is right, which is not charitable, but
is mostly so. Charity, or love, is not only one ingredient, but the
chief ingredient, in its composition.” May we not go farther still? May
we not say, that true zeal is not mostly charitable, but wholly so? that
is, if we take charity, in St. Paul’s sense, for love; the love of God
and our neighbour. For it is a certain truth, although little understood
in the world, that Christian zeal is all love. It is nothing else. The
love of God and man fills up its whole nature. Yet it is not every
degree of that love to which this appellation is given. There may be
some love, a small degree of it, where there is no zeal. But it is,
properly, love in a higher degree. It is fervent love. True Christian
zeal is no other than the flame of love. This is the nature, the inmost
essence of it. Phinehas is commended for having expressed much zeal
against those wicked persons that violated the law of the Lord, Num.
xxv, 11, 13; and in Psalm lxix, 9, the psalmist says, “The zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up;” my earnest desire to have all things duly
ordered about thy worship, and my just displeasure and indignation at
all abuses in it, have wasted my natural moisture and vital spirits.

ZEBOIM, one of the four cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire from
heaven, Gen. xiv, 2; xix, 24. Eusebius and St. Jerom speak of Zeboim as
of a city remaining in their time, upon the western shores of the Dead
Sea. Consequently, after the time of Lot this city must have been
rebuilt near the place where it had stood before. Mention is made of the
valley of Zeboim, 1 Sam. xiii, 18, and of a city of the same name in the
tribe of Benjamin, Neh. xi, 34.

ZEBULUN, the sixth son of Jacob and Leah, Gen. xxx, 20. He was born in
Mesopotamia, about A. M. 2256. His sons were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel,
Gen. xlvi, 14. Moses acquaints us with no particulars of his life; but
Jacob, in his last blessing, said of Zebulun, “Zebulun shall dwell at
the haven of the sea; and he shall be for a haven of ships; and his
border shall be unto Zidon,” Gen. xlix, 13. His portion extended along
the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, one end of it bordering on this sea,
and the other on the sea of Tiberias, Joshua xix, 10, &c. In the last
words of Moses, he joins Zebulun and Issachar together, saying, “Rejoice
Zebulun, in thy going out, and Issachar in thy tents. They shall call
the people unto the mountain, there shall they offer sacrifices of
righteousness. For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of
treasures hid in the sand,” Deut. xxxiii, 18; meaning, that these two
tribes being at the greatest distance north, should come together to the
temple at Jerusalem, to the holy mountain, and should bring with them
such of the other tribes as dwelt in their way; and that being situated
on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, they should apply themselves to
trade and navigation, and to the melting of metals and glass, denoted by
those words, “treasures hid in the sand.” The river Belus, whose sand
was very fit for making glass, was in this tribe. When the tribe of
Zebulun left Egypt, it had for its chief Eliab the son of Elon, and
comprehended fifty-seven thousand four hundred men able to bear arms,
Num. i, 9–30. In another review thirty-nine years afterward, this tribe
amounted to sixty thousand five hundred men of age to bear arms, Num.
xxvi, 26, 27. The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali distinguished
themselves in the war of Barak and Deborah against Sisera, the general
of the armies of Jabin, Judges iv, 5, 6, 10; v, 14, 18. It is thought
these tribes were the first carried into captivity beyond the Euphrates
by Pul and Tiglath Pileser, kings of Assyria, 1 Chron. v, 26. They had
also the advantage of hearing and seeing Jesus Christ in their country,
oftener and longer than any other of the twelve tribes, Isa. ix, 1;
Matthew iv, 13, 15.

ZECHARIAH, king of Israel, 2 Kings xiv, 29. He succeeded his father
Jeroboam II. A. M. 3220. He reigned but six months, and was murdered.

2. ZECHARIAH, son of Jehoiada, high priest of the Jews; probably the
same as Azariah, 1 Chron. vi, 10, 11. He was put to death by the order
of Joash, A. M. 3164, 2 Chron. xxiv, 20–22. Some think this is the
Zacharias mentioned Matt. xxiii, 35.

3. ZECHARIAH, the eleventh of the twelve lesser prophets, was the son of
Barachiah, and the grandson of Iddo. He was born during the captivity,
and came to Jerusalem when the Jews were permitted by Cyrus to return to
their own country. He began to prophesy two months later than Haggai,
and continued to exercise his office about two years. Like his
contemporary Haggai, Zechariah begins with exhorting the Jews to proceed
in the rebuilding of the temple; he promises them the aid and protection
of God, and assures them of the speedy increase and prosperity of
Jerusalem; he then emblematically describes the four great empires, and
foretels the glory of the Christian church when Jews and Gentiles shall
be united under their great High Priest and Governor, Jesus Christ, of
whom Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel the governor, were types; he
predicts many particulars relative to our Saviour and his kingdom, and
to the future condition of the Jews. Many moral instructions and
admonitions are interspersed throughout the work. Several learned men
have been of opinion that the last six chapters were not written by
Zechariah; but whoever wrote them, their inspired authority is
established by their being quoted in three of the Gospels, Matt. xxvi,
31; Mark xiv, 27; John xix, 37. The style of Zechariah is so remarkably
similar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to observe,
that the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. By far the greater part
of this book is prosaic; but toward the conclusion there are some
poetical passages which are highly ornamented. The diction is in general
perspicuous, and the transitions to the different subjects are easily
discerned.

ZEDEKIAH, or MATTANIAH, was the last king of Judah before the captivity
of Babylon. He was the son of Josiah, and uncle to Jehoiachin his
predecessor, 2 Kings xxiv, 17, 19. When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem,
he carried Jehoiachin to Babylon, with his wives, children, officers,
and the best artificers in Judea, and put in his place his uncle
Mattaniah, whose name he changed into Zedekiah, and made him promise,
with an oath, that he would continue in fidelity to him, A. M. 3405, 2
Chron. xxxvi, 13; Ezek. xvii, 12, 14, 18. He was twenty-one years old
when he began to reign at Jerusalem, and he reigned there eleven years.
He did evil in the sight of the Lord, committing the same crimes as
Jehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv, 18–20; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 11–13; and regarded not
the menaces of the Prophet Jeremiah, from the Lord; but hardened his
heart. The princes of the people, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
imitated his impiety, and abandoned themselves to all the abominations
of the Gentiles. In the first year of his reign, Zedekiah sent to
Babylon Elasah, the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah, the son of Hilkiah,
probably to carry his tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. By these messengers
Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives at Babylon, Jer. xxix, 1–23. Four
years afterward, either Zedekiah went thither himself, or at least he
sent thither; for the Hebrew text may admit either of these
interpretations, Jer. li, 59; Baruch i, 1; Jer. xxxii, 12. The chief
design of this deputation was to entreat Nebuchadnezzar to return the
sacred vessels of the temple, Baruch i, 8. In the ninth year of his
reign, he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings xxv. It was a
sabbatical year, in which the people should set their slaves at liberty,
according to the law, Exod. xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 1, 2, 12; Jer. xxxiv,
8–10. Then King Nebuchadnezzar marched his army against Zedekiah, and
took all the fortified places of his kingdom, except Lachish, Azekah,
and Jerusalem. He sat down before the last-mentioned city on the tenth
day of the tenth month of the holy year, which answers to our January.
Some time afterward, Pharaoh Hophrah, king of Egypt, marched to assist
Zedekiah, Jer. xxxvii, 3–5, 10. Nebuchadnezzar left Jerusalem, and went
to meet him, defeated him, and obliged him to return into Egypt; after
which he resumed the siege of Jerusalem. In the mean while, the people
of Jerusalem, as if freed from the fear of Nebuchadnezzar, retook the
slaves whom they had set at liberty, which drew upon them great
reproaches and threatenings from Jeremiah, xxxiv, 11, 22. During the
siege Zedekiah often consulted Jeremiah, who advised him to surrender,
and pronounced the greatest woes against him if he should persist in his
rebellion, Jer. xxxvii, 3, 10; xxi. But this unfortunate prince had
neither patience to hear, nor resolution to follow, good counsels. In
the eleventh year of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the fourth month,
(July,) Jerusalem was taken, 2 Kings xxv, 2–4; Jer. xxxix, 2, 3; lii,
5–7. Zedekiah and his people endeavoured to escape by favour of the
night; but the Chaldean troops pursuing them, they were overtaken in the
plains of Jericho. He was seized and carried to Nebuchadnezzar, then at
Riblah, a city of Syria. The king of Chaldea, reproaching him with his
perfidy, caused all his children to be slain before his face, and his
eyes to be put out; then loading him with chains of brass, he ordered
him to be sent to Babylon, 2 Kings xxv, 4–7; Jer. xxxii, 4–7; lii, 4–11.
Thus were accomplished two prophecies which seemed contradictory: one of
Jeremiah, who said that Zedekiah should see and yet not see,
Nebuchadnezzar with his eyes, Jer. xxxii, 4, 5; xxxiv, 3; and the other
of Ezek. xii, 13, which intimated that he should not see Babylon, though
he should die there. The year of his death is not known. Jeremiah had
assured him that he should die in peace; that his body should be burned,
as those of the kings of Judah usually were; and that they should mourn
for him, saying, “Ah, lord!” Jer. xxxiv, 4, 5.

ZEPHANIAH was the son of Cushi, and was probably of a noble family of
the tribe of Simeon. He prophesied in the reign of Josiah, about B. C.
630. He denounces the judgments of God against the idolatry and sins of
his countrymen, and exhorts them to repentance; he predicts the
punishment of the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Ethiopians, and
foretels the destruction of Nineveh; he again inveighs against the
corruptions of Jerusalem, and with his threats mixes promises of future
favour and prosperity to his people; whose recall from their dispersion
shall glorify the name of God throughout the world. The style of
Zephaniah is poetical; but it is not distinguished by any peculiar
elegance or beauty, though generally animated and impressive.

ZERUBBABEL, or ZEROBABEL, was son of Salathiel, of the royal race of
David. St. Matthew, i, 12, and 1 Chron. iii, 17, 19, make Jeconiah king
of Judah to be father to Salathiel; but they do not agree as to the
father of Zerubbabel. The Chronicles say Pedaiah was father of
Zerubbabel; but St. Matthew, St. Luke, Ezra, and Haggai, constantly make
Salathiel his father. We must therefore take the name of son in the
sense of grandson, and say that Salathiel having educated Zerubbabel, he
was always afterward looked upon as his father. Some think that
Zerubbabel had also the name of Sheshbazzar, and that he has this name
in Ezra i, 8. Zerubbabel returned to Jerusalem long before the reign of
Darius, son of Hystaspes. He returned at the beginning of the reign of
Cyrus, A. M. 3468, fifteen years before Darius. Cyrus committed to his
care the sacred vessels of the temple with which he returned to
Jerusalem, Ezra i, 11. He is always named first, as being the chief of
the Jews that returned to their own country, Ezra ii, 2; iii, 8; v, 2;
he laid the foundations of the temple, Ezra iii, 8, 9; Zech. iv, 9, &c;
and restored the worship of the Lord, and the usual sacrifices. When the
Samaritans offered to assist in rebuilding the temple, Zerubbabel and
the principal men of Judah refused them this honour, since Cyrus had
granted his commission to the Jews only, Ezra iv, 2, 3.

ZIKLAG, a city of the Philistines, first assigned to the tribe of Judah,
and afterward to that of Simeon, Joshua xv, 31; xix, 5; but it does not
appear that the Philistines were ever driven out; as, when David fled
into their country from Saul, Achish gave the city to him, 1 Sam. xxvii,
5, 6. It was afterward burned by the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xxx, 1. But it
appears to have been rebuilt, as the author of the First Book of Samuel,
when relating its being given to David, adds, that it pertained to the
kings of Judah in his time.

ZION. See SION.

ZUZIM. See ZAMZUMMIM.

                            AN ALPHABETICAL
                       TABLE OF THE PROPER NAMES

                                   IN

                      THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS;

                                  WITH

                          THEIR PRONUNCIATION,

                                  AND

       THE CHIEF MEANING OR LEADING SIGNIFICATION OF EACH WORD IN
                         ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.


 AARON, _Ay´-ron_, lofty, mountainous.
 ABAD´DON, the destroyer.
 ABAGTHA, _Ab-ag´-tha_, father of the wine press.
 ABANA, _Ab-ay´-nah_, stony.
 ABARIM, _Ab´-a-rim_, passages.
 AB´ARON, strength.
 AB´BA, father.
 AB´DA, a servant.
 AB´DI, my servant.
 ABDIEL, _Ab´-de-el_, a servant of God.
 AB´DON, a servant.
 ABED-NEGO, _A-bed´-ne-go_, servant of light.
 A´BEL, vanity, vapour, mourning.
 ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH, _Ay´-bel-beth-ma-ay´-kah_, mourning of the house of
    Maachah.
 A´BEL-MA´IM, the mourning of the waters.
 ABEL-MEHOLAH, _Ay´-bel-me-ho´-lah_, mourning of weakness, of sickness.
 ABEL-MIZRAIM, _Ay´-bel-miz-ra´-im_, the mourning of the Egyptians.
 A´BEL-SHIT´TIM, mourning of the thorns.
 A´BEZ, an egg, muddy.
 ABI, _A´-be_, my father.
 ABIAH, _Ab-i´-ah_, the Lord is my father.
 ABI´AHIL, the father of light or praise.
 ABI-ALBON, _Ab-e-al´-bon_, intelligent father.
 AB´IAM, the father of the sea.
 ABI-AS´APH, a gathering or consuming father.
 ABIATHAR, _Ab-i´-a-thar_, excellent father.
 A´BIB, green fruits, ears of corn.
 ABI´DAH, father of knowledge.
 ABI´DAN, father of judgment.
 ABIEL, _Ab´-e-el_, God my father.
 ABIEZER, _Ab-e-e´-zer_, father of help.
 ABI-EZRITE, _Ab-e-ez´-rite_.
 ABIGAIL, _Ab´-e-gal_, the joy of the father.
 ABI´-GIBEON, the father of the cup, father of Gibeon.
 ABIHAIL, _Ab-e-hay´-il_, the father of strength.
 ABI´HU, he is my father, or his father.
 ABI´HUD, the father of praise or confession.
 ABIJAH, _Ab-i´-jah_, the will of the Lord.
 ABI´JAM, father of the sea.
 ABILENE, _Ab-e-le´-ne_, the father of the apartment, or of mourning.
 ABIMAEL, _Ab-be-may´-el_, a father sent from God, my father comes from
    God.
 ABIMELECH, _Ab-im´-me-lek_, father of the king.
 ABINADAB, _Ab-in´-na-dab_, father of willingness, my father is a
    prince.
 ABINOAM, _Ab-in´-no-am_, father of beauty or comeliness, my father is
    beautiful.
 ABIRAM, _Ab-i´-ram_, a high father, father of
 fraud.
 ABISHAG, _Ab´-be-shag_, ignorance of the father.
 ABISHAI, _Ab-bish´-a-i_, the present of my father, the father of the
    sacrifice.
 ABISHALOM, _Ab-bish´-a-lom_, the father of peace, the recompence of the
    father.
 ABISHUA, _Ab-bish´-u-a_, father of salvation or of magnificence.
 ABISHUR, _Ab´-be-shur_, the father of the wall or of uprightness.
 ABITAL, _Ab´-be-tal_, the father of the dew.
 ABITUB, _Ab´-be-tub_, father of goodness.
 ABIUD, _Ab´-be-ud_, father of praise.
 AB´NER, father of light, the son of the father.
 A´BRAHAM, the father of a great multitude.
 A´BRAM, a high father, the father of elevation.
 AB´SALOM, father of peace.
 ACCAD, _Ak´-ad_, a pitcher, a sparkle.
 ACCHO, _Ak´-ko_, close, pressed together.
 ACELDAMA, _A-kel´-da-mah_, the field of blood.
 ACHAIA, _A-kay´-yah_, grief, trouble.
 ACHAICUS, _A-kay´-e-kus_, a native of Achaia.
 ACHAN, ACHAR, _A´-kan_, _A´-kar_, he that troubles and bruises.
 ACHBOR, _Ak´-bor_, a rat, bruising.
 ACHIM, _A´-kim_, preparing, confirming, revenging.
 ACHIR, _A´-ker_, the brother’s light.
 ACHISH, _A´-kish_, thus it is, how is this?
 ACHMETHA, _Ak´-me-thah_.
 ACHOR, _A´-kor_, trouble.
 ACHSAH, _Ak´-sah_, adorned, bursting of the veil.
 ACHSHAPH, _Ak´-shaph_, poison, tricks, one that breaks, the brim of any
    thing.
 ACHZIB, _Ak´-zib_, liar, one that runs.
 ADADAH, _Ad´-a-dah_, the testimony of the assembly.
 ADAH, _Ay´-dah_, an assembly.
 ADAIAH, _Ad-a´-yah_, the witness of the Lord.
 ADALIAH, _Ad-a-ly´-ah_, one that draws water, poverty, cloud, death.
 AD´AM, earthy, taken out of red earth.
 ADAMAH, _Ad´-da-mah_, red earth.
 ADAMI, _Ad´-da-my_, my man, red, earthy.
 A´DAR, high, eminent.
 ADBEEL, _Ad´-be-el_, a vapour, a cloud of God, a vexer of God.
 AD´DI, my witness, adorned, passage, prey.
 AD´DON, basis, foundation, the Lord.
 ADIEL, _Ad´-i-el_, the witness of the Lord.
 ADIN, _Ad´-din_, adorned, dainty.
 ADITHAIM, _Ad-e-thay´-im_, assemblies, testimonies.
 ADLAI, _Ad-lay´-i_, my witness, my ornament.
 AD´MAH, earthy, red earth.
 ADMATHA, _Ad´-ma-thah_, a cloud of death, a mortal vapour.
 AD´NAH, rest, testimony, eternal.
 ADONA´I, my Lord.
 ADONI-BEZEK, _Ad´-o-ne-bee´-zek_, the lightning of the Lord, the Lord
    of Bezek.
 ADONIJAH, _Ad-o-ny´-jah_, the Lord is my master.
 ADONIKAM, _Ad-o-ny´-kam_, the Lord is raised, my Lord hath raised me.
 ADONIRAM, _Ad-o-ny´-ram_, my Lord is most high, the Lord of might and
    elevation.
 ADONI-ZEDEK, _Ad´-o-ne-zee´-dek_, justice of the Lord.
 ADORAIM, _Ad-o-ray´-im_, strength or power of the sea.
 ADORAM, _Ad-o´-ram_, their beauty, their power, their praise.
 ADRAMMELECH, _Ad-ram´-me-lek_, the cloak or glory of the king.
 ADRAMYTTIUM, _Ad-ra-mit´-te-um_, the court of death.
 ADRIA, _Ay´-dre-ah_, the name of a city, which gives name to the
    Adriatic Sea, now the Gulf of Venice.
 A´DRIEL, the flock of God.
 ADULLAM, _Ad-ul´-lam_, their testimony, their prey, their ornament.
 ADUM´MIM, earthly or bloody things.
 Æ´NEAS, praised.
 AGABUS, _Ag´-ga-bus_, a locust, the feast of the father.
 AGAG, _Ay´-gag_, roof, floor.
 A´GAGITE, of the race of Agag.
 AGA´PÆ, love feasts.
 AGAR, see Hagar.
 AGI´E, a valley, deepness.
 AGRIPPA, _A-grip´-pah_, one who at his birth causes great pain.
 A´GUR, a stranger, gathering.
 A´HAB, the brother of the father.
 AHA´RAH, a sweet brother, an odoriferous meadow.
 AHAR´HEL, another host, another sorrow, the sleep of the brother.
 AHASBA´I, trusting in me, brother compassing. In Syriac, a brother of
    age.
 AHASUERUS, _A-has-u-e´-rus_, prince, chief.
 AHAVA, _A-hay´-vah_, essence, generation.
 A´HAZ, one that takes and possesses.
 AHAZIAH, _A-ha-zy´-ah_, possession, vision of the Lord.
 AHI, my brother, my brethren.
 AHIAH, _A-hy´-ah_, brother of the Lord.
 AHIAM, _A-hy´am_, brother of the mother, brother of the nation.
 AHIAN, _A-hy´-an_, brother of wine.
 AHIE´ZER, brother of assistance.
 AHI´HUD, brother of vanity, a brother of praise.
 AHIJAH, _the same_ as Ahiah.
 AHIKAM, _A-hy´-kam_, a brother that raises up.
 AHI´LUD, a brother born.
 AHIM´AAZ, brother of the council.
 AHI´MAN, a brother prepared.
 AHIMELECH, _A-him´-me-lek_, my brother is a king.
 AHIMOTH, _A´-he-moth_, brother of death.
 AHIN´ADAB, a willing brother, a brother of a vow, brother of the
    prince.
 AHINOAM, _A-hin´-no-am_, the beauty and comeliness of the brother.
 AHI´O, his brother, his brethren.
 AHIOR. See Achior.
 AHIRA, _A-hy´-rah_, brother of iniquity or of the shepherd.
 AHIRAM, _A-hy´-ram_, brother of craft, protection.
 AHISAMACH, _A-his´-sa-mak_, brother of strength or of support.
 AHISHABAR, _A-his´-sa-bar_, brother of the morning or dew, brother of
    blackness.
 AHI´SHAR, brother of a prince.
 AHITHOPHEL, _A-hit´-to-fel_, brother of ruin or folly.
 AHI´TUB, brother of goodness.
 AH´LAB, which is of milk, is fat.
 AH´LAI, beseeching, sorrowing, beginning, brother to me.
 AHO´AH, a thistle, a thorn, a fish hook, brotherhood.
 AHO´HI, a living brother, my thistle or thorn.
 AHO´LAH, his tabernacle, his tent.
 AHOLIAB, _A-ho´-le-ab_, the tent or tabernacle of the father.
 AHOLIBAH, _A-ho´-le-bah_, my tent and my tabernacle in her.
 AHOLIBAMAH, _A-ho´-le-bay´-mah_, my tabernacle is exalted.
 AHRAN. See Charan.
 AHU´MAR, a meadow of waters, brother of waters.
 AHU´ZAM, their taking possession, vision.
 AHUZ´ZAH, possession, apprehension, vision.
 AI, or HAI, _Ay´-i_, mass, heap.
 AI´AH, a raven, a vulture, alas, where is it?
 AI´ATH, an hour.
 AI´N, an eye, a fountain.
 AIOTH, _the same as_ Ai.
 AJALON, _Ad´-ja-lon_, a chain, strength, a stag.
 AK´KUB, the print of the foot where any creature hath gone,
    supplantation.
 ALAMMELECH, _Al-am´-me-lek_, God is king.
 AL´CIMUS, strong, of strength.
 AL´EMETH, a hiding, youth, worlds, upon the dead.
 AL´EMIS, strength.
 ALEXAN´DER, one that assists men, one that turns away evil.
 ALEXANDRIA, _Al-ex-an´-dre-a_, the city of Alexander.
 ALLELUIA, _Al-le-lu´-yah_, praise the Lord.
 A´LIAN, high.
 AL´LON, an oak.
 ALLON-BACHUTH, _Al´-lon-bak´-kuth_, the oak of weeping.
 ALMO´DAD, measure of God.
 AL´MON, hidden.
 AL´MON-DIB´LATHAIM, a hiding, a heap of fig trees.
 ALPHA, _Al´-fah_, the first letter of the Greek alphabet, marked A.
 ALPHEUS, _Al-fe´-us_, a thousand, chief.
 A´MAD, a people of witness, people everlasting.
 AM´ALEK, a people that licks up or uses ill.
 AMAL´EKITES, people descended from Amalek.
 A´MAM, mother, fear of them, people.
 AMANA, _Am-ay´-nah_, integrity and truth.
 AMARIAH, _Am-a-ry´-ah_, the Lord says, the excellency of the Lord.
 AMASA, _Am-ay´-sah_, a forgiving people, the burden of the people.
 AMAZIAH, _Am-a-zy´-ah_, the strength of the Lord.
 A´MI. See Amam.
 AM´MAH, my people.
 AMMI, the same as Ammah.
 AMMIHUD, _Am´-me-hud_, people of praise.
 AMMINADAB, _Am-min´-na-dab_, prince of the people, a people that vows.
 AMMISHADDAI, _Am-me-shad´-day-i_, the people of the Almighty.
 AM´MON, the son of my people.
 AM´MONITES, a people descended from Benammi, son of Lot.
 AM´NON, faithful and true, foster father.
 AMON, _Ay´-mon_, faithful, true.
 AM´ORITE, bitter, a rebel, a babbler.
 AMOS, _Ay´-mos_, loading, weighty.
 AMOZ, _Ay´-moz_, strong, robust.
 AMPHIPOLIS, _Am-fip´-po-lis_, a city encompassed by the sea.
 AMPLIAS, _Am´-ple-as_, large, extensive.
 AM´RAM, an exalted people, handfuls of corn.
 AMRAPHEL, _Am´-ra-fel_, one that speaks of hidden things or of ruin.
 AM´ZI, strong, mighty.
 A´NAB, a grape, a knot.
 ANAH, _Ay´-nah_, one who answers or sings, poor, afflicted.
 ANAK, _Ay´-nak_, a collar, an ornament.
 ANAKIMS, _An´-ak-ims_. See Anak.
 ANAMMELECH, _An-am´-me-lek_, answer, song of the king.
 A´NAN, a cloud, a prophecy.
 ANANIAS, _An-a-ny´-as_, the cloud of the Lord.
 ANATHOTH, _An´-a-thoth_, answer, affliction.
 ANDREW, _An´drue_, a stout and strong man.
 ANDRONICUS, _An-dron´-ne-kus_, a man excelling others.
 ANER, _Ay´-ner_, answer, song, affliction.
 AN´NA, gracious, merciful.
 AN´NAS, one that answers, that afflicts.
 AN´TICHRIST, an adversary to Christ.
 ANTIOCH, _An´-te-ok_, instead of a chariot.
 AN´TIPAS, against all.
 ANTIPATRIS, _An-te-pay´-tris_, against his own father.
 APELLES, _A-pel´-lees_, to exclude, to separate.
 APHEK, _Ay´-fek_, a stream, vigour.
 APOLLONIA, _Ap-po-lo´-ne-ah_, perdition.
 APOL´LOS, one that destroys and lays waste.
 APOLLYON, _A-pol´-le-on_, one that exterminates or destroys.
 APPHIA, _Af´-e-ah_, that is fruitful.
 APPII-FORUM, _Ap´-pe-i-fo´-rum_, a town so called from Appius Claudius,
    whose statue was erected there.
 AQUILA, _Ak´-we-lah_, an eagle.
 AR, awaking, uncovering.
 ARA´BIA, evening, a place wild and desert; mixtures, because this
    country was inhabited by different kinds of people.
 ARA´BIAN, an inhabitant of Arabia.
 A´RAD, a wild ass, a dragon.
 A´RAM, magnificence, one that deceives.
 ARARAT, _Ar´-ra-rat_, the curse of trembling.
 ARAUNAH, _A-raw´-nah_, ark, song, curse.
 AR´BA, the city of the four.
 ARCHELAUS, _Ar-ke´-lay-us_, the prince of the people.
 ARCHIPPUS, _Ar-kip´-pus_, governor of horses.
 ARCTURUS, _Ark-tew´-rus_, a gathering together.
 ARD, one that commands.
 ARELI, _Ar-e´-lie_, the light or vision of God.
 AREOPAGITE, _A-re-op´-a-gyte_, belonging to the council called
    Areopagus.
 AREOPAGUS, _A-re-op´-a-gus_, the hill of Mars; a place where the
    magistrates of Athens held their supreme council; from ἀρεῖος, “of
    Mars,” and ϖάγος, “a hill.”
 ARETAS, _A-re´-tas_, one that is agreeable or virtuous.
 AR´GOB, a turf of earth, curse of the well.
 ARIEL, _Ay´-re-el_, the altar, light, lion of God.
 ARIMATHEA, _Ar-re-ma-the´-ah_, a lion dead to the Lord. Ramath, or
    Ramah, a city where Samuel dwelt.
 ARIOCH, _Ar´-e-ok_, long, your drunkenness, your lion.
 ARISTARCHUS, _A-ris-tar´-kus_, the best prince.
 ARISTOBULUS, _A-ris-tob´-bu-lus_, a good counsellor.
 ARMAGEDDON, _Ar-ma-ged´-don_, the mountain of Megiddo, of the gospel,
    of fruits.
 ARMENIA, _Ar-me´-ne-ah_, a province which is supposed to take its name
    from Aram.
 AR´NON, rejoicing, their ark.
 AR´OER, heath, tamarisk, the nakedness of the skin or of the enemy.
 AR´PAD, the light of redemption, that lies down.
 ARPHAXAD, _Ar-fak´s-ad_, one that heals or releases.
 ARTAXERXES, _Ar-taks-erk´s-es_, in Hebrew, Artachsasta, the silence of
    light.
 ARTEMAS, _Ar´-te-mas_, whole, sound.
 ASA, _Ay´-sah_, physician, cure.
 ASAHEL, _As´-a-el_, the work or creature of God.
 ASAIAH, _As´-a-i-ah_, the Lord hath wrought.
 ASAPH, _Ay´-saf_, one that assembles together.
 ASENATH, _As´-e-nath_, peril, misfortune.
 A´SHAN, vapour, smoke.
 ASH´DOD, inclination, a wild open place.
 ASH´ER, blessedness.
 AS´HIEL, the work of God.
 ASHIMA, _Ash´-e-mah_, crime, position, fire of the sea.
 ASHKENAZ, _Ash´-ke-naz_, a fire that distils or spreads.
 ASHTAROTH, _Ash´-ta-roth_, flocks, riches.
 ASH´UR, one that is happy.
 ASH´VATH, making vestments.
 ASIA, _Ay´-she-a_, muddy, boggy.
 AS´KELON, weight, balance, fire of infamy.
 ASNAP´PER, unhappiness, fruitless.
 ASSIR, prisoner, fettered.
 AS´SOS, approaching.
 ASSYRIA, _As-sir´-re-a_.
 ASSYRIAN, _As-sir´-re-an_.
 ASYNCRITUS, _A-sin´-kre-tus_, incomparable.
 A´TAD, a thorn.
 ATA´ROTH, crowns, counsel of making full.
 ATHALIAH, _Ath-a-ly´-ah_, the time of the Lord.
 ATHENIANS, _Ath-ee´-ne-ans_, inhabitants of Athens.
 ATH´ENS, so called from Athene, Minerva.
 ATTALIA, _At-ta-ly´-ah_, that increases or sends.
 A´VEN, iniquity, force, riches.
 AUGUS´TUS, increased, majestic.
 AZARIAH, _Az-a-ry´-ah_, assistance, he that hears the Lord.
 AZEKAH, _Az-ee´-kah_, strength of walls.
 AZ´GAD, a strong army, a gang of robbers.
 AZNOTH-TABOR, _Az´-noth-tay´-bor_, the ears of Tabor, of choice,
    purity, contrition.
 AZO´TUS, _the same as_ Ashdod.
 A´ZUR, he that assists, that is assisted.

 BAAL, _Bay´-al_, he that rules and subdues.
 BAALAH, _Bay´-al-ah_, her idol, a spouse; the name of a city.
 BAAL-BERITH, _Bay´-al-be´-rith_, idol of the covenant.
 BAAL-GAD, _Bay´-al-gad´_, the idol of the troop, the Lord is master of
    the troop.
 BAAL-HAMON, _Bay´-al-hay´-mon_, one that rules a multitude, a populous
    place.
 BAAL-HAZER, _Bay´-al-hay´-zer_, lord of court, possessor of grace.
 BA´AL-HER´MON, the possessor of destruction, of a thing devoted to God.
 BA´ALI, my idol, or master.
 BA´ALIM, idols, masters.
 BA´ALIS, a rejoicing, proud lord.
 BAAL-MEON, _Bay´-al-me´-on_, the idol, the master of the house.
 BAAL-PEOR, _Bay´-al-pe´-or_, master of the opening.
 BAAL-PERAZIM, _Bay´-al-per´-a-zim_, master, or god of divisions.
 BAAL-SHALISHA, _Bay´-al-shal´-e-shah_, the third idol, the third
    husband.
 BAAL-TAMAR, _Bay´-al-tay´-mar_, master of the palm tree.
 BAAL-ZEBUB, _Bay´-al-ze´-bub_, the master of flies.
 BAAL-ZEPHON, _Bay´-al-ze´-fon_, the idol of the north, secret.
 BAANAH, _Bay´-a-nah_, in the answer, in affliction.
 BAA´RAH, a flame, purging.
 BAASHAH, _Ba-ay´-shah_, in the work, he that demands, who lays waste.
 BA´BEL, confusion, mixture.
 BABYLON, _Bab´-be-lon_. See Babel.
 BABYLONIANS, _Bab-be-lo´-ne-ans_.
 BABYLONISH, _Bab-be-lo´-nish_.
 BACA, _Bay´-kah_, mulberry tree.
 BAHURIM, _Ba-hew´-rim_, choice, warlike.
 BA´JITH, a house.
 BALAAM, _Bay´-lam_, the old age or ancient of the people, without the
    people.
 BALA´DAN, one without rule or judgment, ancient in judgment.
 BA´LAK, who lays waste, who laps.
 BA´MAH, an eminence.
 BARABBAS, _Bar-ab´-bas_, son of the father or of confusion.
 BARACHEL, _Bar´-a-kel_, who blesses God.
 BARACHIAS, _Bar´-a-ky-as_, the same as Barachel.
 BA´RAK, thunder, in vain.
 BAR-JE´SUS, son of Jesus.
 BAR-JO´NA, son of Jona or of a dove.
 BAR´NABAS, the son of the prophet or of consolation.
 BAR´SABAS, son of return, of rest, of swearing.
 BARTHOL´OMEW, a son that suspends the waters.
 BARTIMEUS, _Bar-te-me´-us_, the son of Timeus or of the honourable.
 BARUCH, _Bay´-ruk_, who is blessed, who bends the knee.
 BARZILLAI, _Bar-zil´-la-i_, made of iron, son of contempt.
 BA´SHAN, in the tooth, in the change or sleep.
 BASHEMATH, _Bash´-e-math_, perfumed, in desolation.
 BATH-SHEBA, _Bath-she´-bah_ or _Bath´-she-bah_, the seventh daughter,
    the daughter of an oath.
 BATHSHU´A, the daughter of salvation.
 BE´DAD, alone, in friendship.
 BE´DAN, only, in the judgment.
 BEEL-ZEBUB, _Be-el´-ze-bub_. See Baal-zebub.
 BEER, _Be´-er_, a well, the name of a city.
 BEER-LAHAI-ROI, _Be´-er-la-hay´-e-roy_, the well of him that liveth and
    seeth me.
 BEER-SHEBA, _Be´-er-she´-bah_, the well of an oath, of satiety, the
    seventh well.
 BE´KAH, half a shekel.
 BEL, ancient, nothing, subject to change.
 BELIAL, _Bee´-le-al_, wicked, the devil.
 BELSHAZ´ZAR, master of the treasure.
 BELTESHAZ´ZAR, who lays up treasures in secret, secretly endures pain
    and pressure.
 BENAIAH, _Ben-ay´-yah_, son of the Lord, the Lord’s building.
 BEN-AM´MI, the son of my people.
 BENHA´DAD, the son of Hadad, of noise.
 BEN´JAMIN, the son of the right hand.
 BEN´JAMITE, a descendant of Benjamin.
 BENONI, _Ben-o´-ny_, son of my grief.
 BE´OR, burning, mad, beast.
 BERACHAH, _Ber´-a-kah_, blessing.
 BERÆA, _Be-ree´-ah_, heavy, from βάρος.
 BE´RITH, covenant.
 BERNICE, _Ber-ny´-se_, one that brings victory.
 BE´SOR, glad news, incarnation.
 BE´TAH, confidence.
 BETHABARA, _Beth-ab´-ba-rah_, the house of passage, of anger.
 BETH´ANY, the house of song, of affliction, of obedience, the grace of
    the Lord.
 BETH-A´VEN, the house of vanity, of strength.
 BETH-BIREI, _Beth-bir´-re-i_, the house of my Creator.
 BETH´-CAR, the house of the lamb, of knowledge.
 BETH-DA´GON, the house of corn, of the fish, of the god Dagon.
 BETH-DIBLATHAIM, _Beth-dib-la-thay´-im_, the house of dry figs.
 BETH´EL, the house of God.
 BETHELITE, _Beth´-el-ite_, an inhabitant of Bethel.
 BE´THER, division, in the turtle, in the trial.
 BETHES´DA, the house of effusion, of pity.
 BETH-E´ZEL, a neighbour’s house.
 BETH-GAMUL, _Beth-gay´-mul_, the house of recompense, of the weaned, of
    the camel.
 BETH-HACCEREM, _Beth-hak´-ke-rem_, the house of the vineyard.
 BETH-HO´RON, the house of wrath, of the hole, of liberty.
 BETHJESH´IMOTH, the house of desolation.
 BETH´-LEHEM, the house of bread, of war.
 BETH-LEHEM-EPHRATAH, _Beth´-le-hem-eff-ray´-tah_ or _eff´-ra-tah_.
 BETH´-LEHEM-JU´DAH.
 BETH´-LEHEMITE, an inhabitant of Bethlehem.
 BETH-PE´OR, the house of gaping.
 BETHPHAGE, _Beth´-fa-je_, the house of the mouth, of early figs.
 BETHSAIDA, _Beth-say´-dah_, the house of fruits, of hunters.
 BETH´-SHAN, the house of the tooth, of change, of sleep.
 BETH-SHE´MESH, the house of the sun.
 BETHUEL, _Beth-ew´-el_, filiation of God.
 BEULAH, _Bew´-lah_, married.
 BEZALEEL, _Bez-a-lee´-el_, in the shadow of God.
 BE´ZEK, lightning, in chains.
 BICHRI, _Bick´-ry_, first-born, in the ram.
 BID´KAR, in compunction, in sharp pain.
 BIG´THAN, giving meat.
 BIL´DAD, old friendship.
 BIL´HAH, who is old, troubled, confused.
 BIR´SHA, in evil, son that beholds.
 BITHIAH, _Be-thy´-ah_, daughter of the Lord.
 BITH´RON, division, in his examination, daughter of the song, of anger,
    of liberty.
 BITHYNIA, _Be-thin´-e-ah_, violent precipitation.
 BLAS´TUS, one that sprouts and brings forth.
 BOANERGES, _Bo-a-ner´-jes_, the sons of thunder; James and John, the
    sons of Zebedee.
 BO´AZ, or BO´OZ, in strength, in the goat.
 BOCHIM, _Bo´-kim_, the place of weeping, of mulberry trees.
 BO´ZEZ, mud, in the flower.
 BOZ´RAH, in tribulation or distress.
 BUL, changeable, perishing.
 BUZ, despised, plundered.
 BUZI, _Bew´-zye_, my contempt.
 BUZITE, _Bew´-zyte_, a descendant from Buz.

 CABUL, _Kay´-bul_, displeasing, dirt.
 CÆSAR, _See´-sar_, one cut out.
 CÆSAREA, _Ses-a-ree´-a_, a bush of hair.
 CAIAPHAS, _Kay´-a-fas_, a searcher.
 CAIN, _Kay´n_, possession.
 CAINAN, _Kay´-nan_, possessor, one that laments.
 CA´LAH, good opportunity, as the verdure.
 CA´LEB, a dog, a crow, a basket.
 CALEB-EPHRATAH, _Kay´-leb-ef-ray´-tah_ or _ef´-ra-tah_, a place so
    called by a conjunction of the names of Caleb and his wife Ephratah.
 CALNEH, _Kal´-nay_, our consummation, all we, as murmuring.
 CAL´NO, our consummation, quite himself.
 CAL´VARY, the place of a skull.
 CA´MON, his resurrection.
 CA´NA, zeal, possession, nest, cane.
 CANAAN, _Kay´-nan_, a merchant, a trader. The son of Ham, who gave name
    to the land of Canaan.
 CANAANITE, _Kay´-nan-ite_, an inhabitant of Canaan.
 CANDACE, _Kan-day´-se_, who possesses contrition.
 CAPERNAUM, _Ka-per´-na-um_, the field of repentance, city of comfort.
 CAPHTOR, _Kaf´-tor_, a sphere, a buckle, a hand, doves, those that seek
    and inquire.
 CAPPADOCIA, _Kap-pa-do´-she-a_, in Hebrew, Caphtor.
 CARCAS, _Kar´-kas_, the covering of a lamb.
 CARCHEMISH, _Kar´-ke-mish_, a lamb, as taken away.
 CAR´MEL, a circumcised lamb, harvest, vineyard of God.
 CARMELITE, _Kar´-me-lyte_, an inhabitant of Mount Carmel.
 CAR´MI, my vineyard, the knowledge or the lamb of the waters.
 CAR´PUS, fruit, fruitful.
 CASIPHIA, _Ka-se-fy´-a_, money, covetousness.
 CAS´TOR, a beaver.
 CEDRON, _See´-dron_ or _Kee´-dron_, black, sad.
 CENCHREA, _Senk´-re-a_, millet, small pulse.
 CEPHAS, _See´-fas_ or _Kee´-fas_, a rock or stone.
 CE´SAR. See Cæsar.
 CESAREA, _Ses-a-ree´-a_. See Cæsarea.
 CHALCOL, _Kal´-kol_, who nourishes, sustains the whole.
 CHALDEA, _Kal-dee´-a_, as demons, as robbers.
 CHALDEAN, _Kal-dee´-an_, an inhabitant of Chaldea.
 CHALDEES, _Kal-deez´_, the same as Chaldeans.
 CHARRAN, _Kar´-ran_, a singing, the heat of wrath.
 CHEBAR, _Ke´-bar_, strength or power.
 CHEDORLAOMER, _Ke´-dor-la-o´-mer_, as a generation of servitude.
 CHEMARIMS, _Kem´-a-rims_, the name of Baal’s priests.
 CHEMOSH, _Ke´-mosh_, as handling, as taking away.
 CHENANIA, _Ke-na-ny´-ah_, preparation, rectitude of the Lord.
 CHERETHIMS, _Ker´-eth-ims_, who cuts, tears away.
 CHERETHITES, _Ker´-eth-ites_. See Cherethims.
 CHERITH, _Ke´-rith_, cutting, piercing, slaying.
 CHESED, _Ke´-sed_, as a devil, a destroyer.
 CHILEAB, _Kil´-le-ab_, totality or perfection of the father.
 CHILION, _Kil´-le-on_, finished, complete.
 CHILMAD, _Kil´-mad_, as teaching or learning.
 CHIMHAM, _Kim´-ham_, as they, like to them.
 CHIOS, _Ky´-os_, open, opening.
 CHISLEU, _Kis´-lu_, rashness, confidence.
 CHITTIM, _Chit´-tim_, those that bruise, gold, staining.
 CHIUN, _Ky´-un_, an Egyptian god, whom some think to be Saturn.
 CHLOE, _Klo´-e_, green herb.
 CHORAZIN, _Ko-ray´-zin_, the secret, here is a mystery.
 CHUSHAN-RISHATHAIM, _Kew´-shan-rish-a-thay´-im_, Ethiopian, blackness
    of iniquities.
 CHUZA, _Kew´-zah_, the prophet, Ethiopian.
 CILICIA, _Sil-ish´-e-a_, which rolls or overturns.
 CLAUDA, _Klaw´-dah_, a broken voice, a lamentable voice.
 CLAUDIA, _Klaw´-de-ah_, lame.
 CLE´MENT, mild, good, merciful.
 CLEOPHAS, _Klee´-o-fas_, the whole glory.
 COLOSSE, _Ko-los´-see_, punishment, correction.
 CONIAH, _Ko-ny´-ah_, the strength or stability of the Lord.
 CO´RINTH, which is satisfied, beauty.
 CORIN´THIANS, inhabitants of Corinth.
 CORNE´LIUS, a horn.
 COZ´BI, a liar, as sliding away.
 CRESCENS, _Kres´-sens_, growing, increasing.
 CRETE, _Kree´t_, carnal, fleshly.
 CRETES, _Kree´ts_, inhabitants of Crete.
 CRETIANS, _Kree´-she-ans_, the same as Cretes.
 CRISPUS, _Kris´-pus_, curled.
 CUSH, Ethiopian, black.
 CUSH´AN, Ethiopia, blackness, heat.
 CUSH´I, the same as Cushan.
 CYPRUS, _Sy´-prus_, fair, fairness.
 CYRENE, _Sy-re´-ne_, a wall, coldness, meeting, a floor.
 CYRENEANS, _Sy-re´-ne-ans_, people of Cyrene.
 CYRENIUS, _Sy-re´-ne-us_, who governs.
 CYRUS, _Sy´-rus_, as miserable, as heir, the belly.

 DABBASHETH, _Dab´-ba-sheth_, flowing with honey, causing infamy.
 DABERATH, _Dab´-be-rath_, word, thing, bee, submissive.
 DA´GON, corn, a fish.
 DALMANUTHA, _Dal-ma-new´-thah_, a bucket, leanness, branch.
 DALMATIA, _Dal-may´-she-a_, deceitful lamps, vain brightness.
 DAMARIS, _Dam´-a-ris_, a little woman.
 DAMAS´CUS, a sack full of blood, similitude of burning.
 DAN, judgment, he that judges.
 DAN´IEL, judgment of God.
 DA´RA, generation, house of the shepherd, companion, race of
    wickedness.
 DARIUS, _Da-ry´-us_, he that inquires and informs himself.
 DA´THAN, laws, rites.
 DA´VID, beloved, dear.
 DEB´ORAH, a word, a bee.
 DECAPOLIS, _De-kap´-po-lis_, a Greek word compounded of δέκα, _ten_,
    and ϖόλις, a _city_, because this country contained ten cities.
 DE´DAN, their breasts, friendship, uncle.
 DEDANIM, _Ded´-an-im_, descendants of Dedan.
 DEL´ILAH, poor, head of hair, bucket.
 DE´MAS, popular.
 DEMETRIUS, _De-me´-tre-us_, belonging to Ceres, to corn.
 DER´BE, a sting.
 DEUEL, _De-ew´-el_, the knowledge of God.
 DIANA, _Dy-ay´-nah_, luminous, perfect.
 DI´BON, understanding, abundance of building.
 DI´BON-GAD, abundance of sons, happy and powerful.
 DIDYMUS, _Did´-e-mus_, a twin.
 DI´MON, where it is red.
 DI´NAH, judgment, who judges.
 DIN´HABAH, she gives judgment.
 DIONYSIUS, _Dy-o-nish´-e-us_, divinely touched; from δῖος, _divine_,
    and νεύω, _I move_.
 DIOTREPHES, _Di-ot´-re-feez_, nourished by Jupiter; from δῖος, of
    _Jupiter_, and τρὲφος, _a foster-child_.
 DO´EG, who acts with uneasiness, a fisherman.
 DOR, generation, habitation.
 DOR´CAS, the female of a roe-buck.
 DO´THAN, the law, custom.
 DRUSILLA, _Drew-sil´-lah_, watered by the dew; from δρόσος, _the dew_.
 DUMAH, _Dew´-mah_, silence, resemblance.
 DURA, _Dew´-rah_, generation, habitation.

 EASTER, _Ee´s-ter_, the passover, a feast of the Jews.
 E´BAL, a heap, collection of old age.
 E´BED, a servant or labourer.
 EBED-MELECH, _Ee´-bed-me´-lek_, the king’s servant.
 EBEN-EZER, _Eb-en-ee´-zer_, the stone of help.
 E´BER, one that passes, anger, wrath.
 EBIASAPH, _E-by´-a-saf_, a father that gathers together.
 ED, witness.
 E´DEN, pleasure, delight.
 E´DOM, red, earthy, red earth.
 E´DOMITE, a descendant of Esau, of Edom.
 EDREI, _Ed´-re-i_, a very great mass, cloud, death of the wicked.
 EG´LAH, heifer, chariot, round.
 EGLAIM, _Eg-lay´-im_, drops of the sea.
 EG´LON, the same as Eglah.
 E´GYPT, in Hebrew, Mizraim; that binds or straitens, that troubles or
    oppresses.
 EGYP´TIAN, an inhabitant of Egypt.
 E´HUD, he that praises.
 EK´RON, barrenness, torn away.
 EK´RONITES, inhabitants of Ekron.
 E´LAH, an oak, oath, imprecation.
 E´LAM, a young man, a virgin, secret, an age.
 E´LAMITES, descendants of Elam.
 E´LATH, a hind, strength, an oak.
 EL-BETH´EL, the God of Bethel.
 EL´DAD, loved or favoured of God.
 ELEALEH, El-e-ay´-leh ascension or burnt-offering of God.
 ELEAZAR, _El-e-ay´-zar_, the help or court of God.
 EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL, _El-el-ho´-he-is´-ra-el_, God, the God of Israel.
 ELHA´NAN, grace, gift, or mercy of God.
 E´LI, _E´li_, my God, my God.
 E´LI, the offering or lifting up.
 ELI´AB, God my father.
 ELIADA, _E-ly´-a-da_ or _E-le-ay´-da_, the knowledge of God.
 ELIAKIM, _E-ly´-a-kim_, the resurrection of God, God the avenger.
 ELI´AM, the people of God.
 ELI´AS. See Elijah.
 ELIASHIB, _E-ly´-a-shib_, the God of conversion.
 ELIATHAH, _E-ly´-a-thah_, thou art my God, my God comes.
 ELIEZER, _E-le-ee´-zer_, help or court of my God.
 ELIHOREPH, _E-le-ho´-ref_, the God of winter, of youth.
 ELI´HU, he is my God himself.
 ELI´JAH, God the Lord, the strong Lord.
 ELI´KA, pelican of God.
 E´LIM, the rams, the strong, the stags, the valleys.
 ELIMELECH, _E-lim´-me-lek_, my God is king.
 ELIOENAI, _El-e-o´-en-a-i_, toward him are my eyes, my fountains,
    toward him is my poverty or misery.
 ELIPHALET, _E-lif´-fa-let_, the God of deliverance.
 ELIPHAZ, _E-ly´-faz_, the endeavour of God.
 ELISABETH, _E-liz´-a-beth_, God hath sworn, the fulness of God.
 ELI´SHA, salvation of God.
 ELI´SHAH, son of Javan; it is God, God that gives help.
 ELISHAMAH, _E-lish´-a-mah_, God hearing.
 ELISHEBA, _E-lish´-e-ba_. See Elisabeth.
 ELISHUA, _El-e-shew´-ah_, God is my salvation.
 ELIUD, _E-ly´-ud_, God is my praise.
 ELI´ZUR, God is my strength, my rock.
 ELKA´NAH, God the jealous, the reed of God.
 ELMO´DAM, the God of measure, of the garment.
 ELNA´THAN, God has given.
 E´LON, oak, grove, strong.
 E´LUL, cry, outcry.
 ELUZAI, _E-lu´-za-i_, God is my strength.
 ELYMAS, _El´-e-mas_, in Arabic, a magician.
 E´MIMS, fears of terrors, people.
 EMMAUS, _Em-may´-us_ or _Em´-ma-us_, people despised.
 EM´MOR, an ass.
 E´NAM, a fountain or well, the eyes of them.
 EN´DOR, fountain or eye of generation.
 ENE´AS, laudable; from ἀινέω, “I praise.”
 EN-EGLAIM, _En-eg-lay´-im_, the eye of the calves, of the chariots, of
    roundness.
 EN-GEDI, _En-ge´-dy_, fountain of the goat, of happiness.
 EN-MISH´PAT, fountain of judgment.
 ENOCH, _Ee´-nok_, dedicated, disciplined, well regulated.
 ENON, _Ee´-non_, cloud, his fountain.
 ENOS, _Ee´-nos_, fallen man, subject to all kind of evil.
 EX-ROGEL, _En-ro´-gel_, the fuller’s fountain.
 EN-SHEMESH, _En-she´-mesh_, fountain of the sun.
 EPAPHRAS, _Ep´-pa-fras_, covered with foam.
 EPAPHRODITUS, _E-paf-ro-dy´-tus_, agreeable, handsome.
 EPENETUS, _E-pe-nee´-tus_, laudable, worthy of praise.
 EPHAH, _Ee´-fah_, weary, to fly as a bird.
 EPHES-DAMMIM, _E´-fez-dam´-mim_, the effusion or drop of blood.
 EPHESIANS, _E-fee´-se-ans_, the people of Ephesus.
 EPHESUS, _Ef´-fe-sus_, desirable; chief city of Asia Minor.
 EPHPHATHA, _Ef´-fa-tha_, be opened.
 EPHRAIM, _Ee´-fra-im_, that brings forth fruit or grows.
 E´PHRAIMITE, a descendant of Ephraim.
 EPHRATAH, _Eff-ray´-tah_, abundance, bearing fruit.
 EPHRATH, _Eff´-rath_, See Ephratah.
 EPHRATHITE, _Eff´-rath-ite_, an inhabitant of Ephratah, or a descendant
    from Ephraim.
 EPHRON, _Ef´-ron_, dust.
 EPICUREANS, _Ep-e-kew-re´-ans_, who gives assistance; from the Greek
    ἐπικȣρέω, I help.
 ER, watch, enemy.
 ERAS´TUS, lovely, amiable.
 E´RECH, length, health.
 ESAIAS, _E-zay´-e-as_. See Isaia.
 ESAR-HADDON, _E´-sar-had-´don_, that binds, joy, or closes the point.
 E´SAU, he that does or finishes.
 E´SEK, contention.
 ESH-BA´AL, the fire of the idol.
 ESH´COL, a bunch of grapes.
 ESHTAOL, _Esh´-ta-ol_, stout, strong woman.
 ESHTEMOA, _Esh-te-mo´-a_, which is heard, the bosom of a woman.
 ES´LI, near me, he that separates.
 ES´ROM, the dart of joy, division of the song.
 ESTHER, _Ess´-ter_, secret, hidden.
 E´TAM, their bird or covering.
 E´THAM, their strength or sign.
 E´THAN, strong, the gift of the island.
 ETHANIM, _Eth´-an-im_, strong, valiant.
 ETHBAAL, _Eth-bay´-al_, toward the idol, he that rules.
 ETHIOPIA, _Ee-the-o´-pe-a_, in Hebrew, Cush, blackness; in Greek it
    signifies heat, from ἄιθω, _I burn_, and ὄψις, _face_.
 ETHIOPIANS, _Ee-the-o´-pe-ans_, Africans.
 EUBULUS, _Yew´-bu-lus_, a prudent counsellor.
 EUNICE, _Yew-ny´-se_, good victory.
 EUODIAS, _Yew-o´-de-as_, sweet scent.
 EUPHRATES, _Yew-fray´-tes_, that makes fruitful.
 EUROC´LYDON, the north-east wind.
 EUTYCHUS, _Yew´-te-kus_, happy, fortunate.
 EVE, living, enlivening.
 EVIL-MERODACH, _Ee´-vil-me-ro´-dak_, or _mer´-o-dak_, the fool of
    Merodach, despising the bitterness of the fool.
 EZEKIEL, _E-zee´-ke-el_, the strength of God.
 E´ZEL, going abroad, distillation.
 EZION-GEBER, _E´-ze-on-ge´-ber_, the wood of the man, counsel of the
    man, of the strong.
 EZ´RA, a helper.

 FE´LIX, happy, prosperous.
 FES´TUS, festival, joyful.
 FORTUNA´TUS, happy, prosperous.

 GAAL, _Gay´al_, contempt, abomination.
 GAASH, _Gay´-ash_, tempest, overthrow.
 GABBATHA, _Gab´-ba-tha_, high, elevated. In Greek, _lithostrotos_,
    paved with stones.
 GA´BRIEL, God is my strength.
 GAD, a band, happy, armed and prepared.
 GADARENES, _Gad-a-ree´ns_, surrounded, walled.
 GAD´DI, my happiness, my troop, a kid.
 GADDIEL, _Gad´-de-el_, goat of God, the Lord is my army.
 GADITES, _Gad´-dites_, descendants of Gad.
 GAIUS, _Gay´-e-us_, lord, an earthly man.
 GALATIA, _Gal-ay´-she-a_, white, of the colour of milk.
 GALATIANS, _Gal-ay´-she-ans_, born in Galatia.
 GALBANUM, _Gal´-ba-num_, a gum, sweet spice.
 GALEED, _Gal´-e-ed_, the heap of witness.
 GALILEE, _Gal´-le-lee_, wheel, revolution, heap.
 GALILEANS, _Gal-le-lee´-ans_, inhabitants of Galilee.
 GAL´LIM, who heap up, cover, roll.
 GAL´LIO, he that sucks or lives upon milk.
 GAMA´LIEL, recompense, camel, weaned of God.
 GAM´MADIMS, soldiers placed in the towers of Tyrus; men who came from
    Gammade, a town of Phenicia.
 GA´TAM, their lowing, their touch.
 GATH, a press.
 GATH-RIM´MON, the press of the granite, exalted press.
 GA´ZA, strong, a goat.
 GE´BA, a hill, a cup.
 GE´BAL, bound, limit.
 GE´BIM, grasshoppers, height.
 GEDALIAH, _Ged-a-ly´-ah_, God is my greatness, fringe of the Lord.
 GEHAZI, _Ge-hay´-zye_, valley of sight, of the breast.
 GEMARI´AH, accomplishment of the Lord.
 GENNESARET, _Gen-ness´-a-ret_, or _Jen-ness´-a-ret_, the garden or
    protection of the prince.
 GENUBATH, _Gen´-u-bath_, theft, garden or protection of the daughter.
 GE´RA, pilgrimage, dispute.
 GE´RAH, the twentieth part of a shekel.
 GE´RAR. See Gera.
 GERGESENES, _Ger´-ge-seens_, those who come from pilgrimage or from
    fight.
 GERIZIM, _Ger´-re-zim_, cutters.
 GER´SHOM, a stranger there, a traveller of reputation.
 GER´SHON, his banishment, the change of pilgrimage.
 GE´SHUR, the sight of the valley, the vale of the ox or the wall.
 GESHURITES, _Gesh´-u-rytes_, inhabitants of Geshur.
 GE´THER, the vale of trial, of searching, the press of inquiry.
 GETHSEMANE, _Geth-sem´-a-ne_, a very fat valley.
 GIAH, _Gy´-ah_, to guide, draw out, a sigh.
 GIBEAH, _Gib´-e-ah_, a hill.
 GIB´EON, hill, cup, that which is without.
 GIB´EONITES, people of Gibeon.
 GID´EON, he that bruises, cutting off iniquity.
 GIHON, _Gy´-hon_, valley of grace, impetuous.
 GILBOAH, _Gil´-bo-ah_, revolution of inquiry.
 GILEAD, _Gil´-le-ad_, the mass of testimony.
 GILEADITES, _Gil´-le-ad-ites_, the inhabitants of Gilead.
 GIL´GAL, wheel, revolution, heap.
 GILOH, _Gy´-loh_, he that rejoices, overturns, or discovers.
 GILONITE, _Gy´-lo-nite_.
 GIRGASHITE, _Gir´-ga-shite_, who arrives from pilgrimage.
 GITTITE, _Git´-tite_, a wine press.
 GOB, cistern, grasshopper, eminence.
 GOG, roof, covering.
 GO´LAN, passage, revolution.
 GOL´GOTHA, a heap of skulls.
 GOLI´ATH, revolution, discovery, heap.
 GO´MER, to finish, accomplish, a consumer.
 GOMOR´RAH, a rebellious people.
 GO´SHEN, approaching, drawing near.
 GO´ZAN, fleece, pasture, nourishing the body.
 GRECIA, _Gree´-she-a_, Greece, the country of the Greeks.
 GRECIANS, _Gree´-she-ans_, Greeks, the inhabitants of Greece.
 GUR, the young of a beast, dwelling, fear.
 GURBA´AL, the whelp of the governor.

 HABAKKUK, _Hab´-a-kuk_, he that embraces, a wrestler.
 HACHALIAH, _Hak-a-ly´-ah_, who waits for the Lord.
 HACHILAH, _Hak´-e-lah_, my trust is in her.
 HA´DAD, joy, noise.
 HADADEZER, _Hay´-dad-ee´-zer_, the beauty of assistance.
 HADAD-RIMMON, _Hay´-dad-rim´-mon_, the voice of height, the invocation
    of Rimmon, a god of the Syrians.
 HADAS´SAH, a myrtle, joy.
 HADO´RAM, their beauty, power, praise.
 HADRACH, _Hay´-drak_, point, joy of tenderness, your chamber.
 HA´GAR, a stranger, that fears.
 HAGARENES, _Hay´-gar-eens_, of the family of Hagar.
 HAGARITES, _Hay´-gar-ites_. See Hagarenes.
 HAGGAI, _Hag´-ga-i_, feast, solemnity.
 HAG´GITH, rejoicing.
 HAK´KATAN, little.
 HALLELUIAH, _Hal-le-lu´-yah_, praise the Lord.
 HAM, hot, brown.
 HA´MAN, noise, tumult, he that prepares.
 HA´MATH, anger, heat, a wall.
 HAMMEDATHA, _Ham-med´-a-thah_, or _Ham-me-day´-thah_, he that troubles
    the law.
 HA´MON-GOG, the multitude of Gog.
 HA´MOR, an ass, clay, wine.
 HA´MUL, godly, merciful.
 HAMU´TAL, the shadow of his heat, the heat of the dew.
 HANAMEEL, _Han-am´-e-el_, or _Han-am-ee´-el_, grace or pity from God.
 HANANEEL, _Han-an-ee´-el_, mercy of God.
 HANANI, _Han-ay´-ny_, my grace or mercy.
 HANANI´AH, grace or mercy of the Lord.
 HAN´NAH, gracious, merciful, taking rest.
 HA´NOCH, dedicated.
 HA´NUN, gracious, merciful, he that rests.
 HA´RAN, mountainous country, which is enclosed.
 HARBO´NAH, his destruction or dryness.
 HA´ROD, astonishment, fear.
 HAROSHETH, _Har-o´-sheth_, agriculture, silence, vessel of earth,
    forest.
 HASHMO´NAH, diligence, enumeration, embassy, present.
 HA´TACH, he that strikes.
 HAVILAH, _Hav´-e-lah_, that suffers pain, brings forth, declares to
    her.
 HAVOTH-JAIR, _Hay´-voth-jay´-ir_, villages that enlighten.
 HAZAEL, _Haz´-a-el_, that sees God.
 HAZARMAVETH, _Hay´-zar-may´-veth_, court or dwelling of death.
 HAZELELPONI, Hay´-zel-el-po´-ny, shade, sorrow of the face.
 HAZEROTH, _Haz-ee´-roth_, villages, court.
 HA´ZOR, court, hay.
 HE´BER, one that passes, anger.
 HE´BREWS, descended from Heber.
 HE´BRON, society, friendship, enchantment.
 HEGAI, or HEGE, _Heg´-a-i_, meditation, word, separation.
 HE´LAM, their army, trouble, or expectation.
 HEL´BON, milk, fatness.
 HELDAI, _Hel´-da-i_, or _Hel-day´-i_, the world.
 HE´LI, ascending, climbing up.
 HEL´KATH-HAZ´URIM, the field of strong men, of rocks.
 HE´MAN, their trouble, their tumult, much.
 HEN, grace, quiet.
 HEPHER, _Hee´-fer_, a digger or delver.
 HEPHZI-BAH, _Hef´-ze-bah_, my pleasure.
 HER´MES, _Mercury_, gain, refuge.
 HERMOGENES, _Her-moj´-e-nes_, begotten of Mercury, of lucre.
 HER´MON, anathema, destruction.
 HER´MONITES, the inhabitants of Hermon.
 HEROD, _Her´-rod_, the glory of the skin.
 HERODIANS, _He-ro´-de-ans_.
 HERO´DIAS, the wife of Herod.
 HERODION, _He-ro´-de-on_, song of Juno.
 HESH´BON, invention, industry, thought, he that hastens to understand.
 HETH, trembling, fear.
 HETH´LON, fearful dwelling, his covering.
 HEZEKI´AH, strong in the Lord.
 HEZ´RON, the dart of joy, division of the song.
 HIDDAI, _Hid´-da-i_, praise, cry.
 HIDDEKEL, _Hid´-de-kel_, a sharp voice.
 HI´EL, the life of God.
 HIERAPOLIS, _Hy-er-ap´-po-lis_, holy city.
 HIGGAION, _Hig-gay´-e-on_, meditation.
 HILKI´AH, God is my portion, the Lord’s gentleness.
 HIL´LEL, praising folly, Lucifer.
 HIN´NOM, there they are, their riches.
 HI´RAM, exaltation of life, their whiteness, he that destroys.
 HIT´TITES, who are broken or fear.
 HI´VITES, wicked, bad, wickedness.
 HO´BAB, favoured and beloved.
 HO´BAH, love, friendship, secrecy.
 HOG´LAH, his festival, his dance.
 HOPHNI, _Hoff´-ni_, he that covers, my fist.
 HOR, who conceives, shows.
 HO´REB, desert, destruction, dryness.
 HOR-HAGIDGAD, _Hor-ha-gidd´-gad_, hill of felicity.
 HOR´MAH, devoted to God, destruction.
 HORONAIM, _Hor-o-nay´-im_, anger, raging.
 HORONITE, _Hor´-o-nyte_, anger, fury, liberty.
 HOSEA, and HOSHEA, _Ho-zee´-a_, and _Ho-shee´-a_, Saviour.
 HUL, infirmity, bringing forth children.
 HUL´DAH, the world, a prophetess.
 HUR, liberty, whiteness, cavern.
 HUSHAI, _Hew´-sha-i_, their haste, sensuality, or silence.
 HUZ´ZAB, molten.
 HYMENEUS, _Hy-men-ee´-us_, nuptial, marriage.

 IB´HAR, election, he that is chosen.
 ICHABOD, _Ik´-a-bod_, where is the glory?
 ICONIUM, _I-ko´-ne-um_, from ἵκω, “I come.”
 ID´DO, his hand, power, praise, witness.
 IDUMEA, _Id-ew-mee´-a_, red, earthy.
 IGDALI´A, the greatness of the Lord.
 I´JON, look, eye, fountain.
 ILLYRICUM, _Il-lir´-re-kum_, joy, rejoicing.
 IM´LAH, plenitude, repletion, circumcision.
 IMMAN´UEL, a name given to our Lord Jesus Christ, signifying, God with
    us.
 IM´RAH, a rebel, changing.
 INDIA, _In´-de-a_, praise, law.
 IPHEDEIAH, _If-fe-dy´-ah_, or _If-fe-dee´-ah_, the redemption of the
    Lord.
 I´RA, city, watch, spoil, heap of vision.
 I´RAD, wild ass, heap of descents, of empire.
 IRIJAH, _I-ry´-jah_, the fear, vision, or protection of the Lord.
 ISAAC, _I´-zak_, laughter.
 ISAIAH, _I-zay´-yah_, or _I-zay´-e-ah_, the salvation of the Lord.
 ISCAH, _Is´-kah_, he that anoints, or covers.
 ISCARIOT, _Is-kar´-re-ot_, is thought to signify a native of the town
    of Iscarioth.
 ISH´BAK, empty, forsaken, abandoned.
 ISHBI-BENOB, _Ish´-by-bee´-nob_, he that sits in the prophecy,
    conversion.
 ISH-BOSHETH, _Ish´-bo-sheth_, a man of shame.
 ISHMAEL, _Ish´-ma-el_, God who hears.
 ISHMAELITES, _Ish´-ma-el-ites_, the posterity of Ishmael.
 ISRAEL, _Is´-ra-el_, a prince with God, prevailing with God, that
    wrestleth with God.
 ISRAELITES, _Is´-ra-el-ites_, the posterity of Israel, or Jacob.
 ISSACHAR, _Is´-sa-kar_, price, reward.
 ITALIAN, _I-tal´-e-an_, belonging to Italy.
 ITALY, _It´-ta-le_, a Latin word that has its original from _vitulus_,
    or _vitula_, “a calf,” or from a king called _Italus_.
 ITH´AMAR, island of the palm tree, wo to the palm or change.
 ITHIEL, _Ith´-e-el_, God with me, sign.
 ITHREAM, _Ith´-re-am_, excellence of the people.
 ITUREA, _It-u-ree´-a_, which is guarded, a country of mountains.
 I´VAH, iniquity.

 JAALAM, _Ja-ay´-lam_, hidden, young man, kids.
 JAAZANIA, _Ja-az-a-ny´-ah_, whom the Lord will hear, the balances, the
    arms.
 JA´BAL, which glides away, produces.
 JAB´BOK, evacuation, dissipation.
 JA´BESH, dryness, confusion, shame.
 JABESH-GILEAD, _Jay´-besh-gil´-e-ad_.
 JA´BEZ, sorrow, trouble.
 JA´BIN, he that understands, he that builds.
 JABNEEL, _Jab´-ne-el_, building, or understanding of God.
 JACHIN, _Jay´-kin_, that strengthens.
 JA´COB, he that supplants, the heel.
 JA´EL, he that ascends, a kid.
 JAH, the everlasting God.
 JA´HAZ, dispute, going out of the Lord.
 JAHAZA, _Ja-hay´-za_, the same as Jahaz.
 JAIR, _Jay´-er_, my light, who diffuses light.
 JAIRUS, _Jay´-e-rus_ or _Ja-i´-rus_, is enlightened.
 JAM´BRES, the sea with poverty.
 JAMES, _the same as_ Jacob.
 JAN´NA, who speaks, who answers, affliction.
 JANNES, _Jan´-nez_, the same as Janna.
 JAPHETH, _Jay´-feth_, persuades, handsome.
 JAPHIA, _Ja-fy´-ah_, which enlightens, groans.
 JA´REB, a revenger.
 JA´RED, he that descends or commands.
 JA´SHER, righteous.
 JA´SON, he that cures, that gives medicines.
 JA´VAN, that deceives, clay.
 JA´ZER, assistance, he that helps.
 JE´BUS, treads under foot, contemns.
 JEB´USITES, inhabitants of Jebus.
 JECONI´AH, preparation or steadfastness of the Lord.
 JEDDI´EL, the knowledge or joy of God.
 JEDIDAH, _Jed-dy´-dah_, well-beloved, amiable.
 JEDIDIAH, _Jed-e-dy´-ah_, beloved of the Lord.
 JEDUTHUN, _Jed-ew´-thun_ or _Jed´-ew-thun_, his law, who gives praise.
 JEGAR-SAHADUTHA, _Je´-gar-say-ha-dew´-tha_, the heap of witnessing.
 JEHOAHAZ, _Je-ho-ay´-haz_, the prize or possession of the Lord.
 JEHO´ASH, the fire or victim of the Lord.
 JEHOIACHIN, _Je-hoy´-a-kin_, preparation or strength of the Lord.
 JEHOIADA, _Je-hoy´-a-dah_, knowledge of the Lord.
 JEHOIAKIM, _Je-hoy´-a-kim_, the resurrection of the Lord.
 JEHON´ADAB. See Jonadab.
 JEHO´RAM, exaltation, rejected of the Lord.
 JEHOSH´APHAT, God judges.
 JEHO´VAH, the incommunicable name of God, self-existing.
 JEHOVAH-JIREH, _Je-ho´-vah-jy´-rey_, the Lord will see or provide, will
    be manifested.
 JEHO´VAH-NIS´SI, the Lord my banner.
 JEHOVAH-SHALOM, _Je-ho´-vah-shay´-lom_ or _shal´-lom_, the Lord send
    peace.
 JEHO´VAH-SHAM´MAH, the Lord is there.
 JEHO´VAH-TSID´KENU, the Lord our righteousness.
 JEHU, _Je´-hew_, he that is or exists.
 JEHUDIJAH, _Je-hew-di´-jah_, praise of the Lord.
 JEMI´MA, handsome as the day.
 JEPHTHAH, _Jef´-thah_, he that opens.
 JEPHUNNEH, _Je-fun´-neh_, he that beholds.
 JE´RAH, the moon, to scent or smell.
 JERAHMEEL, _Je-ram´-me-el_, mercy or love of God.
 JEREMI´AH, grandeur of the Lord.
 JERICHO, _Jer´-re-ko_, his moon, sweet smell.
 JER´IMOTH, eminences, he that fears or rejects death.
 JEROBO´AM, fighting against, increasing the people.
 JERUBBAAL, _Jer-uh-bay´-al_, he that revenges the idol, let Baal defend
    his cause.
 JERUBBESHETH, _Je-rub´-be-sheth_, let the idol of confusion defend
    itself.
 JERU´SALEM, the vision or possession of peace.
 JERU´SHA, he that possesses the inheritance, exiled.
 JESHIMON, _Jesh´-e-mon_, solitude, desolation.
 JESHUA, _Jesh´-u-a_, a Saviour.
 JESHURUN, _Jesh-ew´-run_, upright.
 JES´SE, to be, my present.
 JESUI, _Jes´-u-i_, who is equal, flat country.
 JESUITES, _Jes´-u-ites_, the posterity of Jesui.
 JE´SUS, the holy name Jesus, Saviour, who saveth his people from their
    sins.
 JE´THER, he that excels, remains, searches.
 JETH´RO, his excellence or posterity.
 JE´TUR, he that keeps, succession, mountainous.
 JE´USH, devoured, gnawed by the moth.
 JEW, _Jews_, so called from Judah.
 JEW´ESS, JEW´ISH, JEW´RY.
 JEZ´EBEL, island of the habitation, wo to the habitation, isle of the
    dunghill.
 JEZRAHIAH, _Jez-ra-hy´-ah_, the Lord is the east, the Lord arises,
 JEZREEL, _Jez´-re-el_ or _Jez-ree´-el_, seed of God, dropping of the
    friendship of God.
 JEZREELITE, _Jez´-re-el-ite_ or _Jez-ree´-el-ite_, an inhabitant of
    Jezreel.
 JIDLAPH, _Jid´-laf_, he that distils, hands joined.
 JO´AB, paternity, having a father, voluntary.
 JO´AH, who has a brother, brother of the Lord.
 JOAN´NA, the grace or mercy of the Lord.
 JO´ASH, who despairs, burns, is on fire.
 JOB, he that weeps, cries, or speaks out of a hollow place.
 JOCHEBED, _Jok´-ke-bed_, glorious, honourable, a person of merit, the
    glory of the Lord.
 JO´EL, that wills, commands, or swears.
 JOEZER, _Jo-ee´-zer_, he that aids.
 JO´HA, who enlivens and gives life.
 JOHA´NAN, who is liberal and grants favour.
 JOHN, the gift or mercy of the Lord.
 JOK´SHAN, hard, difficult, scandalous.
 JOK´TAN, small, disgust, weariness, dispute.
 JON´ADAB, who acts in good earnest.
 JO´NAH, or JO´NAS, a dove, he that oppresses.
 JON´ATHAN, given of God.
 JOP´PA, beauty, comeliness.
 JO´RAM, to cast, elevated.
 JOR´DAN, the river of judgment, that rejects judgment, descent.
 JO´RIM, he that exalts the Lord.
 JO´SE, raised, who exists, or pardons, Saviour.
 JOSEPH, _Jo´-sef_, increase, addition.
 JOSES, _Jo´-sez_. See Jose.
 JOSH´UA, the Lord, the Saviour.
 JOSI´AH, the fire of the Lord.
 JO´THAM, perfection of the Lord.
 JUBAL, _Jew´-bal_, he that runs, he that produces, a trumpet.
 JUBILEE, _Jew´-be-lee_, a feast of the Jews, every fiftieth year; in
    Hebrew, _Jobel_, a ram’s horn, or a trumpet by which the jubilee
    year was proclaimed.
 JU´DAH, the praise of the Lord.
 JU´DAS, the same as Judah.
 JUDEA, _Jew-dee´-a_, a country.
 JU´LIA, downy; from ἴουλος, “down.”
 JU´LIUS, _the same_ as Julia.
 JU´NIA, from _Juno_, or from _juventus_, youth.
 JUPITER, _Jew´-pe-ter_, as if it were _juvans pater_, the father that
    helpeth.
 JUS´TUS, just, upright.

 KABZEEL, _Kab´-ze-el_, the congregation of God.
 KA´DESH, holiness.
 KADESH-BARNEA, _Kay´-desh-bar´-ne-a_ or _bar-nee´-ah_, holiness of an
    inconstant son, of the corn, of purity.
 KAD´MIEL, God of rising.
 KE´DAR, blackness, sorrow.
 KEDEMAH, _Ked´-de-mah_, oriental.
 KEDEMOTH, _Ked´-de-moth_, old age, orientals.
 KEILAH, _Ky´-lah_, she that divides or cuts.
 KEMUEL, _Kem´-u-el_, God is risen.
 KE´NAZ, this nest, lamentation, possession.
 KE´NITES, possession, lamentation, nest.
 KEREN-HAPPUCH, _Kee´-ren-hap´-puk_, the horn or child of beauty.
 KERIOTH, _Ker´-re-oth_, the cities, the callings.
 KETURAH, _Ke-tew´-rah_, he that burns or makes the incense to fume,
    odoriferous.
 KEZIAH, _Ke-zy´-ah_, superficies, angle, cassia.
 KE´ZIZ, end, extremity.
 KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, _Kib´-roth-hat-tay´-a-vah_, the graves of lust.
 KID´RON, obscurity, obscure.
 KIR, a city, a wall, a meeting.
 KIR-HARASETH, _Kir-har´-ra-seth_, the city of the sun.
 KIRIATHAIM, _Kir´-e-ath-ay´-im_, the two cities, the callings.
 KIR´-JATH, city, vocation, lesson, meeting.
 KIR´-JATH-AR´BA, the city of four.
 KIR´JATH-A´RIM, city of cities, the city of those that watch.
 KIR´JATH-BA´AL, the city of Baal, of those that command, of those that
    possess.
 KIRJATH-JEARIM, _Kir´-jath-je´-a-rim_, the city of woods.
 KIR´JATH-SAN´NAH, the city of the bush, of enmity.
 KIRJATH-SEPHER, _Kir´-jath-see´-fer_, the city of letters, of the book.
 KISH, hard, difficult, straw.
 KIS´RON, making sweet, perfuming.
 KIT´TIM, they that bruise, gold, colouring.
 KO´HATH, congregation, obedience, to make blunt.
 KOHATHITES, _Ko´-hath-ites_, the posterity of Kohath.
 KO´RAH, bald, frozen.

 LA´BAN, white, shining, gentle.
 LACHISH, _Lay´-kish_, she walks, who exists of himself.
 LA´EL, to God, to the Almighty.
 LAH´MI, my bread, my war.
 LA´ISH, a lion.
 LA´MECH, poor, made low, who is struck.
 LAODICEA, _Lay-o-de-see´-a_, just people.
 LAODICEANS, _Lay-o-de-see´-ans_, inhabitants of Laodicea.
 LAPEDOTH, _Lap´-pe-doth_, enlightened, lamps.
 LAZARUS, _Laz´-za-rus_, the help of God.
 LE´AH, weary, tired.
 LEB´ANON, white, incense.
 LEBBEUS, _Leb-bee´-us_, a man of heart.
 LEHABIM, _Le´-ha-bim_ or _Le-hay´-bim_, flames, the points of a sword.
 LE´HI, jaw bone.
 LEM´UEL, God with them.
 LE´VI, who is held and associated.
 LE´VITES, the posterity of Levi.
 LIB´NAH, LIB´NI, white, whiteness.
 LIBYA, _Lib´-e-a_, in Hebrew, Lubim, the heart of the sea.
 LIBYANS, _Lib´-e-ans_, the people of Libya.
 LI´NUS, nets.
 LO-AM´MI, not my people.
 LO´IS, better.
 LO-RUHAMAH, _Lo-ru-hay´-mah_, not having obtained mercy, not pitied.
 LOT, wrapt up, myrrh, rosin.
 LU´CAS, luminous.
 LU´CIFER, _Lu´-se-fer_, bringing light.
 LUCIUS, _Lu´-she-us_. See Lucas.
 LUD, maturity, generation.
 LUKE. See Lucas.
 LUZ, separation, departure.
 LYCAONIA, _Ly-ka-o´-ne-a_, she-wolf.
 LYD´DA, the name of a city.
 LYSA´NIAS, that drives away sorrow.
 LYS´TRA, that dissolves or disperses.

 MAACHAH, _May´-a-kah_, to squeeze.
 MAASEIAH, _Ma-a-sy´-ah_, the work of the Lord.
 MACEDONIA, _Mas-se-do´-ne-a_, adoration, prostration.
 MACHIR, _May´-kir_, he that sells or knows.
 MACHPELAH, _Mak-pee´-lah_, double.
 MAGDALA, _Mag´-da-lah_, tower, greatness.
 MAGDALENE, _Mag´-da-le´-ne_, tower, grand, elevated.
 MA´GOG, roof, that dissolves.
 MAGOR-MISSABIB, _May´-gor-mis´-sa-bib_, fear, round about.
 MAHALALEEL, _Ma-ha-la-lee´-el_, he that praises God.
 MAHALATH, _Ma-hay´-lath_, melodious song, infirmity.
 MAHANAIM, _Ma-ha-nay´-im_, the two fields or armies.
 MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, _May´-er-shal´-al-hash´-baz_, making speed to
    the spoil.
 MAH´LAH, _the same as_ Mahalath.
 MAH´LON, song, infirmity.
 MAKKEDAH, _Mak´-ke-dah_, adoration, prostration.
 MALCHAM, _Mal´-kam_, their king.
 MALCHI-SHUA, _Mal´-ke-shew´-ah_, my king is a saviour.
 MALCHUS, _Mal´-kus_, king or kingdom.
 MAM´MON, riches.
 MAM´RE, rebellious, bitter, that changes.
 MANAEN, _Man´-a-en_, or _Ma-nay´-en_, a comforter, he that conducts
    them.
 MANAS´SEH, forgetfulness, he that is forgotten.
 MANEH, _May´-neh_, a species of money.
 MANOAH, _Ma-no´-ah_, rest, a present.
 MA´ON, house, crime.
 MA´RA, bitterness.
 MA´RAH, _the same as_ Mara.
 MAR´CUS, polite, shining.
 MARK, _the same as_ Marcus.
 MARS-HILL´, the place where the judges of Athens held their supreme
    council.
 MAR´THA, who becomes bitter.
 MA´RY, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the sea.
 MASREKAH, _Mas´-re-kah_, whistling, hissing.
 MAS´SAH, temptation.
 MA´TRI, rain, prison.
 MAT´TAN, the reins, the death of them.
 MATTATHIAS, _Mat-ta-thy´-as_, the gift of the Lord.
 MAT´THAT, gift, he that gives.
 MATTH´EW, given, a reward.
 MATTHIAS, _Ma-thy´-as_. See Mattathias.
 MAZ´ZAROTH, the twelve signs.
 ME´DAD, he that measures, the water of love.
 ME´DAN, judgment, process, measure, covering.
 MEDES, _Mee´ds_, people of Media.
 MEDIA, _Mee´-de-a_, measure, covering, abundance.
 MEGIDDO, _Me-gid´-do_, that declares, his precious fruit.
 MEGIDDON, _Me-gid´-don_, the same as Megiddo.
 MEHETABEL, _Me-het´-ta-ble_, how good is God!
 MEHUJAEL, _Me-hu-jay´-el_, who proclaims God, God that blots out.
 MELCHI, _Mel´-ky_, my king, my counsel.
 MELCHIZEDEK, _Mel-kiz´-ze-dek_, king of righteousness.
 MELITA, _Me-ly´-ta_ or _Me-lee´-ta_, affording honey.
 MEMPHIS, _Mem´-fis_, by the mouth.
 MEMUCAN, _Me-mew´-kan_, impoverished, to prepare, certain, true.
 MENAHEM, _Men´-na-hem_, comforter, who conducts them.
 MENE, _Mee´ne_, who reckons, who is counted.
 MEPHIBOSHETH, _Me-fib´-bo-sheth_, out of my mouth proceeds reproach.
 ME´RAB, he that fights, he that multiplies.
 MERARI, _Me-ray´-ry_, bitter, to provoke.
 MERCU´RIUS, a false god; from the Latin word mercari, “to buy or sell,”
    because he presided over merchandise; in Greek, _hermes_, “orator”
    or “interpreter.”
 MERIB-BAAL, _Mer-ib´-ba-al_ or _Mer´-ib-bay´-al_, rebellion, he that
    resists Baal, and strives against the idol.
 MERIBAH, _Mer´-re-bah_, dispute, quarrel.
 MERODACH, _Mer´-ro-dak_, bitter, contrition; in Syriac, the little
    lord.
 MERODACH-BALADAN, _Mer´-ro-dak-bal´-la-dan_ or _ba-lay´-dan_, who
    creates contrition, the son of death, of thy vapour.
 ME´ROM, eminences, elevations.
 ME´ROZ, secret, leanness.
 MESHACH, _Mee´-shak_, that draws with force, that surrounds the waters.
 MESHECH, _Mee´-shek_, who is drawn by force, shut up, surrounded.
 MESHELEMIAH, _Mesh-el-e-my´-ah_, peace, perfection, retribution of the
    Lord.
 MESOPOTAMIA, _Mes-o-po-tay´-me-a_, in Hebrew, _Aramnaharaim_, that is,
    “Syria of the two rivers.” In Greek it also signifies “between two
    rivers;” from μέσος, “middle,” and ϖόταμος, “river.”
 MESSIAH, _Mes-sy´-ah_, anointed.
 ME´THEG-AM´MAH, the bridle of bondage.
 METHUSAEL, _Me-thew´-sa-el_, who demands his death.
 METHUSELAH, _Me-thew´-se-lah_, he has sent his death.
 MI´CAH, poor, humble, who strikes, is there.
 MICAIAH, _My-kay´-e-ah_, who is like to God? the lowliness of God.
 MICHAIAH, _My-kay´-e-ah_, MICHAEL, _My´-ka-el_, the same as Micaiah.
 MICHAL, _My´-kal_, who is it that has all? who is perfect?
 MICHMASH, _Mik´-mash_, he that strikes, the poor taken away.
 MIDIAN, _Mid´-de-an_, judgment, measure, covering.
 MIDIANITES, _Mid´-de-an-ites_, people of Midian.
 MIG´DOL, a tower, greatness.
 MIG´RON, fear, a barn, from the throat.
 MIL´CAH, queen.
 MIL´COM, their king.
 MILETUM, _My-lee´-tum_, red, scarlet.
 MIL´LO, fulness, repletion.
 MIN´NI, disposed, reckoned.
 MIN´NITH, counted, prepared.
 MIRIAM, _Mir´-re-am_, exalted, bitterness of the sea, mistress of the
    sea.
 MIS´GAB, the high fort or rock.
 MISHAEL, _Mish´-a-el_, asked for, lent, God takes away.
 MISREPHOTH-MAIM, _Mis´-re-foth-may´-im_, the burnings of the waters,
    furnaces where metals are melted.
 MITYLENE, _Mit-e-lee´-ne_, purity, press.
 MI´ZAR, little.
 MIZ´PAH, a sentinel, speculation, that waits for.
 MIZ´PEH, _the same as_ Mizpah.
 MIZRAIM, _Miz-ray´-im_, tribulations, in straits.
 MNASON, _Nay´-son_, a diligent seeker, betrothing, an exhorter.
 MO´AB, of the father.
 MO´ABITES, _Mo´-ab-ites_, the descendants of Moab.
 MOLADAH, _Mol´-a-dah_, or _Mo-lay´-dah_, birth, generation.
 MOLECH, _Mo´-lek_, king.
 MOLOCH, _Mo´-lok_, the same as Molech.
 MORDECAI, _Mor´-de-kay_, contrition, bitter bruising; in Syriac, pure
    myrrh.
 MORI´AH, bitterness or fear of the Lord.
 MOSERA, _Mo-see´-ra_, MOSEROTH, _Mo-see´-roth_, erudition, discipline,
    bond.
 MO´SES, taken out of the water.
 MU´SHI, he that touches, withdraws himself.
 MY´RA, from μύρω, _I flow_, _pour out_, _weep_.
 MYSIA, _Mish´-e-a_, criminal, abominable.

 NAAMAN, _Na-ay´-man_, beautiful, agreeable, that prepares himself to
    motion.
 NAAMATHITE, _Na-ay´-ma-thite_, of Naamath.
 NAASHON, _Na-ash´-on_, that foretels, serpent.
 NA´BAL, a fool, senseless.
 NA´BOTH, words, prophecies, fruits.
 NA´DAB, free and voluntary gift, prince.
 NAGGE, _Nag´-gee_, brightness.
 NAHARAI, _Na-har´-ra-i_ or _Na-ha-ray´-i_, my nostrils, hoarse, hot.
 NAHASH, _Nay´-hash_, snake, one that foretels, brass.
 NA´HOR, hoarse, hot, angry.
 NAHSHON, _Nay´-shon_. See Naashon.
 NA´HUM, comforter, penitent, their guide.
 NA´IN, beauty, pleasantness.
 NAIOTH, _Nay´-e-oth_, beauties, habitations.
 NAOMI, _Na-o´-my_, beautiful, agreeable.
 NAPHISH, _Nay´-fish_, the soul, he that refreshes himself, that
    respires; in Syriac, that multiplies.
 NAPHTALI, _Naf´-ta-ly_, comparison, likeness, that fights.
 NARCISSUS, _Nar-sis´-sus_, astonishment.
 NA´THAN, who gives, or is given.
 NATHANAEL, _Na-than´-yel_, the gift of God.
 NATHAN-MELECH, _Nay´-than-me´-lek_, gift of the king.
 NA´UM. See Nahum.
 NAZARENE, _Naz-a-ree´n_, kept, flower.
 NAZARETH, _Naz´-a-reth_, separated, sanctified.
 NEAPOLIS, _Ne-ap´-po-lis_, new city.
 NEBAIOTH, _Ne-bay´-yoth_, prophecies, fruits.
 NE´BAT, that beholds.
 NE´BO, that speaks, prophesies, or fructifies.
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR, _Neb-ew-kad-nez´-zar_, tears and groans of judgment.
 NEBUZAR-ADAN, _Neb-ew-zar´-ra-dan_, fruits or prophecies of judgment,
    winnowed, spread.
 NECHO, _Nee´-ko_, lame, who was beaten.
 NEHELAMITE, _Ne-hel´-a-myte_, dreamer, vale, brook.
 NEHEMIAH, _Ne-he-my´-ah_, consolation, repentance, or rest of the Lord.
 NEHILOTH, _Ne-hee´-loth_, flute, hautboy, cornet.
 NEHUSHTA, _Ne-hush´-tah_, snake, soothsayer.
 NEHUSH´TAN, which is of brass or copper, a trifle of brass.
 NER, lamp, brightness, land new tilled.
 NEREUS, _Nee´-re-us_. See Ner.
 NERI, _Nee´-ry_, my light.
 NERI´AH, light and lamp of the Lord.
 NETHANEEL, _Ne-than´-ne-el_. See Nathanael.
 NETHANIA, _Neth-a-ny´-ah_, the gift of the Lord.
 NETHINIMS, _Neth´-e-nims_, given, offered.
 NIB´HAZ, that fructifies, to prophesy, to speak.
 NICANOR, _Ny-kay´-nor_, a conqueror, victorious.
 NICODEMUS, _Nik-o-dee´-mus_, innocent blood; in Greek, the victory of
    the people.
 NICOLAITANS, _Nik-o-lay´-e-tanz_, the followers of Nicolas.
 NICOLAS, _Nik´-o-las_, victor of the people; from νικάω, I overcome,
    and λαὸς, the people.
 NICOPOLIS, _Ny-kop´-po-lis_, the city of victory.
 NIGER, _Ny´-jer_, black.
 NIM´RIM, leopard, rebellion, change.
 NIM´ROD, rebellious, sleep of descent.
 NIM´SHI, rescued from danger, that touches.
 NINEVEH, _Nin´-ne-veh_, agreeable dwelling.
 NINEVITES, _Nin´-ne-vites_, people of Nineveh.
 NI´SAN, banner; in Syriac, a miracle.
 NIS´ROCH, flight, standard, proof.
 NO, stirring up, a forbidding.
 NOADI´AH, witness of the Lord.
 NO´AH, repose, rest, consolation.
 NOB, discourse, prophecy.
 NO´BAH, that barks or yelps.
 NOD, vagabond.
 NOPH, _Noff_, honey comb, a sieve, that drops.
 NUN, son, posterity, durable.
 NYMPHAS, _Nim´-fas_, spouse, bridegroom.

 OBADI´AH, servant of the Lord.
 O´BAL, inconvenience of old age, of the flux.
 O´BED, a servant.
 O´BED-E´DOM, the servant of Edom, the Idumean, labourer of the man.
 O´BIL, that weeps, deserves to be bewailed, ancient.
 OC´RAN, disturber.
 O´DED, to sustain, to lift up.
 OG, a cake, bread baked in the ashes.
 O´HEL, tent, tabernacle, brightness.
 OLYMPAS, _O-lim´-pas_, heavenly.
 O´MAR, he that speaks, bitter.
 OMEGA, _O-mee´-ga_, the last letter of the Greek alphabet.
 OM´RI, a sheaf of corn, rebellion, bitter.
 ON, pain, force, iniquity.
 O´NAN, pain, strength, iniquity.
 ONESIMUS, _O-nes´-se-mus_, profitable, useful.
 ONESIPHORUS, _On-ne-sif´-fo-rus_, who brings profit.
 OPHEL, _O´-fel_, tower, obscurity.
 OPHIR, _O´-fir_, ashes.
 OPHRAH, _Off´-rah_, dust, fawn, lead.
 O´REB, a raven, caution, evening.
 ORION, _O-ry´-on_, the name of a constellation.
 OR´NAN, that rejoices, their bow or ark.
 OR´PAH, the neck, skull, nakedness of the mouth.
 OTH´NI, my time, my hour.
 OTHNIEL, _Oth´-ne-el_, the hour of God.
 O´ZEM, that fasts, their eagerness.
 OZIAS, _O-zy´-as_, strength from the Lord.

 PAARAI, _Pay´-a-ray_ or _Pay-a´-ry_, opening.
 PADAN-ARAM, _Pay´-dan-ay´-ram_, _Padan_ of the field, and _Aram_ Syria.
 PAGIEL, _Pay´-je-el_, prevention or prayer of God.
 PALESTINA, _Pal-es-ty´-na_, which is covered.
 PAL´TI, deliverance, flight.
 PAMPHYLIA, _Pam-fil´-le-a_, a nation made up of every tribe; from ϖᾶς,
    _all_, and φυλὴ, a _tribe_.
 PAPHOS, _Pay´-fos_, which boils, is very hot.
 PA´RAN, beauty, glory, ornament.
 PAR´BAR, a gate or building belonging to the temple.
 PAR´MENAS, that abides and is permanent.
 PAROSH, _Pay´-rosh_, a flea, fruit of the moth.
 PARSHANDATHA, _Par-shan´-da-tha_, revelation of corporeal impurities,
    of his trouble.
 PARTHIANS, _Par´-the-ans_, horsemen.
 PARUAH, _Pa-rew´-ah_, flourishing, that flies away.
 PARVA´IM, supposed to be Peru or Ceylon.
 PASH´UR, that extends the hole, whiteness.
 PATARA, _Pa-tay´-rah_, which is trodden under foot; from ϖατέω, _I
    tread under foot_.
 PATHROS, _Path´-ros_ or _Pay´-thros_, mouthful of dew.
 PAT´MOS, mortal.
 PATROBAS, _Pat´-ro-bas_, paternal, that pursues the steps of his
    father.
 PAU, _Pay´-ew_, that cries aloud, appears.
 PAUL, PAUL´US, a worker. His former name was SAUL, a sepulchre, a
    destroyer.
 PEDAHZUR, _Ped-ah´-zur_, saviour, strong and powerful, stone of
    redemption.
 PEDAIAH, _Ped-ay´-e-ah_, redemption of the Lord.
 PE´KAH, he that opens, or is at liberty.
 PEKAHIAH, _Pek-a-hy´-ah_, it is the Lord that opens.
 PE´KOD, noble, rulers.
 PELATI´AH, let the Lord deliver.
 PE´LEG, division.
 PELETHITES, _Pel´-eth-ites_, judges, destroyers.
 PENIEL, _Pe-ny´-el_, face or vision of God.
 PENIN´NAH, precious stone, his face.
 PENU´EL. See Peniel.
 PEOR, _Pee´-or_, hold, opening.
 PER´GA, very earthy.
 PER´GAMOS, height, elevation.
 PERIZZITES, _Per´-iz-zytes_, the name of a people who dwell in
    villages.
 PER´SIA, _Per´sis_, that cuts, nail, horseman.
 PE´TER, a rock, a stone.
 PETHU´EL, mouth or persuasion of God.
 PHALEC, _Fay´-lek_. See Peleg.
 PHALLU, _Fal´-lu_, admirable, hidden.
 PHALTI, _Fal´-ty_, deliverance, flight.
 PHANUEL, _Fa-new´-el_, face or vision of God.
 PHARAOH, _Fay´-ro_, that disperses, that discovers; according to the
    Syriac, the revenger, the king, the crocodile.
 PHAREZ, _Fay´-rez_, division, rupture.
 PHARPAR, _Far´-par_, that produces fruits, fall of the bull.
 PHEBE, _Fee´-be_, shining, pure.
 PHENICE, _Fe-ny´-se_, red, purple.
 PHICHOL, _Fy´-kol_, the mouth of all, perfection.
 PHILADELPHIA, _Fil-a-del´-fe-a_, the love of a brother; from φιλία,
    _love_, and ἀδέλφος, a _brother_.
 PHILEMON, _Fil-ee´-mon_, or _Fy-lee´-mon_, that is affectionate.
 PHILETUS, _Fil-ee´-tus_ or _Fy-lee´-tus_, amiable, beloved.
 PHIL´IP, warlike, a lover of horses.
 PHILIPPI, _Fil-lip´-py_, the same as Philip.
 PHILISTIA, _Fil-lis´-te-a_ or _Fy-lis´-te-a_, the country of the
    Philistines.
 PHILISTINES, _Fil-lis´-tines_ or _Fil-lis´-tins_, those that dwell in
    villages.
 PHILOLOGUS, _Fil-lol´-lo-gus_, lover of learning.
 PHINEHAS, _Fin´-ne-has_, a bold countenance.
 PHLEGON, _Fle´-gon_, zealous, burning.
 PHRYGIA, _Frij´-e-a_, dry, barren.
 PHURAH, _Few´-rah_, that bears fruit, that grows.
 PHYGELLUS, _Fy-jel´-lus_, fugitive.
 PI-BE´SETH, the mouth of despite.
 PI-HAHIROTH, _Py-ha-hy´-roth_, the mouth, the pass of Hiroth, the
    opening of liberty.
 PI´LATE, who is armed with a dart.
 PI´NON, gem, that beholds.
 PIRATHON, _Pir´-a-thon_, his dissipation, deprivation; in Syriac, his
    vengeance.
 PIS´GAH, hill, eminence, fortress.
 PISIDIA, _Py-sid´-e-a_, pitch, pitchy.
 PI´SON, changing, doubling, extended.
 PI´THOM, their mouthful, bit, consummation.
 PI´THON, his mouth, his persuasion.
 POL´LUX, a boxer.
 PONTIUS, _Pon´-she-us_, marine, belonging to the sea.
 PON´TUS, the sea; from ϖόντος.
 PORATHA, _Por´-a-tha_, fruitful.
 PORCIUS, _Por´-she-us_.
 POTIPHAR, _Pot´-te-far_, bull of Africa, fat bull.
 POTI-PHERAH, _Pot-if´-fe-rah_ or _Pot-e-fee´-rah_, that scatters or
    demolishes the fat.
 PRISCA, _Pris´-kah_, ancient.
 PRISCILLA, _Pris-sil´-lah_, the same as Prisca.
 PROCHORUS, _Prok´-o-rus_, he that presides over the choirs.
 PUBLIUS, _Pub´-le-us_, common.
 PUDENS, _Pew´-dens_, shamefaced.
 PUL, bean, destruction.
 PU´NON, precious stone, that beholds.
 PUR, lot.
 PUTEOLI, _Pew-tee´-o-ly_, a city in Campania.
 PUTIEL, _Pew´-te-el_, God is my fatness.

 QUAR´TUS, the fourth.

 RAAMAH, _Ray´-a-mah_ or _Ra-ay´-mah_, greatness, thunder, evil,
    bruising.
 RAAMSES, _Ra-am´-ses_. See Rameses.
 RAB´BAH, powerful, contentious.
 RAB´-MAG, who overthrows a multitude, chief of the magicians.
 RAB´-SARIS, grand master of the eunuchs.
 RAB´-SHAKEH, cup-bearer of the prince, chamberlain.
 RACHAB, _Ray´-kab_, proud, strong, enlarged.
 RACHAL, _Ray´-kal_, injurious, perfumer.
 RACHEL, _Ray´-tshel_, a sheep.
 RAGAU, _Ray´-gaw_, a friend, a neighbour.
 RAGUEL, _Rag-ew´-el_, shepherd or friend of God.
 RA´HAB, proud, strong, quarrelsome.
 RA´HAB, large, extended, public place.
 RAK´KATH, empty, spittle.
 RAK´KON, vain, mountain of lamentations.
 RAM, elevated, who rejects.
 RAMAH, _Ray´-mah_, the same as Ram.
 RAMATH, _Ray´-math_, raised, lofty.
 RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, _Ra-math-ay´-im-zo´-fim_, the same as Ramah.
 RA´MATH-LE´HI, elevation of the jaw bone.
 RAMESES, _Ram´-e-ses_, thunder, he that destroys evil.
 RAMIAH, _Ram-i´-ah_, exaltation of the Lord.
 RA´MOTH, high places.
 RAPHA, _Ray´-fa_, relaxation, physic.
 RAPHAEL, _Ray-fay´-el_. See Rephael.
 RAPHU, _Ray´-few_, cured, comforted.
 RE´BA, the fourth, a square, that stoops.
 REBEK´AH, fat, quarrel appeased.
 RECHAB, _Re´-kab_, square, chariot, rider.
 RECHABITES, _Re´-kab-ites_, the posterity of Rechab.
 RE´GEM, _Re´-jem_, that stones, purple.
 REGEM-MELECH, _Re-jem´-me-lek_, he that stones the king, the purple of
    the king.
 REHABI´AH, breadth, place of the Lord.
 RE´HOB, breadth, extent.
 REHOBO´AM, who sets the people at liberty, space of the people.
 REHO´BOTH, spaces, places.
 RE´HUM, compassionate, friendly.
 RE´I, my shepherd, companion, my evil.
 REMALI´AH, the exaltation of the Lord.
 REM´MON, greatness, a pomegranate tree.
 REMPHAN, _Rem´-fan_, the name of an idol, which some think to be
    Saturn.
 REPHAEL, _Re´-fa-el_, the medicine of God.
 REPHAIM, REPHAIMS, _Re-fay´-im_, giant, physician, relaxed.
 REPHIDIM, _Ref´-e-dim_, beds, places of rest.
 RESIN, _Ree´-sen_, a bridle or bit.
 REU, _Ree´-ew_, his friend, his shepherd.
 REUBEN, _Rew´-ben_, who sees the son, vision of the son.
 REU´BENITES, the posterity of Reuben.
 REUEL, _Re-yew´-el_, shepherd or friend of God.
 REUMAH, _Re-yew´-mah_, lofty, sublime.
 REZEPH, _Ree´-zeff_, a pavement, burning coal.
 RE´ZIN, voluntary, runner.
 RE´ZON, lean, secret, prince.
 RHEGIUM, _Ree´-je-um_, rupture, fracture.
 RHESA, _Ree´-sah_, will, course.
 RHODA, _Ro´-dah_, a rose.
 RHODES, _Ro´des_, the same as Rhoda.
 RIB´LAH, quarrel that increases or spreads.
 RIM´MON, exalted, pomegranate.
 RIPHATH, _Ry´-fath_, remedy, release.
 RIS´SAH, watering, distillation, dew.
 RIZ´PAH, bed, extension, coal.
 ROGEL, _Ro´-jel_, a foot; in Syriac, custom.
 ROMAMTI-EZER, _Ro-mam-te-ee´-zer_, exultation of help.
 RO´MAN, strong, powerful.
 ROME, strength, power; from ῥωμὴ.
 ROSH, the head, the beginning.
 RU´FUS, red.
 RUHAMAH, _Ru-hay´-mah_, having obtained mercy.
 RU´MAH, exalted, rejected.
 RUTH, filled, satisfied.

 SABE´ANS, captivity, conversion, old age.
 SABTECHA, _Sab´-te-kah_, that surrounds.
 SA´DOC, just, justified.
 SA´LAH, mission, dart; according to the Syriac, that spoils.
 SALAMIS, _Sal´-la-mis_, shaken, tossed, beaten.
 SALATHIEL, _Sal-ay´-the-el_, I have asked of God.
 SA´LEM, complete, peace.
 SA´LIM. See Shalim.
 SAL´MON, peaceable, perfect, that rewards.
 SALMONE, _Sal-mo´-ne_, peaceable.
 SALOME, _Sa-lo´-me_. See Salmon.
 SAMARIA, _Sa-may´-re-a_, his guard, prison, or diamond; in Hebrew,
    _Shomeron_.
 SAMAR´ITANS, people of Samaria.
 SAM´LAH, raiment, his left hand, his name.
 SA´MOS, full of gravel.
 SAMOTHRACIA, _Sam-o-thray´-she-a_, an island so called because it was
    peopled by Samians and Thracians.
 SAM´SON, his sun; according to the Syriac, his service, here the second
    time.
 SAM´UEL, heard or asked of God.
 SANBAL´LAT, bush or enemy in secret.
 SAPH, _Saff_, rushes, end, threshold.
 SAPHIR, _Saf´fir_ or _Say´-fir_, a city.
 SAPPHIRA, _Saf-fy´-rah_, that tells, that writes books.
 SA´RAH, lady, princess of the multitude.
 SARAI, _Say´-ray_, my lady, my princess.
 SAR´DIS, prince or song of joy, what remains; in Syriac, a pot or
    kettle.
 SAREP´TA, a goldsmith’s shop, where metals used to be melted and tried.
 SAR´GON, who takes away protection, who takes away the garden;
    according to the Syriac, nets, snares.
 SA´RON. See Sharon.
 SARSECHIM, _Sar-see´-kim_, master of the wardrobe, of the perfumes.
 SARUCH, _Say´-ruk_, branch, layer, twining.
 SA´TAN, contrary, adversary, an accuser.
 SAUL, demanded, sepulchre, destroyer.
 SCEVA, _See´-vah_, disposed, prepared.
 SCYTHIAN, _Sith´-e-an_, tanner, leather-dresser.
 SE´BA, drunkard, that surrounds; according to the Syriac, old man.
 SE´BAT, twig, sceptre, tribe.
 SE´CUNDUS, the second.
 SE´GUB, fortified, raised.
 SEIR, _See´-er_, hairy, demon, tempest, barley.
 SE´LAH, a rock.
 SELEUCIA, _Se-lew´-she-a_, beaten by waves, runs as a river.
 SEMEI, _Sem´-me-i_, or _Se-mee´-i_, hearing, obeying.
 SE´NEH, bush.
 SE´NIR, a sleeping candle, a changing.
 SENNACHERIB, _Sen-nak´-ke-rib_, bush of the destruction of the sword,
    of drought.
 SEPHAR, _See´-far_, a book, scribe; in Syriac, a haven.
 SEPHARAD, _See-fay´-rad_, a book, descending, ruling.
 SEPHARVAIM, _Sef-ar-vay´-im_, two books, two scribes.
 SE´RAH, lady of scent, song, the morning.
 SERAIAH, _Se-ra-i´-ah_ or _Se-ray´-yah_, prince of the Lord.
 SERGIUS, _Ser´-je-us_, a net.
 SE´RUG. See Saruch.
 SETH, put, who puts.
 SHAALBIM, _Shay-alb´-im_, that beholds the heart.
 SHAARAIM, _Shay-a-ray´-im_, gates, valuation, hairs, barley, tempests,
    demons.
 SHAASHGAZ, _Shay-ash´-gaz_, he that presses the fleece.
 SHADRACH, _Shay´-drak_, tender nipple, tender field.
 SHA´LIM, fox, fist, path.
 SHALISHA, _Shal´-e-shah_, three, the third, prince.
 SHAL´LECHETH, a casting out.
 SHAL´LUM, perfect, peaceable.
 SHAL´MAN, peaceable, perfect, that rewards.
 SHALMANEZER, _Shal-ma-nee´-zer_, peace tied, perfection and
    retribution.
 SHAM´GAR, named a stranger, he is here a stranger, surprise of the
    stranger.
 SHAM´HUTH, desolation, astonishment.
 SHA´MIR, prison, bush, lees.
 SHAM´MAH, loss, desolation, astonishment.
 SHAMMUAH, _Sham´-mew-ah_, that is heard or obeyed.
 SHAPHAN, _Shay´-fan_, a rabbit, wild rat, their lip.
 SHAPHAT, _Shay´-fat_, a judge.
 SHARAI, _Shar´-a-i_ or _Sha-ray´-i_, my lord, my song.
 SHAREZER, _Shar-ee´-zer_, overseer of the treasury.
 SHA´RON, his plain, field, song.
 SHA´SHAK, a bag of linen, the sixth bag.
 SHA´VEH, the plain, that makes equality.
 SHEALTIEL, _She-al´-te-el_, I have asked of God.
 SHEARIAH, _She-a-ry´-ah_, gate or tempest of the Lord.
 SHE´AR-JA´SHUB, the remnant shall return.
 SHE´BA, captivity, compassing about, repose, old age.
 SHEBANIAH, _Sheb-a-ny´-ah_, the Lord that converts, that recals from
    captivity, that understands.
 SHEB´NA, who rests himself, who is now captive.
 SHECHEM, _Shee´-kem_, portion, the back, shoulders.
 SHEDEUR, _Shee´-de-ur_ or _Shed´-e-ur_, field, destroyer of fire.
 SHE´LAH, that breaks, that undresses.
 SHELEMIAH, _Shel-le-my´-ah_, God is my perfection, my happiness.
 SHELEPH, _Shee´-lef_, who draws out.
 SHEL´OMITH, my happiness, my recompense.
 SHELUMIEL, _Shel-ew-my´-el_, happiness, retribution of God.
 SHEM, name, renown, he that places.
 SHEMAIAH, _She-ma-i´-ah_ or _Shem-ay´-yah_, that obeys the Lord.
 SHEMARIAH, _Shem-a-ry´-ah_, God is my guard, diamond.
 SHEMEBER, _Shem´-me-ber_, name of force, fame of the strong.
 SHEMER, _Shee´-mer_, guardian, thorn.
 SHEMIDA, _She-my´-dah_, name of knowledge, that puts knowledge, the
    science of the heavens.
 SHEMINITH, _Shem´-me-nith_, the eighth.
 SHEMIRAMOTH, _She-mir´-ra-moth_, the height of the heavens, the
    elevation of the name.
 SHEN, tooth, change, he that sleeps.
 SHENIR, _Shee´-nir_, lantern, light that sleeps, he that shows.
 SHEPHATIAH, _Shef-a-ty´-ah_, the Lord that judges.
 SHESHACH, _Shee´-shak_, bag of flax, the sixth bag.
 SHESHBAZZAR, _Shesh-baz´-zar_, joy in tribulation, or of vintage.
 SHETH. See Seth.
 SHETHER-BOZNAI, _Shee´-ther-boz´-na-i_, that makes to rot and corrupt.
 SHE´VA, vanity, elevation, fame, tumult.
 SHIBBOLETH, _Shib´-bo-leth_, burden, ear of corn.
 SHICRON, _Shy´-kron_, drunkenness, his wages.
 SHIGGAION, _Shig-gay´-yon_, a song of trouble.
 SHIGIONOTH, _Shig-gy´-on-oth_, mournful music.
 SHILOAH, _Shy-lo´-ah_. See Siloah.
 SHI´LOH, sent, the Apostle.
 SHI´LOH, peace, abundance.
 SHILONITE, _Shy´-lo-nyte_, of the city of Shiloh.
 SHIMEAH, _Shim´-me-ah_, that hears, that obeys.
 SHIMEI, _Shim´-me-i_, that hears, name of the heap, my reputation.
 SHIMSHAI, _Shim´-shay_, my sun.
 SHINAR, _Shy´-nar_, the watching of him that sleeps, change of the
    city.
 SHIPHRAH, _Shif´-rah_, handsome, trumpet, that does good.
 SHI´SHAK, present of the bag, of the pot, of the thigh.
 SHIT´TIM, that turn away, scourges, rods.
 SHO´A, tyrants.
 SHO´BAB, returned, turned back.
 SHO´BACH, your bonds, your nets, his captivity; according to the
    Syriac, a dove house.
 SHOCHOH, _Sho´-koh_, defence, a bough.
 SHOSHAN´NIM, lilies of the testimony.
 SHU´AH, pit, humiliation, meditation.
 SHU´AL, fox, hand, fist, traces, way.
 SHU´HITE, a descendant of Shuah.
 SHU´LAMITE, peaceable, perfect, that recompenses.
 SHU´NAMITE, a native of Shunem.
 SHU´NEM, their change, their sleep.
 SHUR, wall, ox.
 SHU´SHAN, lily, rose, joy.
 SHU´THELAH, plant, verdure, moist pot.
 SIB´MAH, conversion, captivity, old age, rest.
 SICHEM, _Sy´-kem_. See Shechem.
 SI´DON, hunting, fishing, venison.
 SIGIONOTH, _Sig-gy´-o-noth_, according to variable tunes.
 SI´HON, rooting out, conclusion.
 SI´HOR, black, trouble, early in the morn.
 SI´LAS, three, the third.
 SILOAS, _Sil´-o-as_ or _Sy-lo´-as_, SILOAM, _Sil´-o-am_ or _Sy-lo´-am_,
    sent, dart, branch.
 SILOE, _Sil´-o-e_ or _Sy-lo´-e_, the same as Siloas.
 SILVA´NUS, one who loves the woods.
 SIM´EON, that hears or obeys.
 SI´MON, that hears or obeys.
 SIN, bush.
 SINAI, _Sy´-nay_ or _Sy´-nay-i_, bush, according to the Syriac, enmity.
 SI´NIM, the south country.
 SI´ON, noise, tumult.
 SI´RAH, turning aside, rebellion.
 SIRION, _Sir´-re-on_, a breastplate, deliverance.
 SISERA, _Sis´-se-rah_, that sees a horse or swallow.
 SI´VAN, bush, thorn.
 SMYR´NA, myrrh.
 SO, a measure for grain or dry matters.
 SO´COH, tents, tabernacles.
 SO´DI, my secret.
 SODOM, _Sod´-dom_, their secret, their lime, their cement.
 SODOMITES, _Sod´-dom-ites_, inhabitants of Sodom.
 SOL´OMON, peaceable, perfect, one who recompenses.
 SOPATER, _So-pay´-ter_, who defends or saves his father.
 SO´REK, hissing, a colour inclining to yellow.
 SOSIPATER, _So-se-pay´-ter_. See Sopater.
 SOSTHENES, _Sos´-the-nes_, a strong and powerful saviour.
 SPAIN, rare, precious.
 STACHYS, _Stay´-kis_, spike; from ϛάχυς.
 STEPHANAS, _Stef´-fa-nas_, a crown, crowned.
 STE´PHEN, _the same as_ Stephanas.
 SUC´COTH, tents, tabernacles.
 SUC´COTH-BE´NOTH, the tabernacles of young women.
 SUK´KIIMS, covered, shadowed.
 SUR, that withdraws or departs.
 SUSAN´NA, a lily, a rose, joy.
 SUSI, _Su´-sy_, horse, swallow, moth.
 SYCHAR, _Sy´-kar_, the name of a city.
 SYENE, _Sy-ee´-ne_, bush; according to the Syriac, enmity.
 SYNTYCHE, _Sin´-te-ke_, that speaks or discourses.
 SYRACUSE, _Sir´-ra-kewse_, that draws violently.
 SYRIA, _Sir´-re-a_, in Hebrew, _Aram_, sublime, deceiving.
 SYRIAC, SYRIAN, _Sir´-re-ak_, _Sir´-re-an_, of Syria.
 SYRIANS, _Sir´-re-ans_, inhabitants of Syria.
 SYRO-PHENICIAN, _Sy´-ro-fe-nish´-e-an_, purple, drawn to; from σύρω, _I
    draw_, and φοῖνιξ, _red palm tree_.

 TAANACH, _Tay´-a-nak_, or _Ta-ay´-nak_, who humbles or answers thee.
 TAB´BATH, good, goodness.
 TABEAL, _Tay´-be-al_ or _Tab-ee´-al_, good God.
 TABEEL, _Tay´-be-el_ or _Tab-ee´-el_, the same as Tabeal.
 TABERAH, _Tab´-e-rah_ or _Tab-ee´-rah_, burning.
 TABITHA, _Tab´-e-tha_, in Syriac, clear sighted; she is also called
    Dorcas, wild goat.
 TA´BOR, choice; in Syriac, contrition.
 TABRIMON, _Tab´-re-mon_, good promegranate.
 TAD´MOR, palm tree, change.
 TAHAPANES, _Ta-hap´-pa-nes_, secret temptation.
 TAHPENES, _Tah´-pe-nes_, standard, flight.
 TALITHA-CUMI, _Tal´-le-tha-kew´-my_, young woman, arise.
 TALMAI, _Tal´-may_, my furrow, heap of waters.
 TA´MAR, a palm, palm tree.
 TAM´MUZ, abstruse, concealed.
 TANHUMETH, _Tan-hew´-meth_ or _Tan´-hu-meth_, consolation, repentance.
 TAPHATH, _Tay´-fath_, little girl.
 TAR´PELITES, ravishers, wearied.
 TAR´SHISH, contemplation of the marble.
 TAR´SUS, winged, feathered.
 TAR´TAK, chained, bound, shut up.
 TAR´TAN, that searches the gift of the turtle.
 TATNAI, _Tat´-nay_, that gives.
 TE´BAH, murder, a cook.
 TE´BETH, the Babylonish name of the tenth month of the Hebrews.
 TE´KEL, weight.
 TEKOA, _Te-ko´-ah_, sound of the trumpet.
 TEL´ABID, a heap of new grain.
 TEL-HARSA, _Tel-har´-sah_, heap, suspension of the plough or of the
    head.
 TE´LIETH, goodness.
 TEL-MELAH, _Tel´-me-lah_ or _Tel-mee´-lah_, heap of salt or of
    mariners.
 TE´MA, admiration, perfection.
 TE´MAN, the south, Africa.
 TE´MANITE, an inhabitant of Teman.
 TE´RAH, to breathe, to scent, to blow.
 TERAPHIM, _Ter´-ra-fim_, an image, an idol.
 TERTIUS, _Ter´-she-us_, the third.
 TERTUL´LUS, a liar, an impostor.
 TETRARCH, _Tet´-rark_ or _Tee´-trarck_, governor of a fourth part of a
    kingdom.
 THADDEUS, _Thad-dee´-us_, that praises.
 THA´HASH, that makes haste, or keeps silence.
 THA´MAH, that blots out or suppresses.
 THA´MAR. See Tamar.
 THAM´MUZ. See Tammuz.
 THE´BEZ, muddy, silk.
 THELASAR, _The-lass´-ar_, that unbinds and grants the suspension or
    heap.
 THEOPHILUS, _The-of´-fe-las_, a friend of God.
 THESSALONICA, _Thes-sa-lo-ny´-kah_, victory against the Thessalians.
 THEUDAS, _Thew´-das_, a false teacher.
 THOMAS, _Tom´-mas_, a twin.
 THUM´MIM, truth, perfection.
 THYATIRA, _Thy-a-ty´-rah_, a sweet savour of labour or sacrifice of
    contrition.
 TIBERIAS, _Ti-bee´-re-as_, good vision.
 TIBERIUS, _Ti-bee´-re-us_, son of Tiber.
 TIB´NI, straw, understanding.
 TI´DAL, that breaks the yoke.
 TIGLATH-PILESER, _Tig´-lath-pi-lee´-zer_, that takes away captivity,
    miraculous.
 TIK´VAH, hope, a congregation.
 TIMEUS, _Ti-mee´-us_, in Greek, perfect, honourable; in Hebrew,
    admirable.
 TIM´-NATH, image, enumeration.
 TIMNATH-HERES, _Tim´-nath-hee´-res_, image of the dumb.
 TI´MON, honourable.
 TIMO´THEUS, honour of God, valued of God.
 TIPHSAH, _Tif´-sah_, passage, passover.
 TIRHAKAH, _Tir-hay´-kah_ or _Tir´-ha-kah_, inquirer, law made dull.
 TIRSHATHA, _Tir-shay´-tha_, that overturns the foundation; in Syriac,
    that beholds the time.
 TIR´ZAH, benevolent, pleasant.
 TISH´BITE, that makes captives, that dwells.
 TI´TUS, honourable; from τίω, _I honour_.
 TO´AH, a weapon.
 TOB, good, goodness.
 TOB-ADONIJAH, _Tob´-ad-o-ny´-jah_, my good God.
 TOBI´AH, the Lord is good.
 TOGAR´MAH, which is all bone, strong.
 TO´HU, that lives or declares.
 TOI, _To´-i_, who wanders.
 TO´LA, worm, scarlet.
 TO´LAD, nativity.
 TOPHEL, _To´-fel_, ruin, folly, insipid.
 TOPHET, _To´-fet_, a drum, betraying.
 TRO´AS, penetrated.
 TROGYLLIUM, _Tro-jil´-le-um_, a city in the isle of Samos.
 TROPHIMUS, _Trof´-fe-mus_, well educated.
 TRYPHENA, _Try-fee´-nah_, delicate.
 TRYPHO´SA, thrice shining.
 TU´BAL, the earth, confusion.
 TU´BAL-CAI´N, worldly possession, jealous of confusion.
 TYCHICUS, _Tik´-e-kus_, casual, happening.
 TYRAN´NUS, a prince, one that reigns.
 TYRE, TY´RUS, in Hebrew, _Sor_ or _Tzur_, strength.

 UCAL, _Yew´-kal_, power, prevalency.
 ULAI, _Yew´-la-i_ or _Yew-lay´_, strength.
 ULAM, _Yew´-lam_, the porch, their strength.
 UL´LA, elevation, holocaust, leaf.
 UN´NI, poor, afflicted.
 UPHAZ, _Yew´-faz_, gold of Phasis or Pison.
 UR, fire, light.
 URBA´NUS, civil, courteous.
 URI, _Yew´-ry_, my light or fire.
 URIAH, URIJAH, _Yew-ry´-ah_, _Yew-ry´-jah_, the Lord is my light or
    fire.
 URI´EL, God is my light or fire.
 URIM and THUMMIM, _Yew´-rim_ and _Thum´-mim_, lights and perfection.
 UZ, counsel; in Syriac, to fix.
 UZ´ZAH, strength, a goat.
 UZZEN-SHERAH, _Uz´-zen-shee´-rah_, ear of the flesh or of the parent.
 UZ´ZI, my strength, my kid.
 UZZI´AH, the strength of the Lord.
 UZZI´EL, the strength of God.
 UZZIELITES, _Uz-zy´-el-ites_, the posterity of Uzziel.

 VASH´NI, the second.
 VASH´TI, that drinks, thread.
 VOPHSI, _Vof´-sy_, fragment, diminution.

 ZAANA´NIM, movings.
 ZA´BAD, a dowry.
 ZAB´DI, portion, dowry.
 ZACCHEUS, _Zak-kee´-us_, pure, justified.
 ZACHARI´AH, memory of the Lord.
 ZA´DOK, just, justified.
 ZA´HAM, crime, impurity.
 ZAIR, _Zay´-ir_, little, afflicted.
 ZAL´MON, his shade, obscurity.
 ZALMO´NAH, the shade, your image.
 ZALMUN´NA, shadow, image.
 ZAMZUM´MIMS, thinking, wickedness.
 ZANO´AH, forgetfulness, this rest.
 ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH, _Zaf´-nath-pay-a-nee´-ah_, one that discovers hidden
    things; in the Egyptian tongue, a saviour of the world.
 ZA´RAH, east, brightness.
 ZAREPHATH, _Zar´-re-fath_, ambush of the mouth.
 ZARE´TAN, tribulation, perplexity.
 ZA´ZA, belonging to all; in Syriac, going back.
 ZEBADI´AH, portion of the Lord.
 ZE´BAH, victim, immolation.
 ZEB´EDEE, abundant portion.
 ZEBO´IM, deer, goats.
 ZE´BUL, a habitation.
 ZEB´ULUN, dwelling, habitation.
 ZECHARI´AH. See Zachariah.
 ZE´DAD, his side, his hunting.
 ZEDEKI´AH, the Lord is my justice.
 ZEEB, _Zee´-eb_, wolf.
 ZE´LEK, the noise of him that licks or laps.
 ZELOPHEHAD, _Ze-lo´-fe-ad_, the shade or tingling of fear.
 ZELOTES, _Ze-lo´-tes_, jealous, full of zeal.
 ZEL´ZAH, noontide.
 ZE´NAS, living.
 ZEPHANI´AH, the Lord is my secret, the mouth of the Lord.
 ZEPHATH, _Zee´-fath_, which beholds, attends.
 ZE´PHO, that sees and observes.
 ZER, perplexity, tribulation, a rock.
 ZE´RAH. See Zarah.
 ZEREDAH, _Zer´-e-dah_ or _Ze-ree´-dah_, ambush.
 ZE´RESH, misery, stranger.
 ZE´ROR, root, that straitens, a stone.
 ZERU´AH, leprous, hornet.
 ZERUBBABEL, _Ze-rub´-ba-bel_, banished, a stranger at Babylon,
    dispersion of confusion.
 ZERUIAH, _Zer-ew-i´-ah_, pain, tribulation.
 ZE´THAN, their olive.
 ZE´THAR, he that examines or beholds.
 ZI´BA, army, fight, strength, stag.
 ZIB´EON, iniquity that dwells, the seventh.
 ZIB´IAH, deer, goat, honourable and fine.
 ZICHRI, _Zic´-ry_, that remembers, a male.
 ZID´DIM, huntings; in Syriac, destructions.
 ZI´DON, hunting, fishing, venison.
 ZIDO´NIANS, inhabitants of Zidon.
 ZIF, this, that; according to the Syriac, brightness.
 ZIK´LAG, measure pressed down.
 ZIL´LAH, shadow, which is roasted, the tingling of the ear.
 ZIL´PAH, distillation, contempt of the mouth.
 ZIM´RAN, song, singer, vine.
 ZIM´RI, my field, my vine, my branch.
 ZIN, buckler, coldness.
 ZI´ON, a monument, sepulchre, turret.
 ZI´OR, ship of him that watches, ship of the enemy.
 ZIPH, _Ziff_, this mouth, mouthful.
 ZIP´POR, bird, crown; according to the Syriac, early in the morning,
    goat.
 ZIP´PORAH, beauty, trumpet.
 ZITH´RI, to hide, overturned.
 ZIZ, flower, a lock of hair; according to the Syriac, wing, feather.
 ZI´ZA. See Zaza.
 ZO´AN, motion.
 ZO´AR, little, small.
 ZO´BAH, an army, a swelling.
 ZO´HAR, white, shining, dryness.
 ZOHE´LETH, that creeps or draws.
 ZOPHAR, _Zo´-far_, rising early, crown; in Syriac, sparrow, goat.
 ZO´RAH, leprosy, scab.
 ZOROBABEL, _Zo-rob´-ba-bel_. See Zerubbabel.
 ZUAR, _Zew´-ar_, small.
 ZUPH, that observes, roof.
 ZUR, stone, plan, form.
 ZURI´EL, the rock or strength of God.
 ZURISHADDAI, _Zew´-ry-shad´-da-i_, the Almighty is my rock, splendour,
    beauty.
 ZU´ZIMS, the posts of a door, splendour; in Syriac, departing, money;
    in Chaldee, strong.

                                 TABLES
                                   OF
                   THE WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MONEY,
                        MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.


            JEWISH WEIGHTS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH TROY WEIGHT.

                                                  lbs.   ozs.   pen.    gr.

 The Gerah, the twentieth part of a Shekel           0      0      0     12

 The Bekah, half a Shekel                            0      0      5      0

 The Shekel                                          0      0     10      0

 The Maneh, sixty Shekels                            2      6      0      0

 The Talent, fifty Maneh, or three thousand        125      0      0      0
 Shekels

According to the bishop of Peterborough’s calculations, the Gerah is
nearly equal to 11 grains Troy; the Bekah, to about 4¾ pennyweights; and
the Shekel, to about 9⅛ pennyweights.


           TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF LENGTH, REDUCED TO
                            ENGLISH MEASURE.

                            SHORT MEASURES.

 │                                                          English Inches.
 │                                                           feet.

 │Digit                                                          0  0.912

 │    4 Palm                                                     0  3.684

 │   12     3 Span                                               0 10.944

 │   24     6     3 Cubit                                        1  9.888

 │   96    24     6     2 Fathom                                 7  3.552

 │  144    36    12     6   1.5 Ezekiel’s reed                  10 11.328

 │  192    48    16     8     2   1.3 Arabian pole              14  7.104

 │ 1920   480   160    80    20  13.3    10 Schœnus’s       145  11.04
 │                                          meas’ng line

                             LONG MEASURES.

 │                                                  English Paces.  Feet.
 │                                                  miles.

 │Cubit                                                  0      0  1.824

 │   400 Stadium or Furlong                              0    145    4.6

 │  2000     5 Sabbath day’s journey                     0    729    3.0

 │  4000    10     2 Eastern mile                        1    403    1.0

 │ 12000    30     6     3 Parasang                      4    153    3.0

 │ 96000   240    48    24     8 A day’s journey        33    172    4.0

                      ⁂ 5 Feet=1 Pace; 1056=1 mile.
    According to the bishop of Peterborough, a Parasang is equal to 4
                            miles, 116 paces.
         FOR TABLES OF TIME SEE THE ARTICLES “MONTHS” AND “DAY.”


               TABLES OF SCRIPTURE MEASURES OF CAPACITY.
         MEASURES FOR LIQUIDS, REDUCED TO ENGLISH WINE MEASURE.

   │                                                    Gallons. Pints.

   │Caph                                                     0  0.625

   │  1.3 Log                                                0  0.833

   │  5.3     4 Cab                                          0  3.333

   │   16    12     3 Hin                                    1      2

   │   32    24     6     2 Seah                             2      4

   │   96    72    18     6     3 Bath or Epha               7      4

   │  960   720   180    60    20    10 Chomer, Homer,      75      5
   │                                    Kor, or Coros

The Omer was one-tenth of an Epha, and contained 6 pints; the Metretes
    of Syria, translated in John ii, 6, “firkins,” 7⅛ pints; and the
    eastern Cotyla, half a pint. This Cotyla, says the bishop of
    Peterborough, contains just 10 ounces Averdupois of rain water; the
    Omer, 100 ounces; the Epha, 1000; and the Chomer, 10,000 ounces. So
    by these weights all these measures of capacity may be expeditiously
    recovered to a near exactness.

       MEASURES FOR THINGS DRY, REDUCED TO ENGLISH CORN MEASURE.

 │                                                         Pecks.  Gals. Pints.
 │Gachal                                                        0      0 0.1416
 │   20 Cab                                                     0      0 2.8333
 │   36   1.8 Omer or Gomer                                     0      0    5.1
 │  120     6   3.3 Seah                                        1      0      1
 │  360    18    10     3 Epha                                  3      0      3
 │ 1800    90    50    15     5 Letech                         16      0      0
 │ 3600   180   100    30    10     2 Chomer Homer, &c.        32      0      0

                            TABLES OF MONEY.
             JEWISH MONEY, REDUCED TO THE ENGLISH STANDARD.

   │                                                  £.    s.    d.
   │                    Gerah                          0     0 1.3687
   │     10                 Bekah                      0     1 1.6875
   │     20     2              Shekel                  0     2 3.375
   │   1200   120    50  Maneh, or Mina Hebraica       5    14  0.75
   │ 60,000  6000  3000    60        Talent          342     3     9

    Solidus Aureus, or Sextula, was worth              0    12   0.5
    Siclus Aureus, or Gold Shekel                      1    16     6
    Talent of Gold                                  5475     0     0

The bishop of Peterborough makes the Mina Hebraica to contain 60
    Shekels, and to weigh 27 oz. 7½ dwts.; which, at 5_s._ per ounce,
    will amount to 6_l._ 16_s._ 10½_d._; and the Talent of Silver to
    contain 50 Minæ, which, at 5_s._, will equal the amount in this
    table, 342_l._ 3_s._ 9_d._

      ROMAN MONEY, MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, REDUCED TO THE
                           ENGLISH STANDARD.

                                                    £.     s.     d.   far.
 Mite (Assarium)                                     0      0      0      ¾
 Farthing, (Quadrans,) about                         0      0      0     1½
 Penny, or Denarius (Silver)                         0      0      7      3
 Pound, or Mina                                      3      2      6      0

    According to the bishop of Peterborough, the Roman Mite is one-third
    of our farthing; Quadrans, three-fourths of a farthing; the
    Assarium, a farthing and a half; and the Assis three farthings.

    ⁂ _In the preceding Tables, Silver is valued at 5s., and Gold at £4.
                                per ounce._


SINCE the publication, in 1727, of Dr. Arbuthnot’s “Tables of Ancient
    Coins, Weights, and Measures,” that celebrated work has been
    regarded by the best divines as the general standard on these
    difficult subjects. More recently the bishop of Peterborough has
    rendered good service to this part of Biblical antiquity by entering
    into several nice and extensive calculations on the weights and
    measures mentioned in the Bible, which have, with very few
    exceptions, confirmed the previous investigations of Dr. Arbuthnot:
    and as the axiom, “What is new in theology is false,” holds good
    only in regard to the _doctrines_ of Scripture, and not to its
    _statics_ and _numismatics_, no hesitation has been felt in
    presenting the reader, under each of the preceding Tables, with some
    of the most important of the results which the bishop has thus
    obtained.

In the abstruse department of mensuration of superficies, the same
    learned prelate has also ably demonstrated, that _the altar of
    incense_, described in Exodus xxx, 2, as consisting of a cubit in
    length, and a cubit in breadth, and yet “four-square,” contained
    exactly one square cubit, that is, three English square feet, and
    about forty-seven square inches;--that _the table of_ _shew bread_,
    described in Exodus xxv, 23, as being two cubits long and one broad,
    and rectangular, contained above six English square feet;--that _the
    boards of the tabernacle_, described in Exodus xxvi, 16, as ten
    cubits in length and a cubit and a half in breadth, and rectangular,
    contained nearly fifty square feet of English measure;--that _the
    mercy seat_, which Moses is directed to make “two cubits and a half
    the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof,”
    Exodus xxv, 17, contained twelve and a half square feet;--that _the
    altar of incense_, which was directed to be “a cubit the length
    thereof and a cubit the breadth thereof, and four square,” Exodus
    xxx, 2, contained upward of three square feet;--that _the court of
    the tabernacle_, the orders concerning which were, “The length of
    the court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty every
    where,” Exodus xxvii, 18, comprised upward of sixteen thousand six
    hundred and thirty-four square feet, or in English land measure one
    rood, twenty-one perches, and twenty-seven and a half feet;--and
    that _the Levites’ glebe_, which is thus described in Numbers xxxv,
    3–5: “The cities they shall have to dwell in: and the suburbs of
    them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all
    their beasts. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give
    unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward
    a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the
    city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two
    thousand cubits,” &c; “and the city shall be in the midst;”
    contained three hundred and five acres, two roods, and one perch,
    which was, for each of the four sides, seventy-six acres, one rood,
    twenty perches, and eighty square feet.

Respecting the Egyptian _aroura_, which is sometimes mistranslated
    “acre,” the bishop remarks, “Reflecting upon Moses’ measure by
    cubits, and,” in the case of _the court of the tabernacle_, “finding
    them to be precisely five thousand square cubits, I observed that
    they were just half ten thousand, which I had observed from
    Herodotus to be the area of the Egyptian _aroura_, by which their
    land was as generally measured as ours is by acres and roods. I
    called also to mind a passage in Manetho, an Egyptian priest, cited
    by Josephus, in his first book against Apion, where he affirms, that
    Manetho, in his history of the reign, wars, and expulsion of the
    Pastors, (whom Africanus affirms to be Phenicians or Canaanites, and
    Josephus vainly believed to be Jews,) wrote out of the public
    records of Egypt, that these Pastors made at Abaris a very large and
    strong encampment, that encompassed ten thousand _arouræ_,
    sufficient to contain two hundred and forty thousand men, and long
    to maintain their cattle. Hence it appears, that not only the
    Egyptians, but also the Phenicians or Canaanites, that had dwelt
    among them, and had reigned there during the time of six kings
    successively, used this measure of land called _aroura_. Now this
    was long before the time of Moses; for the beginning of Amosis or
    Tethmosis, who expelled them out of Egypt, was very near the time of
    Abraham’s death. Wherefore I believe that Moses, who was skilled in
    all Egyptian learning, especially in surveying, did of choice make
    _the court of the tabernacle_ to be just half an _aroura_, which was
    a known measure to him and his people, and that divine authority
    directed him so to do.” In another part of his work he reduces the
    Egyptian _aroura_ into English measure, and finds it to be three
    roods, two perches, and fifty-five and a quarter square feet.

                                THE END.

 UNDER THE ARTICLE
 APOSTLES’ CREED, for Creed,         read _Confessions of Faith_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Transcriber’s Note

Minor lapses in punctuation, including missing full stops and
end-of-line hyphens, have been corrected with no further notice. In a
work this large, it is inevitable that some inconsistencies in format
will occur, which have been set right.

There are some variants of spelling which have, in general, been
retained, given the wide range of sources employed by the author. The
use of the diaeresis in words like ‘coöperate’ or ‘reëstablishment’ was
not followed where the prefix appeared hyphenated on a line break (e.g.
‘re-establishment’). These have been rendered here using the diaeresis.

A passage from Chardin, cited on p. 250, has an un-opened quotation, the
beginning of which has been placed as noted below, based on other
commentaries citing Chardin on Psalms 90.4.

Most internal references refer to the main topics, which are typically
in UPPERCASE characters, but on occasion refer to subtopics in mixed
SMALLCAP font, or, rarely, to keywords in paragraphs (e.g., allegory).

The main entry for MOAB was printed in a normal font, and so could be
easily missed. That has been corrected here to follow the conventional
printing.

The Alphabetical Table of Proper Names, at the end of the text, also
contains a number of internal references. These refer to other entries
in that table.

In the article for CRANE, the Hebrew שיש (marble) is given for ‘crane’,
from Jer. viii, 7. The word סיס, or ‘swift’ would seem to have been
meant. In the alphabetical index of names, a reference to ‘Siloah’ has
no obvious referent.

The article for REED directs the reader to an article for CANE, which is
not in the text.

The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions. The
references in the first column are to the page, column, and line in the
original text.

  7.2.39   who gave Golia[t]h’s sword                     Added.

  47.1.58  Καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσω ἀυτου ὡς ὅρασις ἠλεκτρȣ ἐν μέσῳ Replaced.
           [το͂ν/τοῦ] ϖυρὸς

  90.2.69  has been much misrepresented[.]                Added.

  93.2.29  it is necessary, in order [] to his salvation  _sic_:
                                                          obtain?

  94.2.47  as it does [ ] this day                        _sic_: to?

  101.1.9  are undoub[t]edly mentioned                    Added.

  111.1.52 in the habit of refer[r]ing with approbation   Added.

  113.2.20 the arguments of St. A[u]gustine               Added.

  116.2    observed[,] some remains of these enclosures   Removed.

  137.2.60 the Prophet says[./,] ‘Of the oaks of Bashan   Replaced.

  139.1.20 [the rendering of an equivalent:][)]'>         Parenthesis
                                                          added.

  140.2.32 The following observations[./,] from           Replaced.

  143.1.42 exposed in the amp[h]itheatre to fight         Added.

  171.2.16 The word[,] is formed from the Gothic          Removed.

  160.1.25 the truth of the princ[i]pal facts             Added.

  185.1.8  “the Memphian” or Egyptian [“]boat is made     Removed.

  188.1.37 eso[r/t]etic, or concealed doctrine            Replaced.

  201.2.32 became permanently settled at the diet of      Added.
           Au[g]sburg

  202.1.48 and those who are not, accepted.[’]            Probable.

  207.1.59 is directed again[s]t Canaan                   Added.

  207.2.9  in his de[s]cendants                           Added.

  214.1.31 with hair standing [a/o]n end on it            Replaced.

  217.2.23 for their perusal.[”]                          Removed.

  224.1.20 like that of the pine.[”]                      Added.

  236.1.7  who holds her balance[,/.]                     Replaced.

  236.2.12 more substantial world[l]y benefits            Added.

  236.2.48 Here the Christ[ai/ia]n                        Transposed.

  241.2.4  which was to be pe[r]formed                    Added.

  244.1.13 which have no s[pu/up]port from the magistracy Transposed.

  250.1.36 that [“]as the people of the east have no      Added.
           clocks

  259.2.54 as it occurs in the [T/N]ew Testament          Replaced.

  268.2.9  whether they were gold or brass.[”]            Added.

  274.2.54 two birds are mentioned, the [שיש/סיס>]        Replaced.

  278.2.38 increases the p[io/oi] of the suffering        Transposed.

  285.1.19 Who call thee by thy name, am THE GOD OF       Added.
           ISRAEL.[”]>

  303.2.32 ‘all sick people,[’] that were taken with      Removed.
           divers diseases

  307.2.54 which occurs under the word, [סמפחת/מספחת],    מס
           Lev. xiii, 6–8, 29.                            transposed.

  318.2.47 “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness      Added.
           thereof[”], Psalm xxiv, 1;

  325.1.20 in his “Instit[ut]utes,” he confirmed          Removed.

  331.1.16 Volney’s account is suffic[i]ently descriptive Added.

  333.2.25 placed by the Egy[p]tian task-masters          Added.

  336.1.24 as consisting in outward wor[l]dly             Added.
           institutions

  337.2.12 all visible ack[n]owledgment of them           Added.

  343.2.31 reckon the dog a filt[h]y creature             Added.

  348.2.24 I am with you alway[s]                         Added.

  350.2.29 They have eleven dioces[s]es                   Removed.

  352.1.58 and they were pun[n]ished for their            Removed.
           presumption

  356.2.31 answers to the artific[i]al conception         Added.

  372.1.15 can consisten[t]ly refuse to admit             Added.

  373.2.46 while the bride[./-]groom is with them?        Replaced.

  382.2.38 If, then, such was [s/t]he superstitious       Replaced.
           homage

  382.2.45 “is Arabic, and signifies _the fly_ in         Added.
           general.[”]

  394.1.17 in the amp[h]itheatre at Tiberias              Added.

  394.1.30 “They gave me ראש to eat[”];                   Added.

  415.1.50 the Egyptians, Prussians, Lithu[a]nians,       Added.
           Samogitians, &c.

  416.1.38 to kill his b[r]other Jacob                    Added.

  424.2.31 not a bunch of grapes left [of/for] those who  Replaced/
           came to glean.

  438.2.31 church of the[-first / first-]born             Transposed.

  438.2.55 to make a t[py/yp]ical atonement               Transposed.

  442.2.23 the gifts of the Holy [C/G]host                Replaced.

  445.2.1  Hebron is now called El [H/K]halil;            Replaced.

  450.2.3  [Σ/Ἐ]ν τῶ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων                Replaced.

  452.2.39 the only su[r]viving male                      Added.

  462.2.41 [B/b]y the ‘testimony of the Spirit,’ I mean,  Replaced.

  469.2.25 A spacious bowl th[e]’ admiring patriarch      Removed.
           fills

  474.1.47 “counterfeit,”  signif[i]es also a profane     Added.
           wicked man

  481.1.47 according to their origin[i]al institution     Removed.

  487.2.46 are built upon the foundati[a/o]n of the       Replaced.
           Apostles

  493.2.65 was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and   Missing,
           Jacob, Gen. xxxv,[ 29.]                        provided.

  498.1.40 when [“]the Edomites revolted                  Added.

  501.1.56 admitted till after the fourth[,] century      Removed.

  524.1.42 simply as a p[r]ediction prior to the event    Added.

  531.1.19 who occasion[al]ly sent officers               Added.

  538.1.35 the total absence of eve[ry/n] the slightest   Replaced.
           allusion

  539.2.33 but inferior to the second.[”]                 Added.

  547.1.24 to visit the tomb of Thomas-a[ /-]Becket       Replaced.

  567.2.7  when the  pu[u/n]ishment of their iniquity     Inverted.
           shall be accomplished

  577.1.38 LEAD, עפרת, Exod. xv, 10;                      _sic_: עופרת

  584.2.61 if any animalcule of this sort were concealed  Added.
           in their garments.[”]

  593.2.36 LUCIAN, a philosop[h]er and wit                Added.

  594.1.65 they are [t/j]oined by Isaiah, lxvi, 19, with  Replaced.
           Pul

  691.2.15 Thus, it was infallib[l]y certain              Added.

  630.1.9  the fancy far more viv[e/i]d, in the dreaming  Replaced.

  637.1.13 utte[r]ly> averse to oaths                     Added.

  660.2.14 [Moab/MOAB] was the son of Lot                 Replaced.

  684.2.24 bore the character of remarkable simplic[i]ty  Added.

  672.1.29 so that he “heark[e]ned> not unto them, as the Added.
           Lord had said,”

  692.1.1  they acc[c]omplished the great designs of      Removed.
           Heaven

  697.2.67 to impugn his doct[r]ine                       Added.

  743.2.1  popular sect among the [Jews the/Jews. The]    Replaced.
           time when

  751.2.67 means literally [“]_branches of oily_ or       Added.
           _gummy plants_.”

  788.1.45 the opin[i]ons of all sober persons            Added.

  789.1.30 or [גכר / נכר], also denotes a stranger        Replaced.

  791.1.50 differ, in this re[s]pect, from their          Added.
           ancestors

  796.2.69 and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,        Added.
           [‘]The Spirit of Jehovah

  827.2.61 “The orientals hold,[”] says D’Herbelot,       Added.

  843.2.56 there should be one hundred [s/a]nd twenty     Replaced.
           inhabitants

  844.2.18 power and malice are rest[r]ained              Added.

  844.2.51 that can dignif[i]y human nature               Removed.

  845.1.4  and with which the ancients were               Added.
           enraptured.[”]

  845.2.46 will [b/h]e offer him a scorpion?              Replaced.

  858.1.13 that the s[k/h]ekel> was worth twenty gerahs   Replaced.

  865.2.51 Unto him that blasphemeth again[s]t the Holy   Added.
           Ghost

  866.2.52 has three tops of a ma[r]vellous height        Added.

  872.1.60 appearing to his di[s]ciples                   Added.

  872.2.59 of all subsequent marty[r]s>                   Added.

  882.1.21 that of Alexan[an]dria                         Removed.

  905.1.27 that sacred [o/e]difice                        Replaced.

  907.1.69 the _teraphim_ were hum[na/an] heads           Transposed.

  925.2.39 against the doct[r]ine itself                  Added.

  936.2.1  like the horn of a reem,[’] Psalm xcii, 10.    Added.

  945.2.58 as they were then nearer the times [e/o]f the  Replaced.
           Apostles

  946.2.36 among the Protest[t]ants                       Removed.

  959.2.61 more palatable and frag[r]ant with aromatics   Added.

  973.1.47 for purposes of secre[s/c]y                    Replaced.

  977.2.31 [οτε/hότε] ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ              Replaced.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Biblical and Theological Dictionary - explanatory of the history, manners, and customs of the - Jews, and neighbouring nations" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.